TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

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.

You leave DNA on just about everything you touch, too. But I agree with the rest of your statement.

cb1000rider wrote:

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... :-)

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

cb1000rider wrote: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.

sjfcontrol wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote: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.

Are you being sarcastic or serious? You're willing to let the government inject a chip into your body because it's like a cell phone? I can take the battery out of my cell phone or leave it at home. And BTW, I only have a cell phone because my company issued it to me and pays for it. If I had to pay for it, I wouldn't have one.....at least not on a plan....I'd just have a burner phone that would be in my car, battery removed, in case of emergency.

Oh, as far as the DNA finger printing goes....they already made a pretty good movie about the consequences of that.

Gattaca?

cb1000rider wrote: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.

jmra wrote:

gemini wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

"headed that way", and some would say the beginning of End-Times. Depending on your beliefs.

When they start inserting microchips or tattooing bar codes I'm done.

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

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

jimlongley wrote:That will make it interesting for my wife. Starting with her first CHL application she has had to get no less than two sets of prints done, and once three. Every renewal DPS requests her prints and then denies the first time because the prints have not got enough definition. This last time the first was denied, a second set of prints was denied, and then they suddenly issued her CHL despite sending her a letter that they were denying and she needed to be printed again.

My wife's prints are just naturally not well defined, and she has spent a lifetime working with paper, which wears the prints down. A really skilled paper print operator can usually get enough definition with some effort, but the FAST system people are not what I would consider "really skilled" and don't put any effort into it despite being warned in advance. Their attitude seems to be "Yeah, right lady, you're trying to tell ME the expert . . ." and they get ten unreadable smudges.

I have told my wife that she needed to be living a successful life of crime instead of being a church secretary.