Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moosenose
Really? Are you sure about that? If that's the case, how does the national NICS system know who has been convicted of STATE crimes? How does AFIS get routine access to State fingerprint databases?
The Federal government can not access certain databases without a court order, that's true. But those databases are TAX databases. Anything involving items of public record (like criminal convictions, addresses, et cetera) can be accessed by the Feds, just as they can be accessed by private citizens.
You HAVE heard of FOIA, haven't you?
|
First
Moosenose, I would like to apologize for telling you to take your foot out of your mouth. The TFP is about civil discussion and the first sentance of my last post was not in that spirit. I was frustrated with some of your comments, and that is no excuse.
As for your post:
The NICS (Which I admit I had to look up) system dependes on state cooperation. Any state may deny a request to it's database at any time for any reason, and require an (court) order to reinstate access. While this never happens in practice, that safeguard exists for a reason, to prevent abuse to the system. The FBI or other federal agencies do not have unfettered access for this reason. Federal access is considered "In good faith" and is not enshrined in laws requiring said access. In other words, crime databases are shared at will because it is in the best interest of everyone to do so.
As for the state fingerprint records, here is a little known fact: Anyone exonorated (sp?) of a crime may have their fingerprints removed from these databases. Fingerprinting when arrested or charged are not considered to be a willing action on the part of the indivigual to provide that information. That does not apply to those pardoned or commuted sentences, but does apply for anyone found not guilty after a trial. They must request it, but it is expected upon request. Only fingerprints of those convicted (who through conviction abdicate some rights) or those that "donate" their fingerprints (for example to help prove innocence) may be kept indefinatly.
Addresses are public record, though some address databases are not. Selective services does not provide access to any gov agancy of it's database of 18-24 year old males. (Though I know that advertisers would love that information). Not even the armed services can access the database without congressional approval (interesting side note in my research: The executive branch is not empowered to ever view that database). That's why the military does not contact people who do not provide their information freely for recruitment.
FOIA may only be exercised (freely) by citizens and NGO's. Federal agency's most get departmental approval to file an FOIA.
My point is that each system has safeguards, and no governmental organization has unfettered access.
For example, these new cards would contain Iris data or DNA data. These are two dangerous peices of information. As I cannot legaly be compelled to provide a fingerprint for access to governmental functions as a citizen, I suspect that these will be defeated on the basis that these peices of information can also be defined as personal information not subject to government requirement.
I cannot as a citizen accept the idea of having to provide such information, and the courts have set precedent as such.
I would not and will not provide my DNA or genetic makeup to any gov agency, as a matter of personal private right.
To illustrate my point, even if a murder had occured (like on Cape Cod) and the police where asking for DNA samples to solve the case, I would still not provide it without a signed agreement that all DNA not matching would be destroyed, along with all testing records. The police did not provide this is in the Cape Cod case, and many refused to provide their DNA because of it.