Are the American People guilty until proven innocent?

[Uncle Joe]

There is connection between the mindset that believes DNA should be taken upon arrest (any arrest) before conviction and the gathering/storing of the American People's correspondence and communication.

Some will argue that DNA is needed for identification purposes, to this I say fingerprints have worked exceedingly well and considering advances in face recognition technology, there is even less need for one's DNA.

In some cases DNA may be required, to which a warrant is all that's needed, but the taking of a person's genetic makeup should not be done lightly, just for an arrest in order to fill a database.

This same guilty until proven innocent psychology is manifesting itself in Big Brother's mass collection of the American People's communications.

Some people will say corporations already retain this information for commercial purposes and this issue may hold for another debate on it's own merits/demerits, however the American People don't have a preeminent contract with corporations guaranteeing their rights, protecting their privacy and insuring their freedom.

We don't elect corporations to represent us nor pay those artificial entities taxes, unless government diverts those resources.

So the question is should the American People be considered guilty until proven innocent?

0 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Hell Yes, let's start our own version of "Minority Report"
	0 (0%)
	Yes, a slow walk to "1984" would be nice.
	0 (0%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	Hell No
	0 (0%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[HiPointDem]

1. taking of dna for non-criminal offenses i consider especially pernicious because it can also

be used for commercial purposes without the 'owner's' permission or knowledge.