SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The head of the FBI believes that a spike in violent crime in many cities may be due to officers' fears of showing up on Internet videos confronting suspects.
FBI Director James Comey told reporters Wednesday that a "viral video effect" is leading to less aggressive policing that "could well be at the heart" of an alarming increase in murders in many cities, according to an account recorded by the New York Times.
"There's a perception that police are less likely to do the marginal additional policing that suppresses crime -- the getting out of your car at 2 in the morning and saying to a group of guys, 'Hey, what are you doing here?'" he told reporters.
Comey's remarks came after he was briefed on rising crime rates in more than 40 cities during the first quarter of 2016. The director did not reveal specific statistics, and the FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
James Comey, welcome to the panopticon you dragged the rest of us into. It's rather a double-edged sword, isn't it?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 13 2016, @12:07PM
7. Collect DNA from everyone. Using DNA evidence to aid investigations has been shown to be cost-effective, and expanding databases will only increase that effectiveness. It also has the potential to create a more just system. For example, if you are concerned that minorities are disproportionately coming in contact with the criminal justice system, expanded DNA databases will increase the pool of potential suspects beyond minorities currently over-represented in the system.
Yeah, I'll ignore that page then.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday May 13 2016, @01:34PM
Rather than merely ignoring the page, you should provide a rational counter-argument to the point made in the section you quoted. The author has provided an argument for collecting DNA from everyone, you can provide an argument against that policy.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by devlux on Friday May 13 2016, @04:33PM
Well here's the actual problem with that idea.
It doesn't work.
People like to think that DNA is some sort of 100% perfect match, but it's really not. It's a fuzzy match system like any other biometric.
The more people you have in a database like that the more false positives you're going to have.
Consider a really great system. One which is 99% accurate. Sounds great right?
But if you have 100 samples you're going to, on average see 1 false positive.
So with a population of 250,000,000 you're going to have at least 250,000 potential suspects.
DNA is only useful for ruling out, not ruling in, i.e. this person shares traits with that person.
FYI this is already well understood and has a proper name. It's called the Prosecutors Fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by devlux on Friday May 13 2016, @04:35PM
Correction...
DNA is only useful for ruling out, not ruling in, i.e. this person does not share traits with that person.
Sorry about that, not sure what's up with my English skills lately.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday May 13 2016, @06:45PM
Consider a really great system. One which is 99% accurate. Sounds great right?
Yeah, except for the part where it's built right into the system that the 1%-ers get off scott-free!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @04:49PM
Well, this may be an anecdote masquerading as a counter-argument, but look at how close one man was to being convicted of rape [mlive.com] because a lesbian decided to lie her ass off. Well, to be fair to her, all that she lied her ass off about was that she had been raped (claimed not to know who her rapist was since she just wanted to save face with her girlfriend--or possibly the Michigan womyn-born-womyn community, who knows). The police did the dutiful DNA legwork to locate the guy.
That is one lucky man that the detective he spoke to wasn't a white knight who holds the irrational and demonstrably false feminist belief that cisfemale hunnies never lie about rape.
Something else to think about: I could not find that story using Google. DuckDuckGo found it as the first hit. My search terms were "site:mlive.com rape accusation dna hotel wife" on both sites, just based on a vague recollection of some keywords that might narrow it down from every other time a man has been falsely accused of rape. Lizard people manipulating search engines so as to present a reality where it's unpossible that a cisfemale hunny could lie about rape or that there could be any harm done to liberty and justice by letting cops consult a huge database of DNA samples willy-nilly? Better not use search engines like Google that are controlled by the lizard people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:08PM
Google = feminist fucks.
Same reason they delisted 8chan.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 13 2016, @10:33PM
Because collecting everyone's DNA is unethical and a blatant violation of their freedoms (privacy). We may not understand all the ways that this will be abused (ways that DNA can be abused are already known, but as technology improves, the abuses will likely get worse and become much more sophisticated), but the government makes it its job to find ways to destroy innocent people, and their dedication usually produces a result eventually. The fact that normal people can't imagine the current or future implications of this means nothing. Suggesting that the government have everyone's DNA is extremely authoritarian.
It's rather sad that so many people are only or almost only concerned with the practical benefits that something brings, rather than principles, freedom, and ethics. You would think this would be different in countries that supposedly strive to be free, but it really isn't. I still see people arguing solely about the efficacy of mass surveillance, as if that's the main issue with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Saturday May 14 2016, @05:48AM
Sure. For one, it is coercion, this DNA information are being taken involuntarily. The creation of a compulsory database is to say "if you don't give us your DNA, we will kill you". Are you really willing to kill someone who does not accept having their DNA information taken? In the real world, death is the final argument for all law enforcement, and you better keep that in mind for every single law proposed.
Furthermore, most requests for a DNA database assume that only government employees would have access to it. Or would you be willing for everyone to have access to everyone else's DNA information? If not, then you are assuming government employees are more trustworthy than the general populace. And again, who is going to maintain this database? Whoever does will be effectively immune to any DNA based prosecution. The creation of a DNA database assumes that there exists a group of overseers who deserve the trust and authority to forcefully take and store biological data from every person. It's an absurd suggestion.
There are a lot of things we could do to make law enforcement easier. We could eliminate warrants, legal representation, no self incrimination, double jeopardy, ex post facto stanards, many things. You should be more afraid of police than burglars though. Burglars are friendly and harmless compared to what idle police will do.
Finally, anyone who says "oh because racism" is a troll who doesn't deserve a response in the first place. The "reason" quoted was stupid and doesn't deserve a counter argument. The proper response to "because racism" is derision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2016, @09:25AM
you can provide an argument against that policy.
The 9th Amendment says I don't need to if somehow the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here.
On the other hand, may I get a copyright to my DNA and fingerprints? I would be glad to license my intellectual property to law enforcement at the rate of $10,000 per week.