It’s Friday. So let’s take a look and see how our police state is coming along. The news from Arizona caught my eye, so let’s do a medley of news from “the front” with some flashbacks.
For those sucking up the Socialist kool-aid, there will be lots more of this coming to your town soon.
Arizona: Bonus: You have to pay the $250 buckeroos for it.
New legislation working its way through the Arizona Senate would establish one of the country’s first statewide DNA databases in which wide swaths of residents would be forced to give up their genetic material.
The DNA database would be maintained by the Department of Public Safety, which would include a person’s name, social security number, date of birth and last known address – and could be accessed and used by law enforcement for investigations. The database can also be shared with other government agencies across the country for the purposes for “employment, licensing, death registration, missing persons identification,” and IDing people using aliases or multiple identities, reports AZ Central.
No other state has anything this expansive in place, according to David Kaye, an associate dean for research at Penn State University who studies genetics and its application in law.
Kaye said the proposed bill is one step away from requiring DNA from anyone who wants a driver’s license. –AZ Central
Arizona wants some DNA, but the FBI wants all of it
While Arizona’s bill collects DNA from certain categories of individuals – and eventually everyone once they’re dead, the FBI is creating a “nation of suspects” according to a US think tank, as they seek to collect every single American’s DNA for a massive database signed into law in 2017 by President Trump which comes into effect this year.
The Rapid DNA Act allows police to routinely collect DNA samples from anyone they’ve arrested, but before they’ve been convicted of a crime. The 2017 law requires several states to connect Rapid DNA machines to the “Codis,” the FBI’s national DNA database.
Approximately the size of a desktop printer, use of the Rapid DNA machines made by Thermo Fisher Scientific and others, are “expected to become as routine a process as taking fingerprints,” according to the Daily Star.
But John W. Whitehead from The Rutherford Institute believes it is a sinister development which will make everyone a suspect.
Speaking to Daily Star Online, he said: “The fact of the matter is that these machines are not full-proof.“But we could look at a situation in which someone could be arrested, have their mouth swabbed and then be charged within hours after generating a DNA profile.“We are looking at the erosion of the concept of innocent before proven guilty because it will allow police to go on fishing expeditions. –Daily Star
More at Zero Hedge
Meanwhile Phones are making Minority Report’s Precrime a reality – and other things we’ve learned.
Phillip K Dick predicted it, Steven Spielberg committed it to film and FOX is about to bring it to TV – but it looks like Precrime is already becoming a reality.
We’ve been reading through a new report released by EPJ Data Science called “a survey of results on mobile phone datasets analysis” which looks at what 15 years of mobile data has taught us.
For example, a study published by Bogomolov et al has used mobile phone traces to try to predict whether a certain area would become a crime hotspot within the next month. The study used the estimated number of people in each area, the age, gender as well as work, home and visitor group splits. All of the information was directly gained from mobile phone data.
That information was then pushed through the system and it found they could predict whether a certain area would be the scene of a crime in the next month with an accuracy of 70%.
In a separate study Bogomolov et al set out to find out if mobile phones could predict a person’s daily stress levels from non-invasive sensors, as well as mobile data.
Only using one lot of data provided a poor result but if the data was combined with personality traits and knowledge of the weather conditions they found a 72% accuracy in predicted whether people were stressed. Full story over at Tech Data
Here is a home grown movie ad, inserting facts with the regular ad for Minority Report
Nestled in President Obama’s stirring speech reasserting America’s commitment to the Rule of Law was a stunning announcement of a plan for a new legal construct justifying the “prolonged detention” of people we think might misbehave in the future.
This is the change Obama promised. Swathes of the discontent rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely. The persecution of the witches was nothing to what the schemers pulling his strings have laid plans for.
Senate Intelligence Authorization Act, Would Allow Arrest of Journalists, Anti-war Activists, Academics and Students
August 11, 2015 — bunkerville
Let’s add this final memory from my way back machine not so long ago:
Meet ‘Sensitivity Readers’ looking for thought crimes prior to publication
February 21, 2017 — bunkerville
…Censors who study manuscripts for thought crimes so that books can be revised or rejected prior to publication are called “sensitivity readers.” The Chicago Tribune approvingly defines a sensitivity reader as “a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content.”
“The industry recognizes this is a real concern,” said Cheryl Klein, a children’s and young adult book editor and author of “The Magic Words: Writing Great Books for Children and Young Adults.” Klein, who works at the publisher Lee & Low, said that she has seen the casual use of specialized readers for many years but that the process has become more standardized and more of a priority, especially in books for young readers.
Rigid control of what young people read is a higher priority, because their opinions are more malleable, still being in the process of forming.
Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate – fueled in part by social media – in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized [i.e., politically favored] groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.
If you portray characters in any light that could possibly be construed as reflecting negatively on a politically preferred group like blacks, you are a racist thought criminal; good luck getting published. Avoiding this problem by ignoring blacks is exclusionary and therefore also racist. The only course of action that is not racist is to crowd your work with cartoonishly correct black characters who have been explicitly approved by the thought police. If you do that you are not racist; you are a cultural expropriator. More at Moonbattery