Scientist 'Infected' With Computer Virus

[ecstasy]

The United States or any other country for that matter does not need my fingerprints - I am not a criminal or a threat.

They dont know that :rolleyes:

[Sharon]

Woah thats weird - how strange

[-:Undertaker:-]

They dont know that :rolleyes:

Well i'm sorry but the idea of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld - isnt that what the western and free world is supposed to believe in?

It is well documented that the Bush administration and the Blair government used 9/11 to introduce legislation such as the US Patriot Bill designed to protect us, but in reality they do not protect us from anything much because the threat remains small/insignifigant as ever. The idea that you sacrifice liberty for protection is totally wrong - we (60 million odd people) have more cameras than Communist China (1.2 billion people) and I think that speaks great volumes about how our civil liberties are being eroded and trampled on. ID cards, chips, databases - all erode your freedoms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Black_Apalachi]

I.D. cards today, microchips tomorrow. Imagine the day when we're all chipped just like our pets...

[HotelUser]

Well i'm sorry but the idea of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld - isnt that what the western and free world is supposed to believe in?

It is well documented that the Bush administration and the Blair government used 9/11 to introduce legislation such as the US Patriot Bill designed to protect us, but in reality they do not protect us from anything much because the threat remains small/insignifigant as ever. The idea that you sacrifice liberty for protection is totally wrong - we (60 million odd people) have more cameras than Communist China (1.2 billion people) and I think that speaks great volumes about how our civil liberties are being eroded and trampled on. ID cards, chips, databases - all erode your freedoms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

For the disadvantage put upon you to get your fingerprint taken compared to that of the advantage gained from being able to use it to help solve a crime, I see no quarrels to be had with taking something as harmless as a fingerprint.

Innocent until proven guilty is true, in the right context. Certainly not in the context by which you've implied. Based on what you've said, should Americans also let absolutely everyone into their country, entrusting that absolutely every stranger shall abide by the law, and should only be suspected of murder or theft after committing such a crime? Certainly not. We inspect and verify every person and every bag on every plane flying just about everywhere. It's not because we're accusing anyone of being a terrorist. It's because it's within our best judgement not to take the chance.

Your body your business. Their country, their well being, their lives, is their business.

[Josh]

Lol. Pretty stupid but also smart.

If they know it is possible, they will be able to stop it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I.D. cards today, microchips tomorrow. Imagine the day when we're all chipped just like our pets...

Well exactly, the reasons used now are the same reasons that Stalin and Hitler would have used provided the technology was there. They would not have said 'hey guys lets take all your fingerprints/chip you to put more control of the state over you' they would have said exactly the same garbage that people spout regarding this issue now which usually takes the line of 'security, keeping you safe, stopping crime'. The same line goes for Guantamino Bay - we lowered ourselves to their level to achieve 'security' - but is it [sacrificing our ideas/morals] worth it?

For example if ID cards were found to have flaws in/somebody slipped through the system in the future, I could bet you the world that they'd start using the same argument of security/safety to argue the case of microchipping everybody from birth. It is sickening in my mind.

For the disadvantage put upon you to get your fingerprint taken compared to that of the advantage gained from being able to use it to help solve a crime, I see no quarrels to be had with taking something as harmless as a fingerprint.

Innocent until proven guilty is true, in the right context. Certainly not in the context by which you've implied. Based on what you've said, should Americans also let absolutely everyone into their country, entrusting that absolutely every stranger shall abide by the law, and should only be suspected of murder or theft after committing such a crime? Certainly not. We inspect and verify every person and every bag on every plane flying just about everywhere. It's not because we're accusing anyone of being a terrorist. It's because it's within our best judgement not to take the chance.

Your body your business. Their country, their well being, their lives, is their business.

In that example we may aswell use the logic that 'put everyone in prison and they cant do anything wrong' or 'halt elections because they cant vote the wrong way then' - it is a very arrogant position to take in my mind and is one of the ruling elite whom think they are above the law whilst everyone else should be under the thumb of the state. The legislation Bush introduced after 9/11 had been sitting on the shelf for many decades and 9/11 was used to cram it through because if the terrorist threat hadn't have been magnified to the degree that it was then the administration would never have been able to have got the US patriot bill through without widespread protests, possibly even riots and this is not to mention the scaremongering that was used to get people behind the Iraq war. Civil rights are very precious and the idea that you think its perfectly fine to sacrifice them to me is really mindboggling. If I had to define a police state I would define it as; ID cards, microchipping, government databases and so forth - exactly what is happening now so the question you need to ask yourself is 'am I happy giving away my civil liberties to the state and a police state being established?'.

While I would agree that people coming into the country should be checked, I dont accept the notion that America or any other country treat people as criminals before entering the borders. If you have a criminal record (which could be found on your records) then you should be barred entry but the fingerprinting issue is just another example to build another database which governments then share with one another.

It is their business you are right at the end of the day but at the same time it is also my business regarding my civil liberties - and thats why i've said clearly in this thread that I would not go to the United States because of this policy. I will not be treated like a criminal.

[triston220]

The United States or any other country for that matter does not need my fingerprints - I am not a criminal or a threat.



Then they'd have to take it via force although arresting is different, I support a criminal database but not one for innocent people.



Not go.

I agree with you there.

[HotelUser]

I can basically just reference my last post, because in your post you've referenced almost nothing with a relation to what I've said. Again: we inspect everyone for possible terrorist threats when they board planes. They do this in England too. Does this mean you refuse to fly anywhere?

Well exactly, the reasons used now are the same reasons that Stalin and Hitler would have used provided the technology was there. They would not have said 'hey guys lets take all your fingerprints/chip you to put more control of the state over you' they would have said exactly the same garbage that people spout regarding this issue now which usually takes the line of 'security, keeping you safe, stopping crime'. The same line goes for Guantamino Bay - we lowered ourselves to their level to achieve 'security' - but is it [sacrificing our ideas/morals] worth it?

For example if ID cards were found to have flaws in/somebody slipped through the system in the future, I could bet you the world that they'd start using the same argument of security/safety to argue the case of microchipping everybody from birth. It is sickening in my mind.



In that example we may aswell use the logic that 'put everyone in prison and they cant do anything wrong' or 'halt elections because they cant vote the wrong way then' - it is a very arrogant position to take in my mind and is one of the ruling elite whom think they are above the law whilst everyone else should be under the thumb of the state. The legislation Bush introduced after 9/11 had been sitting on the shelf for many decades and 9/11 was used to cram it through because if the terrorist threat hadn't have been magnified to the degree that it was then the administration would never have been able to have got the US patriot bill through without widespread protests, possibly even riots and this is not to mention the scaremongering that was used to get people behind the Iraq war. Civil rights are very precious and the idea that you think its perfectly fine to sacrifice them to me is really mindboggling. If I had to define a police state I would define it as; ID cards, microchipping, government databases and so forth - exactly what is happening now so the question you need to ask yourself is 'am I happy giving away my civil liberties to the state and a police state being established?'.

While I would agree that people coming into the country should be checked, I dont accept the notion that America or any other country treat people as criminals before entering the borders. If you have a criminal record (which could be found on your records) then you should be barred entry but the fingerprinting issue is just another example to build another database which governments then share with one another.

It is their business you are right at the end of the day but at the same time it is also my business regarding my civil liberties - and thats why i've said clearly in this thread that I would not go to the United States because of this policy. I will not be treated like a criminal.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can basically just reference my last post, because in your post you've referenced almost nothing with a relation to what I've said. Again: we inspect everyone for possible terrorist threats when they board planes. They do this in England too. Does this mean you refuse to fly anywhere?

I have quite clearly replied to as why fingerprints are not needed at any airport and have shown how civil liberties do not need to be sacrified in the face of a terrorist threat which is nearly non-existant. Therefore I have replied. I have fly usually once a year and have never been asked to give my fingerprints and the fact is that I am not a criminal so why should I be treated like a criminal? (see below the reply to fingerprinting)

Reply to fingerprinting issue at airports;

If you have a criminal record (which could be found on your records) then you should be barred entry but the fingerprinting issue is just another example to build another database which governments then share with one another.

If you want to sacrifice civil liberties in the face of a 'threat' then whats the point in fighting that threat in the first place because you've already sacrified everything you set out to defend against that threat. Yourself like so many others sadly believes we face some massive threat in which we should sign away our civil liberties for security against a minimal threat - makes me wonder why we even bothered fighting World War II because once civil liberties and freedoms are lost - it is very unlikely they ever come back. A generation grows up thinking it is the norm and is perfectly fine for the state to fingerprint us all, chip us all and generally treat us all like suspected criminals/terrorists and you've just shown its perfectly true.