• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bloomberg: Those in public housing need to be finger printed.

DCal430

Diamond Member
NEW YORK — New York City public housing tenants should be fingerprinted as a way of keeping criminals out of their buildings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested Friday, adding that the buildings often had broken locks that allowed trespassers in.

His remark appeared offhanded, and the city is not working on a program that would have building doors only open by a resident's fingerprint. But the comment, which comes just days after a key Bloomberg public safety measure was deemed unconstitutional, immediately drew criticism from several candidates battling to be City Hall's next occupant.

Bloomberg, speaking during his weekly appearance on WOR Radio, was musing that a court decision this week to limit the police tactic known as stop-and-frisk may make it more difficult for officers to protect New York City Housing Authority buildings.

Bloomberg believes stop-and-frisk has driven down crime. Its critics say the measure – which allows police to stop people deemed acting suspiciously – unfairly discriminates against black and Latinos, the same groups that make up the bulk of public housing residents.

Within an hour, mayoral hopeful Bill Thompson derided the fingerprinting idea as "disrespectful" and "disgraceful."

"Just like stop-and-frisk, this is another direct act of treating minorities like criminals," said Thompson, a former city comptroller, in a statement. "Mayor Bloomberg wants to make New Yorkers feel like prisoners in their own homes."

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who has moved to the top of Democratic primary polls, called Bloomberg "out of touch" and urged the mayor to instead install security cameras within the buildings, which house more than 400,000 people.

Critics also said the idea echoed the Bloomberg administration's 2012 plan to require fingerprints from food stamp applicants. Gov. Andrew Cuomo banned that idea.

Bloomberg's spokesman later explained that the city is planning to install electronic key pads and key card locks on buildings to improve security. He also noted that fingerprint scan technology is becoming more common and is expected to be coming to smartphones.

The city is fighting U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin's ruling imposing reforms on the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. She also has ordered changes to an NYPD patrol program inside private buildings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/fingerprints-nycha_n_3769213.html

Not sure what to think, I might be O.K if it was required of everyone, since then we wouldn't have this discrimination against the poor risk. But not this, were only the poor need to be finger printed.
 
I'm patiently waiting for the good mayor to institute a policy of doing DNA screening of all schoolchildren, and (of course) anyone who may come in contact with them... Even in passing on the street. "To Protect Our Future".

That would, of course, necessitate sampling and registration of everyone living in, or entering the city. Random spot checks to ensure compliance. Full body searches and on the spot sampling of any unregistered individual. Tattoo'd bar codes on the forearm being cheaper than ID cards, and not subject to loss.

To be carefully managed by the NYPD, of course.
 
Its an interesting psychological issue...

Many people seem to think that biometrics are their private attributes, but the courts have been pretty consistent that you have no right to hide your biometric attributes.

All a fingerprint reader does is allow the city (i.e. the landlord) to authenticate that you are who you claim to be. If you are living in government subsidized housing, I think that the government has the legal right to authenticate you.

If a resident doesn't like it, they have the right to leave.

Last time I read the constitution, it guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not the right to government subsidized housing.

If you don't care for that, you are welcome to campaign for an amendment to change the constitution. You are also welcome to allow the people in government subsidized housing that don't want to authentic themselves to move in with you.

Uno
 
Last edited:
Since public housing assistance is not an entitlement

Change "public housing assistance" to just about anything, one addition to the list at a time, voilà, everyone's finger prints are on the national database eventually.

Collecting finger prints "to help prevent crime" is a really poor excuse for making an unrelated demand of people who need assistance.
 
Last edited:
If you are going to live in public housing (i.e. housing you AND I are paying for) then I'm ok with you giving up certain "liberties". After all, there should be a trade off if you are living off the government for free.

Maybe this will give them incentive to get off their ass support themselves. Nah, probably won't though...
 
Change "public housing assistance" to just about anything, one addition to the list at a time, voilà, everyone's finger prints are on the national database eventually.

Collecting finger prints "to help prevent crime" is a really poor excuse for making an unrelated demand of people who need assistance.

This isn't that and you know it but nice straw man though.

They're applying for a program. I see no issue with requiring a background check prior admission to said program.

Or are background checks unconstitutional?

And lol at DCal as usual. There's a homeless guy on the corner from my work. How about I send him to your house to exercise his fundamental right? Please reply with your address and I'll buy him a bus ticket.
 
This isn't that and you know it but nice straw man though.

They're applying for a program. I see no issue with requiring a background check prior admission to said program.

Or are background checks unconstitutional?

And lol at DCal as usual. There's a homeless guy on the corner from my work. How about I send him to your house to exercise his fundamental right? Please reply with your address and I'll buy him a bus ticket.





Did you even read the article? This isn't about applying for public housing, it's for biometric door locks that only allow residents to enter.

As for Flowertr, so getting public money is grounds to lose your constitutional rights? (Not that biometric data is necessarily covered per unokitty's post) It's a ridiculous notion and one you should remember next time you do your taxes. :whiste:
 
Did you even read the article? This isn't about applying for public housing, it's for biometric door locks that only allow residents to enter.

As for Flowertr, so getting public money is grounds to lose your constitutional rights? (Not that biometric data is necessarily covered per unokitty's post) It's a ridiculous notion and one you should remember next time you do your taxes. :whiste:

I did and I was going a step beyond it, a way to legitimately obtain their finger prints without violating their rights.
 
This isn't that and you know it but nice straw man though.

What straw man? The idea of those needing public housing also needing to be finger printed is like saying they should go around wearing yellow shoes or something; it's utterly pointless. AFAIK there isn't a finger print scanner out there that can't be fooled very easily. The aim of such an exercise would obviously be data collection.

They're applying for a program. I see no issue with requiring a background check prior admission to said program.

You call taking finger prints a "background check"? How are they a background check?
 
What straw man? The idea of those needing public housing also needing to be finger printed is like saying they should go around wearing yellow shoes or something; it's utterly pointless. AFAIK there isn't a finger print scanner out there that can't be fooled very easily. The aim of such an exercise would obviously be data collection.



You call taking finger prints a "background check"? How are they a background check?

Obviously the fingerprint itself isn't a background check, but a required background check is a good way to obtain it.
 
The problem with biometric door locks is that once the door is opened, that individual can let anyone in. I wouldn't expect politicians to understand anything that basic.

So, it's just more bloviating by the Little General.
 
Sounds like more bureaucracy, in this whirlpool of tax dollars i'd rather it go to building more housing.

Not all together opposed to it.

Bloomberg is still an asshole though.
 
I see many here would rather see children sleeping in a ditch, in freezing snow, dying from the exposure to extreme cold, than have the government offer them needed housing.
 
Back
Top