TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: May have...don't remember...but yes, that work is in progress and it's scary. I don't think we know enough about DNA to understand what all information we're potentially giving up, but not yet discovered medical issues is bad enough given that it is likely to be used against us in various ways. Have you seen Gattaca?

I've seen Gattaca.
I dunno.. Fingerprints are a pretty good means of tying people to all sorts of stuff. DNA would be better.. And it would solve a *lot* of bad-guy crime, both past and present. I'm not saying that I want to go there, I just recognize the trend.
It's just more invasion of privacy. Which ramps up as technology becomes more invasive. I don't ever see it getting better, it'll just get worse.

Like you, I don't trust the government. I just don't think that I'm of particular interest on their radar. There is just too much data to sift through to effectively categorize and monitor everyone. That will change, but it will be the problem for future generations...

VMI77 wrote: Because fingerprints don't reveal anything about you but your identity. You can make the case that it isn't an invasion of your privacy since you leave prints on just about anything you touch. OTOH, DNA tells things about you that you don't even know yourself and can be used in numerous ways to injure you. Taking your DNA is clearly an invasion of privacy.

Didn't you indicate that all of our medical data is already being absorbed by the Federal government under the rules for electronic records? If that wasn't you, I apologize...
If that's true, then medical data is already tied to ID. ID tied to fingerprint.

All DNA would give up is potential not-yet-discovered medical issues.

And of course, DNA base "ID" would never be used to invade privacy... No, the government wouldn't do that... :-)

Mike.B wrote:I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

By that logic, why not use DNA when the technology gets there to do it quickly? It' be more accurate than fingerprints.

No, I'm not going to allow them (the government) to inject me. My point was simply that we're already voluntarily chipped... At least most of us.
You're right, you can physically power it down. I just don't care that much. It's probably desentization as I work in technology see every day how much information is given up.

It's also a bit of potential privacy sacrifice for convenience and employment demands.

Last, my tracking is intentionally turned on in case I don't come home... Plane, motorcycle, car - my wife would have a good idea of where to look. She can actively see where I am pretty much at all times, which I find easier than a "where are you" phone call.

I don't own a home phone. I haven't had one for 15 years.

I remember when they implemented thumb-prints for DL.. Wasn't that long ago in my mind. I wonder what happens if you rendered yours unusable?
I know with a CHL they'll call you back, but a DL? Does anyone actually know.

After you've got a CHL, why worry about it? You've already provided that data.

I'm not worried about chips. We're pretty much all already chipped (cell phone) by our own doing. It's well established that cell phones provide location data and that cell phone providers already bend to government will. Basically: The chips are already here.

It's the DNA "fingerprinting" that's going to be the next big step. Watch out for the court that allows that. Mark that I predicted it.. :-)

(That's my tin-foil reality of the day)

MeMelYup wrote:I wonder if they are acceptable for CHL.

No, those cost more.

It's just another way to solve more crimes... I can already hear "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?"
DNA would do the same thing - collect from everyone, you'd solve a lot more crime....
It's certainly headed that way.