Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the right to be secure in their person, absent a warrant signed by a judge based upon oath or affirmation of probable cause. That restriction is NOT limited to the federal government. It applies to ALL government. Their name, photo and finger prints would from that point on, forever appear on a national fingerprint database. This wouldn't occur simply because they were a minority as it would affect people of all races. It would occur because they were poor.
Bloomberg is an idiot.
Okay...sell all public housing to the highest private bidder and give residents Section 8 or NYC vouchers. residents now use their vouchers to rent from their new private landlords. Constitutional problem solved.
Why are you assuming that after breaking the scanner people wouldn't be able to "get in"? Any such device could be easily enough vandalized to the point of simply ripping out the scanner AND the lock mechanism. I don't think it would really keep someone out who really wanted in.
Ken
Yeah, but car locks and alarms don't stop people from taking your car either. Locks are just a deterrence and nothing more. Whether you can break a biometric lock vs just disabling it depends on what kind of lock and door it is. I'm thinking of the industrial strength locks, but they also sell biometric locks for office and residential doors, so I guess it just depends on what the design is.
At the end of the day if someone wants in bad enough they will get in.
There's a LOT of public housing buildings in NYC. Doing all that fortification would likely be too expensive to get funding for.
Ken
Speculation...
It may not be worthwhile now and the expense may be too much now, but technology constantly drops in price. DC hires people to sit at the entrance to some of their public housing. At some point it might be too expensive to hire people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Automated supermarket checkouts have employees present to discourage vandalism/theft.
Preventing entry or vandalism of an unmanned is far more complicated and expensive - I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, but it would be very expensive and I rather doubt that NYC would fork up the necessary cash to do it right.
Ken
When has cost ever stopped a liberal state from spending money?
Gosh! I thought I was clear. Just because a cohort is elderly, and I'm 67, doesn't mean each one is an outstanding citizen. Even scumbags can live a long time. A high-rise senior housing project not far from where we used to live was a hotbed of drug traffic, prostitution and property crime.
The senior housing in my area is full of apple cheeked little old ladies from Czech or German backgrounds who still bake for church suppers and family dinners. I think you're trying to fix a problem involving a small group of people with a big blanket. It's dumb.
NYC mayor Bloomberg is proposing that all public housing residents be fingerprinted as a condition of residence in such complexes.
Is this a good idea to fight the higher levels of crime found in such places? - or a "nanny/police state" violation of privacy against people who (for the most part) have done nothing wrong and are simply poor?
I'm especially interested in seeing what Libertarian/Conservatives think on this issue. Many of you complain about the government "overstepping it's bounds" - do you still feel this way when the "targets" are generally minorities in crime-ridden areas? - is that OK then?
When I meet the mother of my children, she was 18, and a senior in high school. I was 23.
She had been living with her mother in public housing in Hopkinsville kentucky. Had been living there for 6 years. She is white, not that it should matter. I meet many other residence while we dated, but her mother still lives there to this day.
Why should she be fingerprinted because her mom hit a hard spell and was raising 4 kids by herslef after their dad walked out?
Public housing is antiquated anyways so I say give them Section 8 vouchers and let them choose where they want to live. Public housing is basically warehousing the poor and basically forcing them to live in neighborhoods where if they did have the economic means they would never live.
Poor people are just "poor" so why are they being treated like criminals and have to be fingerprinted? As if being poor wasn't humilitaing enough.
NYC mayor Bloomberg is proposing that all public housing residents be fingerprinted as a condition of residence in such complexes.
Is this a good idea to fight the higher levels of crime found in such places? - or a "nanny/police state" violation of privacy against people who (for the most part) have done nothing wrong and are simply poor?
I'm especially interested in seeing what Libertarian/Conservatives think on this issue. Many of you complain about the government "overstepping it's bounds" - do you still feel this way when the "targets" are generally minorities in crime-ridden areas? - is that OK then?
Public housing is antiquated anyways so I say give them Section 8 vouchers and let them choose where they want to live. Public housing is basically warehousing the poor and basically forcing them to live in neighborhoods where if they did have the economic means they would never live.
Poor people are just "poor" so why are they being treated like criminals and have to be fingerprinted? As if being poor wasn't humilitaing enough.
Because building and running a low cost apartment building that can house 6 families is cheaper then section 8 vouchers that artificially inflate home prices, which increases rent cost, which means section 8 vouchers have to be increased.
Being poor sucks, been there, done that. But if a house is important to me, I'll find a way to make that happen.
What makes you think LW folks think someone should be drug tested to get a job?
Ken
I never said LW folks thought people should get drug tested for jobs, I said they had no problem with it. they only have problems with drug testing people who receive "free" money they didn't earn. I get drug tested randomly for my job. I choose to EARN money there, so I really have no leg to stand on. my only issue with drug testing welfare recipients is the overall cost seems to be a waste. however, I understand the premise. I do think that if someone is receiving unemployment, and they fail a drug screening for a job, they should automatically be cut off.
I never said LW folks thought people should get drug tested for jobs, I said they had no problem with it. they only have problems with drug testing people who receive "free" money they didn't earn. I get drug tested randomly for my job. I choose to EARN money there, so I really have no leg to stand on. my only issue with drug testing welfare recipients is the overall cost seems to be a waste. however, I understand the premise. I do think that if someone is receiving unemployment, and they fail a drug screening for a job, they should automatically be cut off.
Urinalysis is stupidto stop drug use. Marijuana is the only drug that stays I yiur system for more then three days with urine. Meth, cocaine, heroine, crack, mushrooms, every ither drug is out if yiur system in three days. THC is fat soluble. It takes 30 to 45 days for your body to process fat. And thats one joint. Now if you smoked two a month, now you're really screwed.
Urine drug testing is pointless
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's dumb.
