Kids getting fingerprinted every day at schools now? wtf?

gue_barium

mookie9999 wrote:

Because we are in an ever evolving world. I didn't have a school ID until 7th grade. Had one every year after that and only pulled it out to get discounts at certain stores.

Techology is evolving, but so what? The world remains relatively unchanged. Forever.

spiral out

onelongsong wrote:

if your child was kidnapped and that one fingerprint could identify them and be returned to you; would you object? if the neighbour killed your child and a fingerprint taken years earlier could identify the murderer; would you object?
i'm not sure which bit you're objecting to. you haven't identified the BAD portion of fingrprinting. most banks require a fingerprint to cash government checks. some states require fingerprints on drivers licenses. you can't go through life hiding your fingerprint so if there's good that can come from collecting fingerprints from children; what's the problem?

Will it be a good thing once they have the entire population of the worlds finger prints?

If the world was run by decent honest people it wouldn't be a problem but there will always be someone to exploit the information. Weather they are goverment or just someone working in the goverment with access to the information. It's a double edged sword.

mookie9999

gue_barium wrote:

I think Roland is suggesting it is a system being put in place to desensitize later in life the concept of electronic ID. Up to and including, as Blair has stated, DNA databases. For everyone.

What purpose does it serve, really?

Or should I ask "who's" purpose does it serve?

I understood what he was saying, but in the context of what the fingerprints are being used for in schools (attendance, library, etc.) where is the harm. Does he, or you for that matter, actually believe that people in the world are so apt to become lemmings that if any government was to switch the fingerprinting basis to include tracking, and dna, that we would just fall in line because we were "desensitized" by lunchtime check-in. If your answer is yes, I understand why you or Roland would be concerned. I know some people who won't use their savings club card at the grocery store because then their purchases can be tracked. Folks, unless Safeway starts selling child porn I couldn't care less if they know that on the second Friday of every month I buy bean dip and Cheetos.

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

if your child was kidnapped and that one fingerprint could identify them and be returned to you; would you object? if the neighbour killed your child and a fingerprint taken years earlier could identify the murderer; would you object?
i'm not sure which bit you're objecting to. you haven't identified the BAD portion of fingrprinting. most banks require a fingerprint to cash government checks. some states require fingerprints on drivers licenses. you can't go through life hiding your fingerprint so if there's good that can come from collecting fingerprints from children; what's the problem?

Ok, mr hides from the government. Do you want an ID chip under your skin?

onelongsong

gue_barium wrote:

Here's the way I see it. Never in my 9-10 years in the K-12 public education system was I ever required to carry any sort of ID. Nothing. Ever. It worked just fine then, why wouldn't it work that way just as well now?

the world is a different place now. when i was a kid the parents looked out for every child. people now-a-days don't have a responsability to community. people don't want to get involved. young kids are committing murder and other crimes.
i remember being stopped by the police because i was near a robbery. i had an ID and was soon on my way. if i didn't have an ID i would have been taken to the police station until i could be identified.

gue_barium

mookie9999 wrote:

I understood what he was saying, but in the context of what the fingerprints are being used for in schools (attendance, library, etc.) where is the harm. Does he, or you for that matter, actually believe that people in the world are so apt to become lemmings that if any government was to switch the fingerprinting basis to include tracking, and dna, that we would just fall in line because we were "desensitized" by lunchtime check-in. If your answer is yes, I understand why you or Roland would be concerned. I know some people who won't use their savings club card at the grocery store because then their purchases can be tracked. Folks, unless Safeway starts selling child porn I couldn't care less if they know that on the second Friday of every month I buy bean dip and Cheetos.

Again I ask, what good does it do? Everything was fine before all this tracking BS. Why wouldn't it be fine without it?

mookie9999

Collin wrote:

Why not just insert a chip under their skin?

And what this will lead to? I don't know a whole generation that is used to being fingerprinted everywhere they go. There are already eye scans too. Eventually it will lead to an Orwellian world. This generation won't have a problem with chipping everyone at birth and that's when you lose your freedom.

By the way, oh gee, a child skipping school, the horror!

You're right, a child skipping school is no big deal. But, again, schools have been tracking attendance forever. It has not led to an Orwellian world. I don't know what generation you are referring to that wouldn't have a problem inserting a chip into everyone at birth. I do find it comical that is your end result to schools fingerprinting kids for the reasons mentioned.

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

the world is a different place now. when i was a kid the parents looked out for every child. people now-a-days don't have a responsability to community. people don't want to get involved. young kids are committing murder and other crimes.
i remember being stopped by the police because i was near a robbery. i had an ID and was soon on my way. if i didn't have an ID i would have been taken to the police station until i could be identified.

The world is the same as it ever was. That others are trying to impress you any differently should tell you something about ...

take a guess.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

Ok, mr hides from the government. Do you want an ID chip under your skin?

i challenge you to find ONE law that says it's illegal for a person to disapear.

Collin

mookie9999 wrote:

Does he, or you for that matter, actually believe that people in the world are so apt to become lemmings that if any government was to switch the fingerprinting basis to include tracking, and dna, that we would just fall in line because we were "desensitized" by lunchtime check-in.

We're a different generation, of course. If you grow up with this shit it might be very different.

"They already have our fingerprints, man. They don't do anything with them. They've got better things to do than track losers like us, man. What harm could a chip do? What if your child was kidnapped, wouldn't you be happy your child had a chip?"

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

i challenge you to find ONE law that says it's illegal for a person to disapear.

I challenge you to answer my question.

mookie9999

gue_barium wrote:

Again I ask, what good does it do? Everything was fine before all this tracking BS. Why wouldn't it be fine without it?

What good does public education ever do? You have to attend class, be on time, can't miss too many days without punishment, etc. So I have to disagree with you when you say everything was fine before it. I think that the ideal of standardized education is an arhcaic form of learning that does more harm than good. So to your original question, this "tracking" does not do any good, but at the same time, in and of itself, does not harm either.

Collin

mookie9999 wrote:

You're right, a child skipping school is no big deal. But, again, schools have been tracking attendance forever. It has not led to an Orwellian world. I don't know what generation you are referring to that wouldn't have a problem inserting a chip into everyone at birth. I do find it comical that is your end result to schools fingerprinting kids for the reasons mentioned.

The main reason why I'm against it is because it's stupid.

mookie9999

Collin wrote:

The main reason why I'm against it is because it's stupid.

That's fair.

Drowned Out

onelongsong wrote:

i challenge you to find ONE law that says it's illegal for a person to disapear.

The legality wouldn't matter if it were impossible to do.

gue_barium

mookie9999 wrote:

What good does public education ever do? You have to attend class, be on time, can't miss too many days without punishment, etc. So I have to disagree with you when you say everything was fine before it. I think that the ideal of standardized education is an arhcaic form of learning that does more harm than good. So to your original question, this "tracking" does not do any good, but at the same time, in and of itself, does not harm either.

The jury is out on that. We'll see what's happening in 10-15 years...I don't like where it is leading. In too many ways already it is already here.

onelongsong

mookie9999 wrote:

You're right, a child skipping school is no big deal. But, again, schools have been tracking attendance forever. It has not led to an Orwellian world. I don't know what generation you are referring to that wouldn't have a problem inserting a chip into everyone at birth. I do find it comical that is your end result to schools fingerprinting kids for the reasons mentioned.

my kids school fingerprinted the kids and gave the cards back to us. all done in our presence. it was done after a child was snatched back in the mid 80's. i had no problem with it but a paranoid neighbour freaked out over it. we have over 12 million people in this country illegally yet this bloke thought the government was going to track his kid. cities now have cameras everywhere. i can check adot cameras to check traffic and when on holiday; i can check on my [former] house online. you can't walk into a store without being videotaped so why worry about fingerprints? paranoid people need something to be paranoid about. cameras have been around long enough so now it's microchips and bar code tattoos they latch onto. it's amazing these people ever leave their homes.
or maybe their homes are being watched too. OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH

gue_barium

I guess a pertinent fact overlooked in this debate so far is the cost of these systems. To my way of thinking, they are unneccesary crap, and I'm 100% certain they are sold to the schools under the premise, at least in part, that it is for "security" reasons.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

I challenge you to answer my question.

it is not illegal to disapear. it is illegal to insert a microchip into a person without their permission. it's unconstitutional. they talked about inserting chips into child molesters and couldn't. the tracking device has to be external.
now; as to feasability. who is going to track 330 million people? where will the money come from? the idea is crazy at best. are you saying that although the government needs a court order to tap a criminals phone; tracking with microchips is even remotely possible?
they have medicine for paranoia. maybe check into that.

mookie9999

onelongsong wrote:

my kids school fingerprinted the kids and gave the cards back to us. all done in our presence. it was done after a child was snatched back in the mid 80's. i had no problem with it but a paranoid neighbour freaked out over it. we have over 12 million people in this country illegally yet this bloke thought the government was going to track his kid. cities now have cameras everywhere. i can check adot cameras to check traffic and when on holiday; i can check on my [former] house online. you can't walk into a store without being videotaped so why worry about fingerprints? paranoid people need something to be paranoid about. cameras have been around long enough so now it's microchips and bar code tattoos they latch onto. it's amazing these people ever leave their homes.
or maybe their homes are being watched too. OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH

Stop. You're scaring me. (Said with Willy Wonka enthusiasm)