Glyn Moody reports via TechDirt
Kuwait has the dubious honor of being the first nation to require everyone's DNA--including that of visitors to the country. The Kuwait Times has a frighteningly matter-of-fact article about the plan, which is currently being put into operation. Here's how the DNA will be gathered:
Collecting samples from citizens will be done by various mobile centers that will be moved according to a special plan amongst government establishments and bodies to collect samples from citizens in the offices they work in. In addition, fixed centers will be established at the interior ministry and citizen services centers to allow citizens [to] give samples while doing various transactions.
Those who are not citizens of Kuwait will be sampled when they apply for residence permits:
Collection will done on issuing or renewing residency visas through medical examinations done by the health ministry for new residency visas and through the criminal evidence department on renewing them.
As for common-or-garden[-variety] visitors to the country:
Collection will be done at a special center at Kuwait International Airport, where in collaboration with the Civil Aviation Department, airlines, and embassies, visitors will be advised on their rights and duties towards the DNA law.
[...] The DNA will not be used for medical purposes, such as checking for genetic markers of disease, which will avoid issues of whether people should be told about their predisposition to possibly serious illnesses. Nor will the DNA database be used for "lineage or genealogical reasons". That's an important point: a complete nation's DNA would throw up many unexpected paternity and maternity results, which could have massive negative effects on the families concerned. It's precisely those kinds of practical and ethical issues that advocates of wider DNA sampling and testing need to address, but rarely do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @08:47AM
Kuwait is only doing what your favorite little nerd utopia story says to do.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm [marshallbrain.com]
Another core principle is that nothing is anonymous. Eric grew up during the rise of the Internet, and the rise of global terrorism, and one thing he realized is that anonymity allows incredible abuse. It does not matter if you are sending anonymous, untraceable emails that destroy someone's career, or if you are anonymously releasing computer viruses, or if you are anonymously blowing up buildings. Anonymity breeds abuse. In Australia, if you walk from your home to a park, your path is logged. You cannot anonymously pass by someone else's home. If someone looks up your path that day to see who walked by, that fact is also logged. So you know who knows your path. And so on. This system, of course, makes it completely impossible to commit an anonymous crime. So there is no anonymous crime. Anyone who commits a crime is immediately detained and disciplined.
By nerd law, you will now approve of everything Kuwait does. You must comply.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Sunday January 31 2016, @09:20AM
If someone looks up your path that day to see who walked by, that fact is also logged.
Something tells me this bit, this most crucial and sadly under-emphasized caveat, won't be heeded. Will the Kuwaiti system allow me to have access to a log of all the times my genome was looked at and by whom? No? Then the social contract hasn't been upheld and I'm obligated to defect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @09:26AM
-bad guy mode on -
wolves and dogs never do anything anonymously, and yet they seem to be ok (minus intentional interference by humans).
you CAN have a functional society with zero anonymity.
- bad guy mode off -
I'm not saying that something like this should happen, and if it did the problem would be with abuse.
for wolves and dogs abuse is impossible, because when information is used for personal gain, everyone knows.
with humans, abuse will be possible, because the scale is different, and the surveillance could be avoided by determined individuals/groups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @10:18AM
Wolves are even refusing to have a name. Uncultural anonymous bastards!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @10:59AM
By nerd law, you will now approve of everything Kuwait does. You must comply.
Wasn't sure whether to mod this parent post up, or post myself. You can see how I decided.
"Nerd Law" as expressed above, really should apply here. Google and its once-terrifying invasive privacy policies have now been largely accepted by the tech community. (I remember reading posts like these: "So what? They're reading all my emails. Fine with me, as long as my targeted ads make more sense.")
Really? No "Nerd" I knew in the 1990s would have ever countenanced such a perspective, but now it's the norm.
So it's clear we like to throw in with the "technology above ethics" crowd, so we might as well go all-in and start submitting our own DNA and get it over with.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 31 2016, @07:55PM
Just because one person writes something doesn't make it general consensus.
OTOH, e-mail that was unencrypted should always have been thought of as being "as private as a postcard". This doesn't mean I'm OK with someone else reading it, it means I know I can't prevent it. And any "nerd" who is worthy of the name should also know that. This is why there have been periodic attempts to get encryption built into email programs. Kmail has it, but none of my contacts use Kmail. I could sign my emails, I guess, but imagine trying to sign this post. Public key, even when just used as signing, requires support by the applications.
If I see the govenment heading towards dictatorship, this doesn't mean I'm ok with it. It may mean I don't see any reasonable way to stop it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @11:32AM
That's just pro-feminist faggot law.
Cunt is opposed to men marrying young girls too.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
Dueteronomy has a solution:
Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @07:39PM
Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew [sic] allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine.
Not really. The text does not use the Hebrew words for "rape." Rather than treat the woman as property (or worse), this passage actually enforces a sense of responsibility: in the modern vernacular, it means that if you seduce an unmarried woman, you're paying the father a penalty, AND marrying her (monogamously) for life.
It deters you from aggressive and casual sexual conduct and respects the rights of the woman and her family by automatically assuming your extramarital activity constitutes a marriage proposal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @09:55PM
That's a joke post, right? If not, there's some serious brain-dead apologist nonsense and misogyny at work here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @07:08PM
That's a joke post, right? If not, there's some serious brain-dead apologist nonsense and misogyny at work here.
If you're referring to the reasoned explanation of Deuteronomy, then no, it wasn't a "joke post."
The alternative (which I assuming is your worldview) is that Judasim (and by extension, I suppose, all mainline religious denominations are inherently misogynistic.)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but, contrary to whatever you've been reading on the Internet, that is simply not true.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday January 31 2016, @10:31PM
I think what's important is equality. I'm fine with having total anonymity and total information as long as it is balanced. NSA gets to see my junk? I get to see all of the NSA's junk. Fair is fair. As long as there isn't a skew in the power balance, everything is okay.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!