|
It's not that the government couldn't find out that information if needed, it is what it represents, in society as well as the judicial system that is the issue.
America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal and that they are also innocent until proven guilty. These new technological invasions go against the basic concepts as well as offer new levels of abuse of power and invasion of personal privacy, things that the framers of the constitution would be against.
For example, in the past if you wanted a DNA sample or fingerprints from a suspect in a criminal proceeding, you had better have some evidence to back up those allegations. You had to have some other real, hard evidence to futher the idea that the suspect was involved, not just a 'hunch' or 'gut feeling'. With the mandatory surrendering of fingerprints and now DNA police can merely arrest everyone that they think is a suspect, regardless of how much real evidence they have, then get all those samples and stick them in a database which they then run against all sorts of crimes. If I haven't broken any laws I wouldn't like my government forcing me to be basically tried by computer instead of jury in efforts to prove my innocence, which shouldn't even be in question.
The system previously in place which requires warrants and other evidence is merely another fail safe in the system of checks and balances built into the judicial system to protect the innocent. To remove it in reality makes the system less safe to the innocent. Remember, fingerprints are NOT unique. 1 in 10,000 are exactly the same. DNA can resemble other DNA depending on the amount they test and the tests they run. Also lab error can cause false positives. In the past couple of years HUNDREDS of people have been FREED because DNA was either found to be corrupted and gave a false positive on suspects OR in a few cases police LIED to secure a conviction because DNA is ALL the evidence they had.
If you haven't committed a crime you shouldn't worry is a weak argument considering how many innocent people have been convicted over the past few years because of bad or incorrect DNA evidence. To remove the few safe guards and barriers in place that were put there to protect the innocent is a bad idea. Ask any of the wrongly convicted men and women or their families.
This same principle applies to the cameras, tracking devices, and other new big brother technologies that people are being told are there to 'help' them. For a police officer, or other official to abuse the system is easy and will result in a false conviction which the defendant will have no legal recourse to prove their innocence. Also bugs, hackers, and other unforseen errors may arise, but how does one claim that as a defence in court when you have already been basically tried and sentenced by a computer?
Bottom line is warrants, evidence, and the existance of proper police with evidence collected in a hands on method is the only way to insure that the judicial system doesn't become corrupt or allow innocent people to be wrongly convicted due to a 'glitch'.
For a system that supposedly considered you innocent until proven guilty and also is supposed to protect the innocent, these 'advances' fly in direct opposition of those ideals.
|