how safe is safe?
A New York Times article this week reported on what's become a common story over the past few years: federal or state crime fighters are collecting/storing/sorting yet more information on us. In this week's update, the info they're collecting is DNA from anyone who happens to be arrested or detained by the feds (including detained immigrants).
I was giving it a ho-hum read until I came across the justification for the practice: “The regulations will save lives, prevent
crimes, and bring justice for victims and their families.” Again, nothing surprising there - and who, after all, can complain about preventing crime, particularly heinous crimes against young people?
But then the question got begged: what are our expectations of the government to prevent crime? The assumption seems to be that the more crime we prevent the better. But is that always true? Is there a point when will we be "safe enough?"
Of course, chaos, pandemonium and rampant crime are problems, so some crime prevention measures are good. But do we want the other extreme: a totally crime-free society?
Even if it were possible, a nation without crime has its downsides. The safest place I've ever lived by far was in China; I felt completely immune because, after all, if anyone harmed me, it would be pretty bad news for him. China doesn't have a lot of qualms about imprisoning or killing alleged criminals without troubling itself with due process. And the Chinese generally aren't foolish enough to risk getting on the wrong side of the law.
Sure, we could aim to be crime free like China (or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia), but do we really want to?
I don't get the comparison
Where I get what you are trying to say, I don't think you present it well with the Chinese analogy.
You say "China doesn't have a lot of qualms about imprisoning or killing alleged criminals without troubling itself with due process." This collection of information is to provide for more thorough due process.
I tend to live under the general belief that more information is always better. More information, on any subject, will allow you to make a more thoroughly informed decision, right?
These samples are being collected from people who are already suspects being detained. You state that the feds are collecting more information on "us". I don't know what you're up to, Talker, but I myself am not into anything that is causing me to be arrested or detained by the feds. I have no problem with collecting information from these people to create and check against a data base that may help solve crimes.
When they start demanding mandatory DNA samples from all citizens is when I'll start thinking Big Brother.
Autobob
true, true
Autobob - Yes, there's no doubt I was making a big leap from talking about possibly excessive "information collection" to "total lack of due process." And I didn't mean to say we were on our way to Big Brotherhood - anytime soon. Although I was making a large theoretical point that neither total chaos or absolute safety are desirable (which no one would dispute, I know), I do think we should be wary of the recent attempts to gather information on "us".
First the "us" thing. It really is us. Not to get all heart-stringy or paranoid or anything, but when we let the civil rights of those on the fringe be stepped on, we just set the stage for our civil rights being impinged in the future. If you were black or Arab-American (I don't know, maybe you are!), you might feel more like it was "us" - since, without having the facts (and couldn't just find them in 10 min google search), I'm betting a larger proportion of blacks and Arab-Americans have arrests that never lead to conviction. (I'm not charging racism, by the way - it just may be reality).
Today, they'll be collecting DNA samples from loads of blacks and Arabs - tomorrow it'll be PETA activists, NRA protesters, Korean Americans, I dunno. Maybe they'll take DNA not just from those arrested - but also those who are "stopped." Before you know it - yeah, I know it's far out there - they will have all our DNA. (It's not like I'm going to hunker down in the Oregon hills and start plotting the revolution or anything anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant.)
Now, I agree that protecting our rights to due process are more important that protecting our privacy rights - but the two go hand in hand. If my right to due process was absolute, I probably wouldn't care less about my privacy rights - sure, take my DNA, read my email, video my home, who cares. But our due process rights are not absolute. So far there have only been two US citizens that have been held as "enemy combatants" with, essentially, no real rights to contest their detention in a real court - but that's a scary precedent. Again - I'm not running for the hills, but I'm a little concerned.
Post new comment