This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Depends on the agency (why would it need to be limited to law enforcement?) and what they're doing with it. AFAIK only law enforcement has access to fingerprint databases, and the government can't get your fingerprints from your relatives; they can only get information on you if you volunteer it or are arrested. Also, a fingerprint on its own contains no useful information. You have to compare it to a fingerprint found somewhere, which is different from DNA.
As one example, could a health or scientific agency access your relatives' DNA for "research purposes" but then accidentally release information indicating you likely have some genetic disease? The IRS already did something like that. If the government wants to try to discredit someone, could they look specifically for evidence of, I don't know, that person having a child with someone who isn't their spouse?
There are other much more speculative uses, but in the immediate future, this are the sorts of things that are definitely possible.
Yes, but all tools can be misused. Police can use binoculars to watch women get undressed, and can use cars to run people over. They can accidentally release your financial information if they get it during an investigation. Etc, etc. So, merely saying that it is possible to misuse DNA
Right, but what benefit is there to allowing the government to access this information (at any time, for any purpose) just by asking a company? I get the utility in investigating crime, but that can still require a warrant, and can be limited to that specific purpose, like how you have to give the IRS financial information but not the CDC.
Who said anything about "for any purpose"? I thought your entire argument was that it could be acquired for a proper purpose, but misused for an improper one. The examples you gave were all of that sort. That is why I asked initially, "what do you mean by snooping"?
Maybe what I thought was the point has gotten lost. I think that police should be required to get a warrant to get DNA data from a company, even if the company would be willing to let them compare evidence gathered from a crime scene without one. This also means that access to such data would be restricted to law enforcement and that it can only be used to identify a suspect in a specific crime, each investigation requiring its own warrant. Currently, this is not the case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link