freeman3 wrote:Yes, Archduke you need probable cause to arrest a person. But a search (for DNA) unrelated to
that arrest must be justified as well. For example the court in Arizona v Gant held that a police officer could not do a search of a suspect's vehicle (once the suspect was handcuffed and in a patrol vehicle and thus did not have the ability to access weapons in the vehicle) unless it is reasonable to believe there is evidence of the crime in the vehicle. The court in the DNA opinion held that the DNA swab search was allowed primarily on the need to identify the arrestee whereas Scalia rather convincingly demonstrated the primary purpose was to find out if the arrestee had convicted other crimes (and thus would need to be separely justified by individualized suspicion)

Archduke Russell John wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yes, Archduke you need probable cause to arrest a person. But a search (for DNA) unrelated to
that arrest must be justified as well. For example the court in Arizona v Gant held that a police officer could not do a search of a suspect's vehicle (once the suspect was handcuffed and in a patrol vehicle and thus did not have the ability to access weapons in the vehicle) unless it is reasonable to believe there is evidence of the crime in the vehicle. The court in the DNA opinion held that the DNA swab search was allowed primarily on the need to identify the arrestee whereas Scalia rather convincingly demonstrated the primary purpose was to find out if the arrestee had convicted other crimes (and thus would need to be separely justified by individualized suspicion)

Isn't that the purpose of taking someone's finger prints as well? Ostensibly it is for identification purposes. However, isn't it really to be able to compare them to databases for other crimes nowadays? Shouldn't the law keep up with the changes in technology?

Doctor Fate wrote:I agree, BUT . . . as far as I'm aware, there is no law restricting the use/dissemination of the DNA info. This, to me, is far more akin to medical records than merely fingerprints. Yes, it is a means of ID, but it is far more than that.

In light of the ever-encroaching State, I would prefer to see some definitive restrictions placed on the use of DNA info by the government.

GMTom wrote:It almost sounds true

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they mistakenly released personal information of thousands of farmers to environmental groups in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This breach of confidentiality resulted from the agency’s desire to appease environmentalists, and I am appalled that the EPA would be so careless with the personal information of these hardworking farmers.

In 2011, the EPA proposed a rule that requires Contained Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s) owners to provide the EPA with specific information, such as their location and personal contact information. In July of 2012, the EPA withdrew this rule due to privacy concerns; however, the EPA continued to collect this data using information collected on the state level. This information was released as a result of three environmental groups’ FOIA request.

Rather than ensuring that all personal information was redacted before being released to the public, the EPA only redacted information from ten of thirty states. This information included the personal home addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of these farmers. The EPA requested the information back after it had been released; however, that request was basically null and void because it had already been made public.

I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

rickyp wrote:

I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

And then he acted unilaterally.

Incredibly arrogant, no?

I'm not entirely sure why this is a scandal. The NSA that is, not Snowden. Unless the scandal is, we've been doing this pretty much since 9/11 and no one really cared. And by that I mean, most of congress, and most of the media.
I think the debate about safeguards is worth having. But, it was worth having back when the Patriot Act was passing ... Its as if people just suddenly realized that what was being said by libertarians and the ACLU was accurate...
And the notion that phone records are "private" is nonsense. (Doesn't every cop procedural tv show tell us phone records are easily accessible and very important?) Whether or not Internet browsing is "private" will probably come down to a comparison with telephones ....
I wonder how consistent peoples views on back ground checks for gun ownership are with the views on the nature of the NSA database? I'll bet only those on the extremes are consistent.

GMTom wrote:Are we ignoring the promises Obama made to end this sort of nonsense? Why was it so awful when GWB was in office but now, now it's "normal" to do so despite promises to the contrary?

There's no change, eh?

Stellar Wind is the open secret code name for certain information collection activities performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and revealed by Thomas Tamm to The New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau.[1] The operation was approved by President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.[2] Under President Obama this program has acquired a new name, RAGTIME.[3] The domestic collection activity, those collection activities aimed at US citizens within the US, is code named RAGTIME-P.[3] The P in RAGTIME-P "stands for Patriot, as in the USA Patriot Act, which authorizes the bulk data collection,"[4] upon which this program is deeply dependent.

The program's activities involve data mining of a large database of the communications of American citizens, including e-mail communications, phone conversations, financial transactions, and Internet activity.[1] William Binney, a retired Technical Leader with the NSA, discussed some of the architectural and operational elements of the program at the 2012 Chaos Communication Congress.[5]

There were internal disputes within the Justice Department about the legality of the program, because data are collected for large numbers of people, not just the subjects of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.[5]

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:Are we ignoring the promises Obama made to end this sort of nonsense? Why was it so awful when GWB was in office but now, now it's "normal" to do so despite promises to the contrary?

You do love begging the question, don't you?

It is awful under both Bush and Obama. Bush gets a demerit for being around when it was initiated, Obama for promising to be transparent and not stopping it.

Frankly, competing about which one is worse is like two bald men fighting over a comb.

rickyp wrote:fate

There's no change, eh?

Not much...

Stellar Wind is the open secret code name for certain information collection activities performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and revealed by Thomas Tamm to The New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau.[1] The operation was approved by President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.[2] Under President Obama this program has acquired a new name, RAGTIME.[3] The domestic collection activity, those collection activities aimed at US citizens within the US, is code named RAGTIME-P.[3] The P in RAGTIME-P "stands for Patriot, as in the USA Patriot Act, which authorizes the bulk data collection,"[4] upon which this program is deeply dependent.

The program's activities involve data mining of a large database of the communications of American citizens, including e-mail communications, phone conversations, financial transactions, and Internet activity.[1] William Binney, a retired Technical Leader with the NSA, discussed some of the architectural and operational elements of the program at the 2012 Chaos Communication Congress.[5]

There were internal disputes within the Justice Department about the legality of the program, because data are collected for large numbers of people, not just the subjects of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.[5]