Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Traffic Stop: "Your papers please --- AND your fingerprints!"

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Biometric Scans for Traffic Stops

    It is no longer acceptable enough to the statists that you must, under penalty of law, present your state issued driving license, personal motor vehicle insurance, and state issued vehicle registration. Now, in order to move “freely” about Milwaukee they desire your biological identity to match the information in their database. And, of course, the newscast provides substantial reason for your compliance: only the guilty don’t do it, you need your identity protected, you do it unless you’re hiding something, and it’s already helped us catch bad guys and so on ad infinitum. Yet the reasons against totalitarian methodologies like this are just as infinite and in fact, quite a bit more powerful and meaningful to society. In point of fact, this type of police state dragnet has been shown to violate our basic natural rights; as the Supreme Court has held that fingerprints are subject to the requirements of the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment , Davis v. Mississippi, supra.

    With total disregard for our fundamental law and most treasured values, the statists push ever forward in the surge to biometrically identify and catalog every person in America. As evidenced by Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) proposal for biometric ID cards intended for immigration reform, which will require such identification on any persons obtaining any sort of job whatsoever, they will seize at any innocuous justification to push forward on biometric identification legislation.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    This was cross-posted over at FourthAmendment.com -- with commentary:

    On PrisonPlanet.com: Biometric Scans for Traffic Stops, with a YouTube video of Milwaukee police using fingerprint scanners on drivers.

    This thoughtful piece makes cogent points about the fingerprint dragnet of Davis v. Mississippi from 1969 and personal security from Schmerber v. California from 1966.

    In Delaware v. Prouse in 1979, however, the Court held that random stops of drivers to check the validity of their licenses and safety equipment were unreasonable. In a throwaway paragraph designed to get votes, the Court said in dicta that roadblocks to check papers would reasonable, even though that was not the issue:
    Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The judgment below is affirmed.
    Law enforcement since the beginning of time has had an "us v. them" attitude about citizens and citizen's rights. What happens today is a product of advancing technology, so don't be surprised that biometric fingerprint scanning is here. The question instead is what we do about it? Or, what can we do about it? Has the privacy train long ago left the station? Maybe so, and long before biometric scanning was available. One need only go back to Nixons's Supreme Court.

    My fear is that anybody who presents a driver's license could be found to be subject to a biometric fingerprint confirmation of the fact, assuming the stop is legal. Therefore, the dragnet of Davis likely is inapposite because that case involved a round-up. Here, no round-up because there is a valid stop. The Supreme Court long ago held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in voice or handwriting, and it said in Schmerber in dicta (at 764) before that even that fingerprints fared no better. The government will argue: If your driver's license and that magnetic strip on the back have data about you [and what about your fingerprint or retinaprint being on the magnetic strip someday?] and your picture, what is the difference that a fingerprint confirmation of your identity is sought on the scene?

    I, for one, don't want to give a fingerprint to prove who I am. My local police for 20 years required a thumbprint on a traffic citation to confirm the identity of the person stopped because of the problem of drivers using somebody else's driver's licenses, so it is a real problem.

    (Source: Holocaust Museum, German police officer checking papers in Krakow ghetto)
    How can the law protect against fingerprint confirmation? Maybe it can't, but should it?

    Let the dialog begin.


  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    I believe they are doing this in Green Bay WI

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    According to a dispatcher for GBPD, no they do not require it.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Yeah they dont require it, it is optional, but its still there. We all know how cops will tone their voice to make a request at the same time seem like a demand.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    Is this coming from personal first hand experience? If so, what were the exact circumstances?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    No, this coming from me reading about it in the GB Press Gazette that cops could do this during traffic stops. It also said it wasn't required. But again, we know how the Gestapo will abuse their authority to get what they want.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    Please post a link to the article so we all could draw our own conclusions.
    Are you at all familiar with WHY LEO would do this?
    What is the problem with placing one's inked finger print on a violation?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Dude, that was an article in the paper like 3 years ago. If you can't take my word fine, The Press Gazette website has a search feature, you want it, find it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    Dustiniac wrote:
    Dude, that was an article in the paper like 3 years ago. If you can't take my word fine, The Press Gazette website has a search feature, you want it, find it.
    Howdy Dustin. Generally if we site something here, we do not expect anyone to take our word for it. We don't know you. You are probably a fine person. Honest, hardworking and ethical.

    The problem is that we just don't know and can't know. So please, in the future, if you are going to post or site some other source or website, provide a link. Like the rest of us are expected to do. It is just common consideration and respect for the board.

    Not a personal attack on you. And it is not out of line to expect you to provide the link. Thanks and carry on.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    Giving a print is not anissue for me.

    So I am just fine with them working to make sure they know who they are talking to and no one isposing as me.

  12. #12
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    ecocks wrote:
    Giving a print is not an*issue for me.

    So I am just fine with them working to make sure they know who they are talking to and no one is*posing as me.
    I totally agree. We should actually be injected with a chip so they can read it as they drive by just to be sure we're ok. Maybe they should invest in tens of thousands of cameras that can scan your face or eyes to verify who you are as you walk down the street.

    Hey, While were at it, why not give them a DNA sample too. Oh, I bet they would like a daily itinerary too. Say, why don't we just go ahead and have all our shell cassings and bullets numbered so they can track them. Hmmmmmm that last one sounds familiar.

    The idea that because you are an honest man and so have nothing to fear, presumes the government using these new technologies and powers for good and not evil. Surely they would not use any of this for their own agenda of socialist, fascism.

    Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That is what is wrong with them wasting my time with another insidious invasion of my rights like finger printing me, an innocent, free citizen, just because it makes it easier for the cops?

    Give me a break, will ya. How is this easier? Better? Next, you'll be OK with showing your papers at roadblocks and state borders. I know, I know, we can mark everyone with a star and their name. . . Oh and how 'bout a little tattoo, say a series of numbers? Yeah, that ought'a work.

    Liberty and Freedom die a little more, every time someone says something like this.

    Hasn't anybody read the Constitution. Try the 4th Amendment on for size.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    This means, No fingerprints. No nuthin' mister.

    The right of the people to be secure in their person's. . .

    As a free man basking in the liberty provided by my forefathers through this sacred document we call the Constitution, I find it offensive, demeaning and controlling to demand or even suggest that it is Ok to#1 stop me in the first place and 2nd force me; as I go about my legal, lawful, private business, to submit to law enforcement without suspicion of wrong doing or warrant, to accede to their order is tantamount to living in a police state.

    Yup, go ahead and bask in the ever tightening controls of a social/fascist government.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    hardballer wrote:
    ecocks wrote:
    Giving a print is not anissue for me.

    So I am just fine with them working to make sure they know who they are talking to and no one isposing as me.
    SNIP ...Hasn't anybody read the Constitution. Try the 4th Amendment on for size.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    +1

    My God!! How on earth did the republic make it this far without being able to instantly identify every single member with total certainty! [sarcasm off]
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    SNIP In Delaware v. Prouse in 1979, however, the Court held that random stops of drivers to check the validity of their licenses and safety equipment were unreasonable. In a throwaway paragraph designed to get votes, the Court said in dicta that roadblocks to check papers would reasonable, even though that was not the issue:
    Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The judgment below is affirmed.
    I've decided that, in addition to helping expand government, the Supreme Court's other main function is to keep the other two idiot branches from so angering the population that they kick over the can and ruin the government game for the elites.

    "No, no. You can't do that. That'll make 'em too mad all at once. But, you can do this, and this, and this."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    Yup, Citizen, you are spot on. It is little by little.

    Now we have to stand up in court over this obvious trampling of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment stands.

    I just don't see how it is not clear to everyone, just what will happen when the fox gets in the hen house. Except in this case it's your nest egg that's gone. Perhaps your future.

    I mourn for the last free generation of men and women to live in this land if we do not draw a line in the sand here and now.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604

    Post imported post

    hardballer wrote:
    Dustiniac wrote:
    Dude, that was an article in the paper like 3 years ago. If you can't take my word fine, The Press Gazette website has a search feature, you want it, find it.
    Howdy Dustin. Generally if we site something here, we do not expect anyone to take our word for it. We don't know you. You are probably a fine person. Honest, hardworking and ethical.

    The problem is that we just don't know and can't know. So please, in the future, if you are going to post or site some other source or website, provide a link. Like the rest of us are expected to do. It is just common consideration and respect for the board.

    Not a personal attack on you. And it is not out of line to expect you to provide the link. Thanks and carry on.
    Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    hardballer wrote:
    ecocks wrote:
    Giving a print is not anissue for me.

    So I am just fine with them working to make sure they know who they are talking to and no one isposing as me.
    I totally agree. We should actually be injected with a chip so they can read it as they drive by just to be sure we're ok. Maybe they should invest in tens of thousands of cameras that can scan your face or eyes to verify who you are as you walk down the street.

    Hey, While were at it, why not give them a DNA sample too. Oh, I bet they would like a daily itinerary too. Say, why don't we just go ahead and have all our shell cassings and bullets numbered so they can track them. Hmmmmmm that last one sounds familiar.

    The idea that because you are an honest man and so have nothing to fear, presumes the government using these new technologies and powers for good and not evil. Surely they would not use any of this for their own agenda of socialist, fascism.
    Researching something else, I came across something very interesting applicable here.

    "'[T]he evidence in this cause has evoked images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled his nation's roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who held temporary power in the Government. The spectre of American citizens being asked, by badge-wielding police, for identification, travel papers -- in short, a raison d'etre -- is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of human liberties. This is not Hitler's Berlin, nor Stalin's Moscow, nor is it white supremacist South Africa. Yet in Broward County, Florida, these police officers approach every person on board buses and trains ('that time permits') and check identification [and] tickets, [and] ask to search luggage -- all in the name of 'voluntary cooperation' with law enforcement. . . .'"

    554 So.2d at 1158, quoting State v. Kerwick, supra, at 348-349 (quoting trial court order).

    I came across it in the Justice Marshall's dissent in Florida v Bostick. Page 501 US 443 (the webpage preserves the official page numbering system).

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/501/429/case.html


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    qball54208 wrote:
    Are you at all familiar with WHY LEO would do this?
    I'm not. Explain please.



    qball54208 wrote:
    What is the problem with placing one's inked finger print on a violation?
    The same problem with allowing an unwarranted search, or supplying a DNA sample for no reason.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    To buster81: As it was, way back in the day in Milwaukee, they used to require persons being issued a Citeable Violation to provide an inked impression of usually your thumb on the violation (the one kept by the State)
    It was done in order to, believe it or not protect the innocent. Reason being, identity theft. Persons using an altered ID card.
    For example, when a LEO has RS or PC to "Stop" an individual or "Lawful Contact", LEO are required to ID who they are "investigating" if the individual can not produce a Federal, State or other acceptable form of ID (which you are required by State Law to have on you), LEO (depending on the reason for the contact) may or may not "temporarily arrest" the person/s in an effort to ID them.
    Hope this has shed some light on the issue I originally inquired about.



  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Requiring a thumb or fingerprint before arrest for a crime is a violation of our fourth amendment rights. You have no requirement to verbally or physically identify yourself. During a traffic stop you do have to show proof that you have the privilege to operate a motor vehicle but nothing beyond that. Agreeing to be fingerprinted before arrest is not required as it is a form of self identification. My opinion

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    The project on which I work at my last job (I am now retired) had the contract to develop, support, and maintain the automated fingerprint identification system for the UK. About 5+ years ago, we began development and implementation of a new pilot program called Lantern. This was a portable fingerprint scanning machine which would take two prints from someone during traffic stops. The machine looked virtually identical to what you see in this video.

    Last year, we had a short demo and hands on inspection of another portable machine that a few people in our group were working on. This machine resemble a rather large old-style bellows camera (without the bellows). It had a screen and it would take several biometric data types: fingerprints, facial recognition, eye scans, and voice prints. An agency of our government (I'd rather not say which one, but it was not covert) was the client and their idea was to use this device overseas in "hot" areas with captured individuals. I would bet that it would likely make it into our civilian population here in the states (police?) with the right administration in office.

    Gentlemen, this is scary stuff.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    qball54208 wrote:
    To buster81: As it was, way back in the day in Milwaukee, they used to require persons being issued a Citeable Violation to provide an inked impression of usually your thumb on the violation (the one kept by the State)
    It was done in order to, believe it or not protect the innocent. Reason being, identity theft. Persons using an altered ID card.
    For example, when a LEO has RS or PC to "Stop" an individual or "Lawful Contact", LEO are required to ID who they are "investigating" if the individual can not produce a Federal, State or other acceptable form of ID (which you are required by State Law to have on you), LEO (depending on the reason for the contact) may or may not "temporarily arrest" the person/s in an effort to ID them.
    Hope this has shed some light on the issue I originally inquired about.


    I assume Wisconsin does not have a law thatrequires you to carry papers with you at all times and this only applies whenyou is driving. If I understand what you are sayiing,if I'm stopped and accused of speeding, I would be compelled to provide fingerprints before I'm free to go.


    Would you say this type of activityis ok?



  23. #23
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    I know it all seems benign but folks, it is inches that turn into miles. In the late seventies and early eighties, they were experimenting with monitoring systems that used the speaker on your TV as a microphone. This was connected to a cable system back then.

    It was a fairly common technique used in the music industry and in intercoms of the time.

    In the particular experiment that I remember reading, they implemented this system on an experimental basis in a small retirement community out west.

    Purportedly for the health and well being of the retired persons living in the homes. You know, I fell and can't get up. So they would listen in and “protect” these folks.

    That was the seventies my friends. The NSA was so inured in all of our communication systems by the seventies that you could just as well have renamed AT&T the NSA.

    That was the seventies. This is 40 years later. In computer years that is like a millennium. So, on the surface, this finger printing thing may not seem like a big deal but it is an in your face, usurpation of your Constitutional Rights. Don't mention the abuse and outright disregard for you rights that we don't even know or hear about.

    The problem is that you have a police agency taking power it has not been granted nor should ever be granted according to the Constitution.

    They believe it is OK. Perhaps for differing reasons but they do think it is OK to trample your rights for the greater good or to protect their officers or who knows.

    Every time we compromise the Constitution, we lose. We are less free. One more leaf has fallen from the tree of liberty. I don't know about you but I have had enough.


    Edit: I looked for any mention of this experiment online but came up empty. If anyone else remembers mention of this, I think I read it in a popular mechanics or some such but I just cannot pin it down, feel free to fill us in.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    hardballer wrote:
    ecocks wrote:
    Giving a print is not anissue for me.

    So I am just fine with them working to make sure they know who they are talking to and no one isposing as me.
    I totally agree. We should actually be injected with a chip so they can read it as they drive by just to be sure we're ok. Maybe they should invest in tens of thousands of cameras that can scan your face or eyes to verify who you are as you walk down the street.

    Hey, While were at it, why not give them a DNA sample too. Oh, I bet they would like a daily itinerary too. Say, why don't we just go ahead and have all our shell cassings and bullets numbered so they can track them. Hmmmmmm that last one sounds familiar.

    The idea that because you are an honest man and so have nothing to fear, presumes the government using these new technologies and powers for good and not evil. Surely they would not use any of this for their own agenda of socialist, fascism.

    Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That is what is wrong with them wasting my time with another insidious invasion of my rights like finger printing me, an innocent, free citizen, just because it makes it easier for the cops?

    Give me a break, will ya. How is this easier? Better? Next, you'll be OK with showing your papers at roadblocks and state borders. I know, I know, we can mark everyone with a star and their name. . . Oh and how 'bout a little tattoo, say a series of numbers? Yeah, that ought'a work.

    Liberty and Freedom die a little more, every time someone says something like this.

    Hasn't anybody read the Constitution. Try the 4th Amendment on for size.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    This means, No fingerprints. No nuthin' mister.

    The right of the people to be secure in their person's. . .

    As a free man basking in the liberty provided by my forefathers through this sacred document we call the Constitution, I find it offensive, demeaning and controlling to demand or even suggest that it is Ok to#1 stop me in the first place and 2nd force me; as I go about my legal, lawful, private business, to submit to law enforcement without suspicion of wrong doing or warrant, to accede to their order is tantamount to living in a police state.

    Yup, go ahead and bask in the ever tightening controls of a social/fascist government.
    Yeah, the DNA samples would help out somewhat and probably provide resolution to a lot of issues we are increasingly encountering. I'll volunteer for that without a problem. Wonder if the Army took DNA samples way back when?The chip injection would have to be worked on a bit though, I'm simply not into foreign objects in/under my skin. Maybe they can work on getting it to where it recognized my fingerprint when I strapped it on my wrist or placed it on my finger?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •