Government Plans To Collect DNA From Detained Immigrants (nytimes.com) 232
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Trump administration is moving to begin collecting DNA samples from hundreds of thousands of people booked into federal immigration custody each year for entry into a national criminal database, an immense expansion of the use of technology to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that the Justice Department was developing a federal regulation that would give immigration officers the authority to collect DNA in detention facilities that are holding more than 40,000 people.
The move would constitute a major expansion of the use of a database maintained by the F.B.I., which has been limited mainly to genetic data collected from people who have been arrested, charged or convicted in connection with serious crimes. Immigrant and privacy advocates said the move raised privacy concerns for an already vulnerable population that could face profiling or discrimination as a result of their personal data being shared among law enforcement authorities. The new rules would allow the government to collect DNA from children, as well as those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry and have not broken the law. They warned that United States citizens, who are sometimes accidentally booked into immigration custody, could also be forced to hand over their private genetic information. Homeland security officials said the new initiative was permitted under the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. "Up until now, immigrant detainees have been exempt from the law, they said, because of an agreement between Eric H. Holder Jr. and Janet Napolitano, who served as attorney general and homeland security secretary, respectively, under President Barack Obama," reports The New York Times.
The new program "would provide a comprehensive DNA profile of individuals who are tested, as opposed to the more narrow test that was used only to determine parentage," the report says. "And unlike the testing under the pilot program, the results would be shared with other law enforcement agencies."
The move would constitute a major expansion of the use of a database maintained by the F.B.I., which has been limited mainly to genetic data collected from people who have been arrested, charged or convicted in connection with serious crimes. Immigrant and privacy advocates said the move raised privacy concerns for an already vulnerable population that could face profiling or discrimination as a result of their personal data being shared among law enforcement authorities. The new rules would allow the government to collect DNA from children, as well as those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry and have not broken the law. They warned that United States citizens, who are sometimes accidentally booked into immigration custody, could also be forced to hand over their private genetic information. Homeland security officials said the new initiative was permitted under the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. "Up until now, immigrant detainees have been exempt from the law, they said, because of an agreement between Eric H. Holder Jr. and Janet Napolitano, who served as attorney general and homeland security secretary, respectively, under President Barack Obama," reports The New York Times.
The new program "would provide a comprehensive DNA profile of individuals who are tested, as opposed to the more narrow test that was used only to determine parentage," the report says. "And unlike the testing under the pilot program, the results would be shared with other law enforcement agencies."
Immigrants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The new rules would allow the government to collect DNA from children as well as those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry."
Also including people who are applying for immigration via legal claims for asylum. But it always comes down to you dipshits suggesting your few rotten apples excuse the 1984 sitcom you're terrified about, because good gosh, in this case it will only be selectively applied to mean people from other countries who sneak in. It's practically the playbook for government overreach - ma
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically immigrants commit less crime than natives. The numbers would be even lower if they weren't made more vulnerable to exploitation by the immigration system being so difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is that hard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They are processing Mexican family applications from 1997. If you apply today there is already a 22 year queue.
Re: (Score:3)
And ... what's your point? That US doesn't have the right to set rules?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Re: Immigrants? (Score:2)
At any point in time there are approximately 1 million people involved legal immigration proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
You're lumping all "immigrants" together when the main thing we're worried about with regards to crime are illegal border crossers.
I expect legal immigrants to have lower crime rates than any native population because they're screened for criminal records before being granted a visa. They also have the resources and conscientiousness to navigate the immigration system. If we could just look at the cohort of native born Americans who could pass a background check, had money and could fill out forms they'd ha
Re: (Score:3)
You're lumping all "immigrants" together when the main thing we're worried about with regards to crime are illegal border crossers.
If that is your concern then your tactics so far are failing badly and hurting innocent people. You should think of better ways to deal with that.
Here's a tip. The best way to reduce illegal border crossings is to create more legal routes. That would reduce the number of people crossing illegal out of desperation and encourage them to make proper applications, leaving only the ones with ill intent trying to get around the system.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to reduce illegal border crossings is to create more legal routes
No, I'm pretty sure a wall will be much more effective than just letting anyone in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mod parentup (Score:3)
An illegal Citizen would be someone who gained citizenship illegally (like fraud).
A drug dealer would be an illegal pharmacist.
Re: Mod parentup (Score:4, Interesting)
An illegal Citizen would be someone who gained citizenship illegally (like fraud).
Like Trump's wife? I'm pretty sure she's no Einstein [bbc.com].
Re:What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, priority is given to illegal aliens who are accompanied by children, but in many cases, those children are not relatives of the adults. DNA matching may be the only way to give the child back to an actual parent, or at least a relative.
What if the child was adopted?
What if 1 of the parents remarried, took custody of child, but that biological parent was left behind, died, etc.?
There can be multiple instances where DNA will not match. What then?
All this, amid the backdrop of frantic lying and deception on the part of the detainees, but also the lawyers and supporters who are trying to overturn ANY immigration laws. Everybody should have a right to come to America, they claim, and America has to provide food and housing and employment for these invaders. And this at a time when our own American citizens are denied jobs. Illegal aliens are directly competing with the just starting, under-educated Americans.
A lot of these Americans don't even want those starter jobs. That's why the Trump Administration has been increasing the number of temporary H-2B worker visas [usatoday.com].
It's why Mar-a-Lago is using the H-2B visas to bring in more foreign workers this year than last year [fortune.com].
Re:What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:4, Informative)
What if the child was adopted?
What if 1 of the parents remarried, took custody of child, but that biological parent was left behind, died, etc.?
As is always the case when dealing with immigration .. don't lie.
The current situation is that bringing a child equates to get-out-of-jail-free so children are being sold at the border, probably not something to be encouraged.
Re:What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:4, Funny)
children are being sold at the border, probably not something to be encouraged.
What do you have against a free market economy, are you a commie?
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the children how they feel about it...
Ah, freedom. So misunderstood.
Re:What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:4, Insightful)
The market is free, not the people in it.
You should read the fine print.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry. I should have set them.
I keep forgetting that Poe's Law ain't just for religion anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Adoption is much more common in some countries. In China it's not that uncommon for people to give their children away if they can't care for them. It's documented in their "family book" but of course one of the first things that people trying to control/abuse them do is take that away.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:2)
Adoption/custody are legal exercises which leave a paper trail.
Temporary Worker visas are, well I don't know how else to say it, temporary, and secured via application to the government.
Re:What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:4, Informative)
' What if...they didn't try to come here and cross illegally, then NONE of this would be a problem then would it?
There are ways to do it legally....hell, pretty much all we ask is that you sign the fucking guest book on the way in.
Re:What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:4, Insightful)
unfortunately, there are so many trying to come in it is overwhelming our border staff
Perhaps we should stop shitting on the people South of us with bombings, assassinations, supporting coups, the war on drugs, sending guns to Mexico, etc. etc. Barring that, we should hire more staff to process asylum applications.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paperwork. You're really an American.
You know, there are people who leave their home not because they think that they have a better life in the US (why they think that is beyond me, but if you can't get out of the Americas, I guess that's probably the best you can hope for) but because some asshole burned down their home and in the choice of saving their kids or their paperwork from being burned to ashes, they made the wrong choice. And since the asshole also runs the country, getting new documents is kinda
Re: (Score:2)
>"they think that they have a better life in the US (why they think that is beyond me,"
Wow, you are really naive.
Re: (Score:3)
It really isn’t the responsibility of our country to get the affairs of a non citizen in order.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said people are intelligent.
Re: What does the gov't need all this DNS for? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bikini atoll seems like a fantastic place... (Score:2)
...when you're in a storm, sinking and about to drown.
Doesn't mean it's not toxic and really not about that thing that's generally understood under that label.
Or to put it in words you might understand better...
You know that M&M color you like the least?
Well, if you were REALLY like starving hungry, not like skipped-second-breakfast hungry, like a week without food hungry... them emenems would taste the best ever if you could get to some.
Doesn't mean they're good for ya or healthy in the long term.
legal / illegal status of an alien is quite simple (Score:5, Informative)
Does calling a citizen who has committed a misdemeanor an "illegal citizen" seem accurate to you too?
False analogy. An alien has no right to be in the US. A legal alien has documentation to visit, study, work, emigrate, etc. A legal alien would also include someone claiming asylum and who was investigated and given asylum. An illegal alien has done none of the preceding, they have not followed the rules/process for entry into the US. Misdemeanor or not, they do not have a legal basis to stay, hence their "illegal" status and the ability to deport them.
I'm sorry but the legal / illegal status of an alien is a quite simple thing until you get all political and try to falsely redefine words and conjure up imaginary rights. There is a process, there is a line, there are ports of entry where it can all be done legally. Yes we should improve the process but that is something else entirely. But if you don't follow the process of the day you are illegal and subject to deportation.
Every nation on earth has the right to control its border and know who is entering their territory and why, and to deny entry based on their government's policies.
Re:legal / illegal status of an alien is quite sim (Score:5, Informative)
That's not strictly true. An alien who presents at the border as a refugee seeking asylum does indeed have a right to be in the US while their application is being processed. In fact, even someone who is in the US illegally and requests asylum must be granted full civil protections under the law (as long as they're not already in the process of being deported).
You can read all about it on this US government website.
https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page... [uscis.gov]
And here is some further illuminating reading from David Miliband's group, Rescue.org:
https://www.rescue.org/page/ir... [rescue.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Do aliens present at the border? I thought they only presented at Area 51.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not strictly true.
Did you stop reading there? The next three sentences were "A legal alien has documentation to visit, study, work, emigrate, etc. A legal alien would also include someone claiming asylum and who was investigated and given asylum. An illegal alien has done none of the preceding."
And here is some further illuminating reading ... https://www..../ [www....]
Ah, you have politics to promote, I understand your post now.
Re:legal / illegal status of an alien is quite sim (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, you have politics to promote, I understand your post now.
Oh FFS it's all a fucking act.
Let's look at a tangentially related topic: Democrats always talk about how we need to do more about helping the homeless, and yet they pass some of the toughest anti-homelessness laws that exist. California for example has some of the worst laws for criminalizing homelessness of any state, and yet Democrats control California at ALL levels of its government. And in the same breath, they like to pretend it's the GOPs fault when the GOP has all of zero political influence in the areas of California with the highest homeless population. They have nobody to blame for that but themselves. Not only for creating a legislative environment for housing to be ridiculously difficult to afford, but also for punishing people for not being able to afford it.
Illegal immigration is not much different. The Obama administration put in place many of the current anti-illegal immigration policies that exist today, and Democrats only found them unconscionable once they lost the white house. If Hillary was in office, we would still be doing mass deportations, and yet we wouldn't even be having this conversation. (Never-mind the whole part about Hillary being as in favor of the Iraq war as Bush was, yet he got demonized for it while Democrats sang "I'm with her!":in 2016 -- go figure.) Again, it's just an act.
FWIW I was against Trump's border wall until I heard what the border patrol had to say about it: It actually works. Democrats are trying to turn the plight of migrants into a humanitarian crisis when it isn't one. As somebody else mentioned, if they were just looking for safe harbor, Mexico has plenty to offer in this regard that places like Guatemala and Honduras do not. Meanwhile, making the long trip along Mexico to the US border, which in and of itself is dangerous to do on foot, is somehow the answer? Maybe if you're simply looking for better economic conditions, but that's not the purpose of asylum. But do you know what they never mention that is a real humanitarian issue related to the border? Human trafficking.
Like I said, it's all just a fucking act.
Re:legal / illegal status of an alien is quite sim (Score:4, Informative)
If non-Americans are presenting themselves at the border between the USA and Mexico, then they don't have a claim as a "refugee". You can only claim refugee status when entering the FIRST free nation that you enter. Mexico qualifies, and offers asylum to Salvadorans and Costa Ricans. They are not allowed to refuse asylum in Mexico and then show up in Tijuana and claim to be a refugee.
I get it; the United States is a GREAT country, and everybody in the world wants to come here. They cannot. They need to go HOME, and make their OWN countries great.
Re:legal / illegal status of an alien is quite sim (Score:4, Interesting)
You can only claim refugee status when entering the FIRST free nation that you enter. Mexico qualifies
Where did you get that from? Did you make that up yourself? I'm not aware of any provision of US law that would work that way for Mexico (there's a treaty with Mexico missing for that), nor am I aware of the UN convention requirements of any such sort.
Re: (Score:2)
It's new; that didn't used to be the case previously, but the Trump administration changed things (or, at least, is trying really hard to).
Supreme Court says Trump administration can begin denying asylum to migrants while legal fight continues [washingtonpost.com]
Trump Administration’s Third-Country Transit Bar is An Asylum Ban that Will Return Refugees to Danger [humanrightsfirst.org]
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce toughest restriction yet on asylum requests [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I get it; the United States is a GREAT country, and everybody in the world wants to come here. They cannot. They need to go HOME, and make their OWN countries great."
Here, here. And yes, we ought to be helpful in that.
"Their own countries that the USA had a hand in destabilizing?"
Not like there have been forces at work destabilizing the USA, for some 90 years or so.
And yes, we've acted badly in other nations. That's not going to improve if socialism takes over here. History is your guide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Missing my point. For the past 60 years socialism has infiltrated the US, much like the rest of the world, and destabilization is a key strategy for this movement.
But socialism in the US has been active since the 20s, even before, though not terribly effective unless you count the New Deal as socialist at its core. WWII interrupted this, and it resumed without delay after.
Re:legal / illegal status of an alien is quite sim (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>"a refugee seeking asylum does indeed have a right to be in the US while their application is being processed."
He/she does not have a right to not be detained, however, while their claim is being investigated. It doesn't help that some 90%+ of such claims are bogus, and that is why the system is so overwhelmed.
Re: legal / illegal status of an alien is quite si (Score:2)
In fact, even someone who is in the US illegally and requests asylum must be granted full civil protections under the law (as long as they're not already in the process of being deported).
Those people are considered as being held in custody, awaiting their asylum review - due to overwhelming numbers and limited resources, after initial processing they are released into the general population pending their asylum hearing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The new rules would allow the government to collect DNA from children as well as those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry."
Re: legal / illegal status of an alien is quite si (Score:2)
WTF are you smoking? (Score:2)
Oh, you're WindBourne, you told yourself that lie.
If she is a citizen of America, then she isn't an alien, irregardless of where she was born.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mod parentup (Score:4, Insightful)
Does calling a citizen who has committed a misdemeanor an "illegal citizen" seem accurate to you too?
Of course not. But lets understand why! Once some has obtained citizen status in this country there are only few ways to lose it. Commission of misdemeanor or even a felony generally don't result in that. So the legality of ones citizenship status is not question. Hence calling someone an illegal citizen would make no sense.
Aliens on the other hard are roughly defined as persons who are not citizens but are present within the nation or its territories. Ones Alien status is illicit if one is present without authorization or improper authorization. So if you enter the United States or remain there as non-citizen without proper authorization you are alien and an illegal one at that. Mind you this is simply a present status not the entire definition of you as a person. In the same way if you enter my home without permission implicit or explicit you'd be a "trespasser" or an "unwelcome person!"
Really the people getting upset about this illegal alien; language business are people who have a very specific agenda. You are berating others for using perfectly accurate language because you want to create political sympathy for a certain class of criminal. That's fine use whatever language you like when you make affirmative arguments in support of your cause but you really don't change anyone minds when you pick on others language that happens to be perfectly accurate.
As an example I am an abolitionist. When I argue I use terms like "unborn child" because it both expresses my view that these are people and is likely to elicit some emotional sympathy. I don't correct people who say fetus when referring to an as yet unborn child past the embryonic stage; because they are technically correct whatever else that person is they are also a fetus.
Re: Immigrants? (Score:2)
The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French and that inscription is a quote from a French poem. It is not and never has been US immigration policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French and that inscription is a quote from a French poem. It is not and never has been US immigration policy.
So you're saying those are French values, not US values. They're more an aspiration to what the US would like to be than a core value of democracy? I can understand why people's attitude towards immigrants has changed now that the US no longer has a need to build railways and utilize cheap labor locally.
Perhaps the lyrics of Lou Reed's Dirty Boulevard would be a more fitting inscription:
Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
that's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying the poem was quoted as if had any legal standing.
I wasn't quoting immigration policy I was pointing out a value of American freedom that's inconvenient. "Illegal Aliens" isn't a legal construct, it's just a way to avoid saying Refugees. I'm not reminding you of values associated with freedom, the Statue of Liberty is. You're free to ignore them.
Lot of people use quotes from songs and music here as if that instills any validity to anything.
Of course that's the culture you need to protect from illegal aliens. If you don't protect another person's freedom, who will protect yours? Maybe that's the point of the Statue of Liberty? Maybe that is the
Re: Immigrants? (Score:2)
If the quote on the Statue of Liberty means nothing, then it should be taken down. Otherwise we look like a bunch of hypocrites.
Slippery slopes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
We need the DNA to match parents/children without documentation
And what happens if DNA doesn't match because child was adopted or 1 of the biological parents remarried, but is not present due to some reason (death, got left behind, is already in the U.S. etc.) and is now being raised and cared for by the non-biological parent?
Re:Slippery slopes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they were legally claiming asylum and had lost the paperwork when they fled.
In order to keep people prisoner one thing that abusers and organized crime often do is take away their documentation, and then point out that without it they won't be accepted and will be thrown in a cage.
This is how it always starts... (Score:5, Interesting)
The infringement of civil liberties always starts with the most vulnerable, like illegal immigrants, it eventually works its way up to the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, taking DNA swabs has been part of the standard arrest booking process in a lot of places just like taking photos and finger prints.
Re:This is how it always starts... (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't make it right. In the UK you have a right to get that DNA data deleted if you are not convicted in most cases, but it's a chore to do. Same with fingerprints. They basically just hope that you won't bother and so their database is full of innocent people.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is innocent. Every single one of us has committed a crime at some point in our lives. Therefore every single one of us should have our DNA recorded?
Re: (Score:3)
But they aren't illegal until convicted.
Re:This is how it always starts... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Not even illegal immigrants. They are all innocent until proven guilty, and many are legally claiming asylum.
Sadly even in Europe they do use biometrics, although not DNA in my experience. My wife had to give fingerprints and a they took facial recognition data from her photo, just to get her residency card. Well, even British citizen's get the facial recognition part now when they apply for a passport.
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't, as asylum seekers are to apply at the first country they enter, not trek a thousand miles to the job they'd rather have.
Re: (Score:3)
The UN guidelines are that they should apply at the first safe country they reach. It doesn't define "safe". And that's just a guideline, it's not US law or in fact law in most developed nations.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's the point, US law doesn't even say "first country". Most country's laws don't. It's just the UN setting that guideline, which is mostly ignored because it was set as a kind of get-out clause for countries that don't want to take asylum claims. In practice once someone claims asylum it's difficult to force another country to take their claim on or return them where they came from (either due to war or because you look like complete bastards doing so, or both).
Re: (Score:3)
It impresses me what kind of dipshit has a sig like yours and thinks you have a handle on the distinction you're trying to make.
Almost there, America (Score:4, Insightful)
We have extrajudicial detention centers where torture is practiced, militarized police, camps, mass surveillance, fingerprinting, and now this.
All that remains now is to find some excuse to invade another country. Oh wait, we've done that already too...
Simplest way to collect it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the gathering of the data it is the use. Are the laws to prevent the sale of the data to anyone, that it is only to be used within the department for legal purposes and not passed on to all and sundry for profit. If it was Israel, I would genuinely be concerned about collecting the DNA data to find organ compatibility and the latter harvesting of those organs after a targeted raid, Israel and many other countries you can accept it and the USA is tilting closer and closer in it's tile to fascism, T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If illegal immigrants show up, we should not treat them badly but we should be able to take reasonable identification.
They're already being fingerprinted
Re:fuck the government (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus would probably be detained.
He's from the Middle East.
(Spoiler alert: He's not a white guy in flowing robes)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus would probably be detained. He's from the Middle East.
No, he'd have a passport. And when Caesar asked for it he would render it to Caesar, after all the passport is Caesar's property.
Re: (Score:2)
And Jesus, the Border Agent, would at least be treating the people hopping the border with respect. Hell, he might even request Americans open their homes and churches for them. I'm sure the Prosperity Preachers would be down with such a plan, they want everyone to be rich, just like...errr....Jesus?
Re: fuck the government (Score:2)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus in Matthew 10:34. Name a person from the middle east that speaks like that today and isn't an obvious terrorist.
Re: fuck the government (Score:4, Interesting)
Those are the words of a megalomaniac.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a pretty good cartoon [youtube.com] about this.
Re:fuck the government (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Jesus would probably be detained."
If he were here today and tried to enter the USA between ports of entry, then yes. And he should be, too. Anyone should be.
>"He's from the Middle East."
That should make no difference. People keep trying to make this about race/skin color. It isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus would probably be detained.
He's from the Middle East.
Jesus' mother was from the Middle East. But his father was God, so he's also from wherever God lives. I think he lives in a gated community, like rich folks today, called Heaven.
And of course God is white, it says so in the Bible somewhere. In fact right at the beginning of the Bible God says, "Let there be white."
Re: (Score:2)
And he comes back in 3 days after being sent away. Just like all those illegal immigrants!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they will do it if you're legally seeking asylum in another country to flee the death.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up is getting DNA from everyone as they escape the womb. Remember this is all being done to desensitize you, and prepare the system for its "public" roll-out. In a decade or two, it'll be every birth, and everyone who visits a hospital. But that can only happen once people start to think these practices are OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you know we get the DNA before they escape the womb (from the baby or their mother's blood) to check for a whole host of possible birth defects and diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal immigration statistics: [factcheck.org]
How many people are crossing the border illegally?
There’s no official measure of how many people succeed in illegally crossing the border, but authorities use the number of apprehensions to gauge changes in illegal immigration. Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million and have generally declined since, totaling 396,579 in 2018.
So over the past two decades we've got hundreds of thousands up to about one and a half million people "fleeing death." And that's just the ones we apprehend, there's plenty more who successfully fled death. Since those people were returned to certain death, I'm assuming they're dead now? Who's killing them? Where are the bodies? If you're talking about, for some years, over one and a half million a year, this is Holocaust numbers of systematic murder. And that's the ones who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they used to call it "the free world". They used to encourage defections. Half a century of that message doesn't get erased in a couple years. So yes, they expect privacy. Berliners who hopped the wall were called heroes, so were Cubans who swam the Gulf. If you think these guys had papers, then you don't understand what they're running from.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Those fading memories of a useful Internet... (Score:2)
I see your points. Iâ(TM)ve been on the internet since early 90s pre browser days and things have really changed.
Just wait for a couple of years for the connectivity to advance and everyone will carry just a thin piece of glass, on which everything is projected and streamed. Users will be at the mercy of service providers. No CPU, no internal storage etc.
All the actions back and forth will be analysed and recorded, and most will happily go along because of all kinds of perks and offers.