Big Brother Isn’t Just Reality TV
Jul 21st, 2008 by David Anderson
A controversial provision was tucked into the Senate Housing Bill; it is a requirement to build a fingerprint registry of everyone who handles mortgages. Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian groups have joined in opposition to the provision on the grounds that it is unnecessary and lacks safeguards to protect the data.
Show us the evidence that fingerprinting would have lessened the damage at Fannie, Freddie, and now-insolvent banks! The proponents can’t and they won’t, because there probably is none.
As I have said before in the Wall Street Journal and other places, this measure would probably not subject to fingerprinting the Angelo Mozilos who designed these loans. Rather, it would affect hundreds of thousands of ordinary employees in the mortgage and real estate industry, including many part-time and clerical workers. The law defines as anyone who “takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain.” Real estate agents are also covered if they receive any type of compensation from “originators.”, stated John Berlau in the link posted above.
Along with other efforts, it seems like we are heading to a national ID piece by piece. Let’s have a real debate on this issue and not sneak it through a little at a time.
Well at least they aren’t treating the mortgage brokers like 18 year olds at the Christiana Mall who need to carry their papers. I guess the day is coming where we all better get used to the phrase “show me your papers, please”.
What do you think we should do, David?
Obviously the conservative/libertarian groups who have been in charge during the sub-prime fiasco did not have the answer.
Moreover, I don’t understand all this paranoia over ID cards. Yes, definitely, we should have them, for a multitude of reasons. In fact, we already have them, SS cards, but we need more ID info, in my view.
That aside, again I ask, what should we do to prevent a reoccurrence? We taxpayers need protection from these scoundrels. They get greedy, break the law, cause global financial distortions, and we the tax payers bail them out to save us from a worse calamity.
We had the Savings and Loan meltdown in the 80′s, hundreds of billions, bailed out by the tax payer. Now we have this, even much worse. Have we seen the end of it? Will Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac need bailing out? Yes, we’re doing it already with the Federal Reserve providing access to capital at our risk. But we have to, otherwise it will be worse on us all. We, the tax payers, are boxed in by the scoundrels.
Again, what do you suggest we do instead of providing the justice department more information to assist their investigations?
The Dr. No’s are at it again, with no solutions in sight!
[...] it the Banks or Bush? A good post at Delaware Politics LINK. Some idiots in government think fingerprinting everyone associated with issuing mortgages will [...]
Perry you did not give a reason or tell us how having these finger prints on file will prevent fraud. You only threw out a weak attack on conservatives and libritarians, of course liberals are blameless in your world.
Only in the case where a person has been convicted or at least charged with a previous crime would there be any point . But how many people would be hurt in your opinion by first time con men?
If no crime has been committed , then requiring finger prints would seem to go against the fourth amendment , which the first line of is ,
” The right of the people to be secure in their persons”. But hey why worry with the constitution right.
And since you are in favor of I. D. s , why not chips implanted at birth , this way they can track you all through your life. Then they can tell when a husband has been to a whore house, or when a man has been to a gay bar while on a sales trip. Maybe they could monitor our heart rate and tell when we have lusted in our hearts, or plug us in during a traffic stop to tell if we are lying about how many drinks we have had.
Perry , in the many post I have read of yours I get the clear message that you would be glad to have government run every asspect of our lives and your last one only confirms that.
You have a problem with listening to known Alqeda operatives in this country , but have no problem with finger printing innocent people .Your bias is hanging out the bottom of your skirt my friend.
Next thing you know, we’ll be requiring hookers to provide the goverment with DNA samples.
.
(The astute reader will note the implied parallel with the mortgage industry. Go ahead and complain, but please don’t as me to apologize to hookers.)
Perry
I’ve got to say I cannot think of precisely how better ID would have helped in the sub-prime mortgage debacle, since there has not been a single case I am aware of in which identity of anybody involved was an issue. If you are aware of such, please share it.
I know you don’t understand the paranoia over ID cards. That seems to be because you trust the government not to abuse that information a lot more than I do, or because you subscribe to the old “if you’re not guilty, what have you got to hide” school of thought.
If it’s the second one, here’s the answer: it’s none of your damn business.
If it’s the first, how do you square trusting the same government (and the same corporations) with even more of my personal information when we have just had ample evidence with FISA that they will abuse it every chance they get?
You want a solution to the mortgage crisis? Let the people and the banks who knowingly signed up for loan packages that industry standards didn’t support either face the consequences of their actions in foreclosure, or else face criminal charges where applicable.
Instead, you want me–who carefully took on two mortgages during the same period at reasonable terms I could afford–to pay to bail out people and institutions who should have had enough sense to do their own damn homework before borrowing or lending millions of dollars.
Did you even look?
If you google mortgage fraud and phony ids you get a bunch of hits. Fingerprinting could help where a HUGE amount of money is changing hands and any 19 year old can get a fake id. Sloppy research.
http://www.mortgagefraud.org/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=78225&categoryId=15957
Jefferson County DA announces arrest of 8 people in mortgage fraud case
Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 04:12PM by The Editor – Ian Shuter in Colorado, Arrests, Use of False ID | Comments Off
In the following press release from Golden, CO – District Attorney Scott Storey announced on October 25, 2006 that in a joint effort of the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S State Department, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney, seven men and one woman were arrested last night on suspicion of having provided forged documents to purchase FHA insured homes. These suspects are believed to have purchased homes using fraudulent citizenship and/or financial documentation.
According to the indictments, the defendants in the mortgage fraud ring were able to obtain loans for the unqualified buyers by creating false documents concerning the homebuyer’s identity, employment and credit history, showing that the unqualified homebuyers were in the US legally, and then submitting these false documents to legitimate mortgage lenders. They each earned commissions or other financial remuneration for each of the fraudulent house sales.
District Attorney Storey says, “The illegal activities involved in the sale and the purchase of these homes constitutes identity theft as well as mortgage fraud. All of the social security numbers used in these transactions belong to actual people. It is our job as protectors of the public trust to hold anyone who breaks the law accountable for their conduct.”
The problem with your logic is that fingerprinting the real estate agent and secretary of the mortgage broker doesn’t help identify the person who got a loan.
Second argument that we should be happy to surrender to the federal government the right to solidify identity records of every American is puzzling to me. I see little benefit and more opportunity for identity theft and the government’s ability to invade our privacy. In this case the government doesn’t even have safeguards and rules proposed. Will they try to impose national liscensing next? Has that worked in any other industry for anything except raising the fees to enter?
Thank you David for making my point: the ID of the people originating the loans has never been in question; the fraud committed by others was already illegal, and presumably they wouldn’t have been stupid enough to use an ID.
What do you want: everyone associated in any way involved in a real estate transaction should be finger-printed.
That sure makes sense…..
As ususal, Shenenigans comes up with some admittedly anecdotal facts, and the instinctive libertarians rebel.
I remember during WWII everyone had to be fingerprinted. I don’t recall anyone objecting.
The point is that fingerprinting and ID info assist in investigations as well as act as inhibitors to potential criminal fraudulent behavior.
Perhaps I’ve overlooked something, but what is the huge danger to individual liberty that fingerprinting and ID’s allegedly represent? I don’t get it!
Oh, I know, we can’t trust the government. That’s it isn’t it? Frankly, I trust the government more than I trust the participants in an unfettered marketplace with little or no regulation.
There has to be a balance between regulation of the market place and the free market place. A properly configured Justice Department, freed from political/ideological influence, focused on the Constitution, can exert effort to find the balance point. The Bush administration has drastically subverted Justice, from which we must strive now to recover.
Then we can have more faith in the honor of the government to do the right thing with fingerprinting and ID’s!
Perry
I understand that you don’t get it. Fortunately, there is no requirement that you do. The fact that you didn’t object to fingerprinting during WW2 at a time when American citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent were being rounded up without charges by the government that you trust is not a reason to make it policy.
Nor is the talking-points argument that if only the Bush influence was taken out of the Justice Dept we could all trust the government again going to fly. The Dept of Justice has always been politicized; where would you like to start? With illegal dossiers kept on Martin Luther King or the illegal surveillance and execution of Black Panther leaders, both of which happened during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations?
I am not in favor of trusting either the government or “unfettered marketplace” (not that one exists in this country), but you have put your finger on the difference between us. I look at the capacity of the government to do harm without redress as much larger than the similar capacity of the corporate sector, because–at the very least–the private sector cannot hide behind sovereign immunity.
Except of course when your Democratic majority in Congress (including your presidential candidate) rolls over and grants the equivalent of sovereign immunity to telecom corporations that knowingly broke the law at the behest of, who, oh yes, the government.
So your fantasy that if only we get honorable people back into the government all will be well is really so much wishful thinking. As James Madison pointed out 2 centuries ago, our government has to be structured to do the minimum of harm even when the thieves are in charge.
I didn’t trust the Clinton administration with our freedoms and I don’t trust the Bush administration. I don’t see any reason to trust a McCain or Obama administration. I would trust a Barr administration, but they wouldn’t try this stuff in the first place.
I guess that I am a little more skeptical. I have had my share of problems with government efficiency. I had my account frozen because of an S & L failure and it took 5 months to get my money while they went through the S & L’s files. My student loans and college aid were messed up because someone transposed the i and d in David. I didn’t get paid for two months while I was on active duty because of an error in processing my transfer from guard to active duty. The state lost one of my tax filings, and also didn’t get my cancellation of my business license another year then sent me a bill three years later for back fees. They were generous enough to forgive the fees when I went to them so I am not complaining. I could go on. Maybe for a few years I had a cloud of over my head that is gone now or maybe government isn’t as perfect as some people think. I tend to go with the latter. Government is run by people. People aren’t perfect. That is why we need checks and balances. That is also why I think we need more protection with our identity when it comes to banks and private organizations.
Don’t think that I am bashing government. It is good, but when people tell me that a central data base of sensitive information is being built without forethought about safeguards, I will oppose it every time.
My original post was in response to whether identity was an issue in any of the mortgage fraud cases. Clearly, it is and has been.
But, Perry, I think, and the article cited above are operating under the false premise that this particular provision is directed towards to the subprime mortgage meltdowns. I don’t think that this law is directed to towards that. The subprime meltdown has more to do with the practice of offering financing for home at zero down and concomitant variable interest mortgages. This was more of a systematic failure related to the decrease in real estate values and the condition of the economy; I don’t see fraud as the central cause.
However, the housing bubble did, in fact, bring about a wave of individuals entering into the real estate and mortgage financing industries. Some of these individuals were wildly inappropriate to be dealing with such significant sums of money and some committed acts of fraud that destroyed many lives. Many of these fraud cases involved individuals who falsified legal documents and identification (deeds of trust, deeds, mortgage applications, etc.) in a manner that was laughably easy and in a way which was impossible to detect before innocent individual’s credit was ruined.
The purpose of the fingerprint legislation, I assume, is to provide yet another level of proof to establish that the transaction is on the level. For some, particularly those in the real estate and mortgage industry, this may seem as an unnecessary hinderance. However, for those using an agent to apply for a mortgage, that their agent is required to prove that they are in fact the individual entrusted to act on their behalf, can hardly be a extraordinary request. In many instances, the buyers will not have ever met their mortgage broker face to face.
Some of what is stated above, attempts to argue that providing these fingerprints invades privacy or, worse, subjects the individual to identity theft. When this argument is brought into the light of day, it is revealed to be plain sophistry. Being required to provide fingerprints hardly subjects the individual to any more threat of identity theft then what is currently required under the law. What can anyone do with stolen fingerprint information? NOTHING.
What the fingerprint information does provide is unmistakable evidence of the identity of the individual applying for the mortgage and the person who ultimately receives the loan. It obviates the need of having to prove this element in court. Moreover, the fingerprint database can provide investigators a tool to determine each instance in which an individual filed out a mortgage application. The one rule we can derive from these fraud cases is that where an individual commits mortgage fraud in one case, there are bound to be others. Here, investigators can quickly identify needles in a nation wide barrel of needles to show each instance where a criminal ruined a life.
I am not so blithe to underestimate the effect that this will have on individuals in the real estate and mortgage industry and I am certain that this particular legislation should be more narrowly drawn. But I am not opposed to the fingerprint database out of hand as others above so argue. I am certainly not a person that believes in government regulation for the sake of regulation. I feel that this is an entirely reasonable proposal given the weight of mortgage fraud cases. Additionally, it is not an unreasonable request of an industry that enjoyed record profits and which is now, in some cases, looking for taxpayer help in paying for their business mistakes.
You know, i think you’ve made such a compelling argument that I should be willing to keep turning over more and more bits and pieces of information to the government that we should probably go whole hog.
Let’s require DNA samples (say a strand of hair), retinal scans, and voice prints. Wait, let’s require everyone involved in a mortgage deal to wear an ankle GPS until the loan is paid off.
You’re not a guy who favors regulation for regulation’s sake, you just buy into the idea of a complete surveillance society to make everyone “safer.”
How does requiring fingerprints for individuals filing legal documents transfering hundreds of thousands of dollars make us a surveillance society?
Should we drop the fingerprinting requirement for eligibility to take a State Bar Exam, for Federal Employment, for State Employment, for most security positions.
Why must mortgage brokers and real estate agents need only adhere to a low standard where other positions of trust and power require a higher level? The clerk at the Department of Labor should be subject to a criminal background check to review unemployment petitions at 30K a year, while the mortgage broker entrusted to transfer millions of dollars a year in property and money, need not provide any fraud proof identification? That is absurd.
If the federal government, according to the current administration, is entitled to listen to telephone conversations between a U.S. resident living in Buffalo and his Canadian cousin living in Toronto, then how does digitally recording fingertip and palm whirls result in a greater infringement of rights.
What is the information in a fingerprint that is so dear? A mortgage application requires a name, social security number, and probably a Driver’s License number. All that information is personal and can easily be used against the individual. Whereas a fingerprint cannot. What additional burden does this place on an individual other than the one predisposed to fraud?
What we need to understand is that governments natural instinct is to grow, no matter which party is in charge. If there is a problem government will attempt to solve it by creating another level of bureaucracy.
I liken this whole finger printing idea back to when the federal government required states to issue CDL licenses for everyone driving a commercial vehichle. They instituted more testing and created a national data base to track violations . Their slogan for instituting this new program was ” Only the best will drive”, what a load of crap. It was always intended only as a way to track drivers, it does nothing to guarantee the proficiency of each driver. Oh and by the way it raised the cost to commercial driver by ten dollars to renew their license.
Like the CDL program this finger printing would only be of use “AFTER” a fraud had been perpetrated and a complaint lodged. How many lives could be ruined by one person before this point. Now multiply that number by any number you choose to believe of the number of crooks in the loan business . So what you get is a small return for what will become a huge bureaucratic swamp land where money will go in and nothing will come out.
Oh yeah and again it is un-constitutional!!!!!!
Wow, this is disgusting. We’re now beyond the Reagan quote “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” We’re now entering into a whole new realm of not just taxation/regulation/subsidation we can now add National Identification to the list.
Fingerprinting mortgage dealers – “Bad! Government overreaching!”
Warrantless dossiers on every person’s phone, Internet, and credit card communications – “Good! I don’t care because I have nothing to hide!”
It is amazing what will peg your outrage meter. You guys are a trip.
You assume I am for government wiretaps, or cataloguing personal information without a warrant. You are incorrect.
Noman knows you don’t support wiretaps, Christine; reality has nothing to do with his ability to construct straw man comparisons from things nobody has ever said.
As for this question “Should we drop the fingerprinting requirement for eligibility to take a State Bar Exam, for Federal Employment, for State Employment, for most security positions.”
Here’s the answer: (1) there is no legitimate reason to require fingerprinting to take a State Bar exam; since when was a state-issued photo ID not good enough to take a qualifying exam that does not automatically lead to licensure?
(2) For Federal employment: depends on the level and the security significance of the job.
(3) We don’t have a blanket requirement now for State employment finger-printing.
(4) For most security positions? With whom? Public or private? I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but your statement is vague.
“The clerk at the Department of Labor should be subject to a criminal background check to review unemployment petitions at 30K a year, while the mortgage broker entrusted to transfer millions of dollars a year in property and money, need not provide any fraud proof identification? That is absurd.”
You’re right: it is absurd. But the answer is that both requirements are ridiculous. There should be no such requirement for the dept of labor clerk, and the mortgage broker has to be licensed. That requires ID, but fingerprint ID? Your voyeuristic nature is showing.
Well excuse me if I mistook silence for assent. I guess when you are just discovering how to speak out about privacy issues, it is much easier to talk about the little stuff first like fingerprints. When you have secret warrantless searches, and lawyerless imprisonment to deal with, it’s best to start small. I’m sure the posts against mass surveillance and data warehousing are coming any… day… now.
If you ever bothered to read anything I wrote–either on the net or in the academic world, you’d find out that I was working on these issues actively long before you’d ever started thinking about them.
Your failure to read does not equate with my silence.
If you’re looking at the larger political process, it required the assent of the supposedly liberal and progressive candidates that you support to craft things like the telecom FISA retroactive immunity for breaking the law…
Libertarians have been fighting surveillance issues for a long time.
Pity the same can’t be said of liberals, who seem only to have discovered the issue with Dubya.
http://delawarepolitics.net/2008/05/27/sometimes-i-wonder/ Did you forget this one, Noman? There are others. I know you likely read a lot so I don’t blame you. Christian agreed with me as did you. When it comes to liberty, I think we agree more than we disagree.
On the immunity from lawsuits for the telecoms, I don’t believe they broke laws certainly they acted in good faith during a time of national crisis. I believe they should not be targets of the trial lawyers. Suing them will not protect civil liberties, but it could let some lawyers extort some money from them to enrich themselves. If you think the government went too far, sue the government. The telecoms were following the lead of the government under these new laws.
I am very concerned about keeping government in check. I wish I had more time but I don’t. I have to go again. Maybe after 9.
On the immunity from lawsuits for the telecoms, I don’t believe they broke laws certainly they acted in good faith
See David, it’s little incongruities like THAT statement that make me suspect you aren’t really on board with opposition to mass surveillance.
Qwest acted in good faith. The others broke the law.
during a time of national crisis.
Which national crisis was there in Feb. 2001 when the NSA approached Qwest for help with illegal surveillance?
Your failure to read does not equate with my silence.
I wasn’t talking about you (Steve).
I have to take issue with you, Steve.
Fingerprints, and the more modern fingerprint, DNA, assists authorities in investigating crimes as well as providing a tool for the public to use in terms of authentication, as shenanigans has pointed out.
To use these individual/personal identifiers, or not to use them, comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. The fact that both are used without a significant outcry against their use is evidence that the American public approves.
I think your libertarian ideology has masked your intellectual practicality/judgment.
You might feel better about it once, under a new President and Congress, we get the justice department back closer to the apolitical entity it is supposed to be.
perry
Let’s take these one by one
“To use these individual/personal identifiers, or not to use them, comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. The fact that both are used without a significant outcry against their use is evidence that the American public approves.”
Since the Supreme Court in 1979 validated a Constitutional right to privacy in Roe v Wade, the issue of personal privacy has been one of basic Constitutional civil liberties (indeed, it always was: see Learned Hand’s majority opinion on the lack of any obligation of American citizens to provide one iota more than the information specifically required by the tax code, even if such information would lead that person to a legitimately greater tax burden).
Constitutional rights (freedom of speech, religion, self-incrimination, and privacy) are to be defended under law by a higher standard that your “cost/benefit analysis” or widespread public approval. It really doesn’t matter in a Constitutional sense whether the majority of the American people think I have the right to publish Lolita or American Psycho, because the Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect my rights from the “tyranny of the majority.” The majority can decide that Jews should be denied freedom of religion (it happened in Germany); that doesn’t make it right, that only makes it the opinion of the majority.
The essence of a Constitutional republic is that there are to be certain rights that are so fundamental that they cannot be changed for light or trivial reasons; and in the long-term Constitutional sense the current mortgage melt-down does not qualify in the same sense that a declared war will sometimes (but not always and still supervised by the courts) allow for a limited suspension of habeas corpus.
Conclusion: privacy is a fundamental Constitutional right; as such you have to meet a very high standard to modify it.
“I think your libertarian ideology has masked your intellectual practicality/judgment.”
To begin with, it’s my Constitutional ideology or understanding that informs my position in this issue. “Practicality” is not a legitimate argument when dealing with fundamental Constitutional rights. As far as judgment, I think you’d have tough time making the case that it was defective judgment to hold out for the enforcement of existing regulations that demand positive government-issued photo-identification as a good enough form of ID, when linked to a government-issued license. The defect in judgment, it seems to me, should be placed on the person arguing for a new expansion of government surveillance authority over individuals in one of the more highly regulated industries in the country. The percentage of fraud that would have been mitigated had your fingerprint rule been in force during the past few years is miniscule.
“You might feel better about it once, under a new President and Congress, we get the justice department back closer to the apolitical entity it is supposed to be.”
That statement is either ideologically blind or hopelessly naive. The Justice Department in this country has never been an apolitical entity. The Justice Department in WW 2 was willingly complicit in the blatantly illegal internment of Japanese Americans; participated in assisting many cities in ignoring Brown v Bd of Education; kept illegal surveillance on ML King, Mohammed Ali, and others; harassed and was even complicit in the execution of members of the Black Panther Party….
The Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration have made war against the civil liberties of American citizens on multiple occasions under Presidents and Congresses Democratic and Republican.
I should trust a new Justice Department under a President Obama who has promised a significant expansion of Federal “hate crimes” authority and having the IRS fill out my tax forms for me as elements of his platform that he touts on his website?
We may disagree, and that’s ok. That’s a decent dynamic and I no more want to live in a country where my view dominates unchallenged than yours. However, don’t give me this glib crap that “my Libertarian ideology” is the only thing standing between me and your obvious objective truth. There are tons of historical, constitutional, legal, and ethic arguments on my side of the equation, and if you think a couple of one-liners about “cost-benefit analysis” or “public approval” can make that all go away, you’re mistaken.
This is a good article gives the pro and cons of the law. One of the portions that drew my attention was this passage:
“Martinez (Senator Fla-R) spokesman Ken Lundberg acknowledged some people who are not currently licensed in the industry will have to be – and therefore do not now have to submit to fingerprinting and background checks. But Lundberg emphasized that the aim is to have a uniform way to track bad actors “who perpetuate fraudulent mortgage schemes,” even when they jump around from various states and jobs. This provision is identical to language in the comprehensive mortgage reform bill which the House passed overwhelmingly in November. The National Association of Mortgage Brokers approves of the legislation. ‘NAMB has been behind a national registry of all originators since 2000; we were the first ones to come up with this idea,” said Marc Savitt, president of the group.’
The article also states that several already have some fingerprint requirements for executives ” Already, Florida and 38 other states have fingerprinting requirements that cover a narrower field of categories within the industry, such as mortgage company executive officers, directors, owners and other principals, according to the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. ”
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/mortgage-workers-could-face-fingerprint-requirement/1327/
I can understand the argument that this would place burden on businesses and workers, as I said, the legislation should be narrowly drawn.
However, I fail to see any argument against it from a privacy standpoint. Where is the privacy in fingerprints? How can fingerprint information be used to the detriment of an individual except to prove the commission of a crime. A individual leaves his fingerprints everywhere when he goes out in public. What is the problem?
“However, I fail to see any argument against it from a privacy standpoint. Where is the privacy in fingerprints? How can fingerprint information be used to the detriment of an individual except to prove the commission of a crime. A individual leaves his fingerprints everywhere when he goes out in public. What is the problem?”
I’ll explain it to you: it doesn’t matter if they are left all over the place if they are not in a database to be compared to.
Would the mortgage brokers fingerprint data base be cross-indexed against police records to determine whether or not they should be hired?
Should the FBI have access to those fingerprints for information on crimes totally unrelated to bad mortgages?
Perry,
Put it this way… the state police currently do not fingerprint you unless a) you volunteer to have your information collected and put in a database, or b) you commit a crime.
Now that being said, you’re saying that you think it’s a good idea to have them collect all of our fingerprints and DNA regardless of if we have committed a crime and against our wishes?
How can you be for that data collection, and yet against government surveillance/wiretaps/etc?
Steve, you arguments against fingerprinting make no sense to me.
How much sense does it make to ban a long held law enforcement and identification tool because there may be some in law enforcement who will abuse it?
Basically, that is your argument, which you couch in unnamed Constitutional terms focusing on the right to privacy.
Broadly speaking, there is no way that we can have a viable community, including upholding the right to enforce public safety (otherwise known as “The Law”), without some sacrifice in privacy. In truth, then, no man can be an island unto himself, in an absolute sense. We are continuously in search of some balance point in order to permit us to go forward as a nation/community.
Yet you ideological libertarian absolutists think otherwise. It’s indeed like a religion to you folks.
You consider the Constitution like some folks consider the Bible, in absolutist terms.
On the contrary, the Constitution is subject to interpretation, which is why we have a Supreme Court, obviously. And then we also have the balance of powers, forever shifting, back and forth.
All that said, in order to better understand your position based on Constitutional grounds, I would appreciate your presentation of your arguments against fingerprinting. Part of it, I am certain, will be your attempt to tie fingerprinting in with some concept of illegal search and seizure.
Christian, I distinguish between surveillance/wiretaps and fingerprints/DNA. The former is definitely an invasion of privacy (private communications), whereas the latter is a form of identification similar to a photo on a drivers’ license.
And by the way, I am not against surveillance/wiretaps for homeland security purposes, as long as it is carried out under the auspices of the courts and with the oversight of Congress, neither of which the Bush administration did.
How much sense does it make to ban a long held law enforcement and identification tool because there may be some in law enforcement who will abuse it?
Perry… the best way to protect private information is not to collect it in the first place.
Odyssieus,
You and I have found something that we could not agree more on.
noman, Christian, perish the thought, but I think your view might be quite different were one of your own to go missing!
Perry
I will answer, but real life prohibits me from doing so until tonight or tomorrow morning–just didn’t want you to think I ignored the response.
You and I have found something that we could not agree more on.
OK but if you are serious then you have to be willing to ban private companies from collecting or selling my private information. It is not enough to just say “don’t do business with them.”
For example, a law that says I can request all my records be purged from ChoicePoint, credit bureaus, or any other aggregators of my information.
Or a reform that makes it illegal to use an SSN for anything other than Social Security transactions with the government. And on and on…
Or a law that says government or private comanies can’t do mass surveillance of private communications – oh wait, we already have that law.
Are you still game?
Perry – your mindset on display throughout this post is disturbing. I simply must conclude that you either :
1) have no knowledge or historic understanding of how modern totalitarian regimes (the ones we have resisted with all our might) developed and operated (and how analogous they are in practice to what is happening in the United States, bit by bit by bit) or
2) you just don’t care because you think power and all-powerful instruments of control will ultimately meet in the hands of the human nature’s better angels.
Your “no public outcry” argument is appalling. Google Martin Niemoller for a lesson this.
Tyler, since you have not been specific in your objection, I don’t know whether you are talking about fingerprints, DNA prints, or wiretaps.
I share your concern about totalitarian tendencies, especially when they happened with Nixon, and now have happened with Bush-43.
The balance of powers system we have took care of Nixon, but Bush-43 succeeded in subverting it with his takeover of Justice and lock-step GOP Congress, incredibly, while the Rush Limbaughs fed the propaganda machine to millions of unquestioning Americans.
If the people neglect to observe, then to have their say at the ballot box come November, then we deserve what we get, don’t we?
On the specific issue of identification, like fingerprinting, DNA printing, and photo ID’s, someone has to explain to me how having this information in the hands of the government can be an instrument leading to totalitarianism. I see these more as a tool for law enforcement, a good thing. Oversight is the key to prevent unauthorized behavior.
Regarding wiretapping/surveillance of overseas communications, I see this as a necessary evil in these times of terroristic threats. Please note that I insisted on Congressional and Justice oversight of the Executive Branch, with the caveat that Justice be moved back toward being apolitical, to the extent possible.
We must work to restore trust in government by putting people in office who are trustworthy. If too many of us simply don’t care, then again, we deserve what we get!
Odyssieus,
It’s your choice whether or not to use credit. In this day and age of living above our means, borrowing money is certainly used to increase our standard of living to buy a flat screen, two cars in the driveway, and the 2,600 sq ft house with a picket fence. I’ll admit that it is certainly hard to obtain those goals without credit, but that’s a choice we all make for ourselves.
If you go out and get a short-term loan, which let’s face it that is exactly what a credit card is, that company should have every right to make sure that they are going to get their money back. If you don’t pay them their money back, it would simply be stealing.
So how do they know you’re being honest when you say that you will pay them their money back? They check to see if you’ve ripped anyone else off. Can you blame them? Certainly not. In fact you have probably told them it was perfectly acceptable to do just that, when you signed the waivers and releases in order to obtain your short-term loan.
So sure, we could make a law that prevents them from collecting data that says you borrowed money from someone, and then did not pay it back (which again is no different than stealing), even though you agreed to pay it back under a specific set of terms. The problem is that we can make that law, and that the consequence will be that nobody will be willing to lend money because they have no way of knowing if it will ever be paid back.
This is a huge personal gripe of mine. I hate giving my SSN out period, and I don’t even think they have the right to ask for it.
If they are attempting to survey an American citizen, and they do not have a warrant/court order, it should be illegal. If the person is not an American citizen, they are not protected from the United States Constitution. That document is to be read in absolute terms, as it was intended, and specifically provides against illegal searches and siezures.
If they are attempting to survey an American citizen, and they do not have a warrant/court order, it should be illegal.
You do realize this is already going happening? Mass surveillance, all communications being scooped up, permanently stored and analyzed> And this is why the telcoms wanted immunity, so we wouldn’t see how extensive it is?
Do you seriously think modern surveillance is about plugging a wire into the switchboard socket that goes to the bad guy’s house?
If the person is not an American citizen, they are not protected from the United States Constitution.
*bangs head on wall*
“If the person is not an American citizen, they are not protected from the United States Constitution.”
Actually, no. Read the 14th Amendment. It says you cannot take life liberty or property without due process from a “person,” and the use of the word was intentional as the word “citizen” occurred in the previous sentence. The courts have recognized this distinction since the 1870s.
So the crap-conservative line that non-Americans have no protections in the US under the Constitution is simply (oh my gosh, wait for it) not true.
“I don’t know whether you are talking about fingerprints, DNA prints, or wiretaps”
All of it.
Amen. I don’t have as much of a problem with government running my fingerprints. It is when they store them particularly without safeguards. What that article didn’t distinguish is that difference. That is what makes this a significant departure. Go ahead and run them, but destroy them within 30 days by law. It is the fact that they want a central database with few restrictions which raises my ire and the fact that they want them for people who have nothing to do with whether or not a loan is fraudulent. If a secretary had a felony 5 years ago, she would pop up. Will the Feds pressure a private business to get rid of a good employee because she dumped anti-freeze outside or had bad druggy friends in her late teens? This is going the wrong way. I oppose it.
I trust the military because there have been precious few id thefts. Their system is pretty secure. I had no problem letting them have my prints, but there is no draft and the nation’s security depends on the military. The military also needs biometrics as a back up to identify a severly wounded or dead member. None of that is true with the mortgage industry.
Remember Watergate, David, a break-in? That kind of crime, and others similar, could well become part of prosecuting fraud cases.
Talk to law enforcement officials. Talk to prosecutors. See what they think about fingerprint, DNA and wiretap data for evidence, Tyler et al.
You folks are out in the right field corner on this issue, where a small patch of libertarian grass is struggling for survival just ahead of the next lawn mowing!
Steve Newton,
I should have added “and not in the US” after citizen, my mistake.
Odyssieus,
Regardless of whether it is or is not going on right now, it is a horrid policy that can quite easily be abused by any would-be dictator. I can’t figure out what more exactly you want from me, I think I came out of the gate already in agreement with both you and Steve Newton for the most part.