Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Why would the government care? Lol they don't care about a genocide or crippling medical care costs why would they decide to have a moral compass now?
Honestly, the law enforcement implications of the government buying the database is just as scary as a 3rd party. Hell I bet a company buys the data and sells access to the FBI, and local law enforcement for a subscription fee.
Now you’re thinking in capitalism!
Law enforcement already can just subpoena/get-a-search-warrant-for them all they want. Why would they bother with paying a fee?
You answered your own question. So they don't need a warrant. For a fee, they can run ALL DNA collected against just about everyone, no probable cause required.
I don't even know if that would be legal, but that doesn't matter. The fee creates a little bit of disconnection so both parties can assume that questions of legality are the others' responsibility.
This doesn't make it legal either, it just makes it more likely to happen, and slightly harder to prosecute.
Cuz they print the money and set policing budgets astronomically high. A warrant requires paperwork and a judge (though FISA made that a joke), just buying it outright is far easier.
Agree 100%
.. governments forming an arms-length secure repository for your healthcare or passport or tax or criminal data with regulations, procedures and penalties around proper or improper access.
Oh shit: they do.
Calm down. It's in its worst state now, and the non-profit alternatives fail and go under as often as dotcoms (to similar off-sale effect after a period of really shitty security); so the idea of trusting the people you've elected to keep the public trust, to keep more of the public in trust, in the public eye and subject to your continued tuning at the voting booths, is a viable option.
I love the downvotes. Like "nah, it'd be cool to keep a guiding hand on this issue, but placing it in the only such way to do exactly that is for losers. Go Neutrons! You could take Regionals!"