news NYCHA tenants should be fingerprinted: Bloomberg

[B35 via Church]

You are illogically equating fingerprinting with being arrested.

 

Fingerprinting is one of the most secure methods for confirming one's ID. My laptop has a built in fingerprint scanner that can not only be used to log into the computer in place of a password, but log into secure websites instead of signing in. Where as a key can be replicated and a password guessed, a fingerprint is more complicated.

You can say that, but when someone mentions getting fingerprinted, more often than not, chances are, folks aren't thinkin about anything else but having gotten arrested/a criminal record.... AFAIC, what you're mentioning here is secondary (in terms of the first thing that comes to mind).... This whole bit about NYCHA tenants being fingerprinted I highly doubt is as innocent as the way you're explaining (the pro's for fingerprinting).....

 

Mayor moneybags wants these people in the system "just in case" they do f*** up.... That's the way I see it.

Aint a reason in the world you need to be fingerprinted to reside in some damn public housing....

[realizm]

You are illogically equating fingerprinting with being arrested. Fingerprinting is one of the most secure methods for confirming one's ID. My laptop has a built in fingerprint scanner that can not only be used to log into the computer in place of a password, but log into secure websites instead of signing in. Where as a key can be replicated and a password guessed, a fingerprint is more complicated.

 

Simple question: Would you like it if you was to be fingerprinted simply to reside in your own home? 

 

Yes or no? And WHY.

I have a secuirty guard license.

So? Potential officers have to go through a criminal background check due to their responsibility in up holding the law. Different situation.

[Kamen Rider]

Go dig up a copy of "Back to the Future Part 2". 2015 segment, what do you see? Thumbprints. Everywhere thumbprints. No house keys, you use your thumb, with Stephan Hawking greeting you at the door. No credit cards, you use your thumb, though thankfully a $50 bill isn't pocket change.

 

To answer your question, real, yes, because I want one of those locks. I think they're cool. And, unless you go through the trouble of trying to replicate my thumb, no one is going to get by it. Like I said, I already own a laptop that works on the same principle. It was a birthday gift, and when I saw it had the reader, the first thing I did was enroll my fingers. You seem to be misunderstanding the concept, What you're stomping your feet about is little more than an electronic doorman. The purpose of the fingerprints is for the locks on the doors. the purpose of the locks is to keep people who don't belong there from entering the housing project buildings whenever they want to. Yes there is the workaround of someone letting them it, but then again that could beat even Fort Knox. If you are not a guest of a resident, or trying to conduct some form of business with them, you don't belong wandering their halls. It's trespassing. Legally, even so much as sitting on a random stoop is trespassing. Keys only work when you are holding them. I've left my house without my keys many times. I have yet to forget my thumbs. Also, the more people living in a building, the greater the chance a key could be lost, which can have repercussions for every other resident.

 

Now, I answered you, let me ask you a question, something I asked you the other day but you never bothered to get off your high horse to answer; how would you reduce crime? What would you do to keep drugs and guns off the streets? You're saying the suggested ways are bad, yet I've read just about everything on these subjects here, and I don't see anyone pitching any ideas.

[realizm]

Now, I answered you, let me ask you a question, something I asked you the other day but you never bothered to get off your high horse to answer; how would you reduce crime? What would you do to keep drugs and guns off the streets? You're saying the suggested ways are bad, yet I've read just about everything on these subjects here, and I don't see anyone pitching any ideas.

 

A movie does not validate an ethically wrong process. Thanks for sharing.

 

How do you reduce crime? Not by pushing the Nazi Gestapo type tactics that the NYPD with the support of Bloomberg are trying to deploy here. The ways you've suggested violates constitutional rights! Or were you in the prior thread and I guess suggesting here that the constitution should be overridden, and that martial law should be enacted turning New York City into a police state? 

[Kamen Rider]

Here we go again, you're beating around the bush. I asked you a question, and again you refuse to give me an answer. You start going on about what I said again. How about less with the stall tactics, and more with the answers?

 

I still think you are too caught up in your uber-lib fever to actually understand what's being proposed.

[realizm]

Here we go again, you're beating around the bush. I asked you a question, and again you refuse to give me an answer. You start going on about what I said again. How about less with the stall tactics, and more with the answers?

 

I still think you are too caught up in your uber-lib fever to actually understand what's being proposed.

 

So you support police practices that violates the personal freedoms of others who are law abiding citizens? You support the throwing away of the 14th amendment that supports of due process and equal protection? You support the overriding of the 4th amendment that protects the US citizen from unreasonable seizures and searches? That's what you are saying? Those were questions I repeatedly asked you to no avail, no comments on that. 

 

In regards to the other question: It's not just about stopping crime, it's about doing so without violating constitutional rights or resorting to racial profiling. How many times do I have to repeat myself?  If the NYPD would have their officers go through the process training in regards to sensitivity training and cultural awareness, along with a monitor to oversee activities, then the stop and frisk would probably make sense. But that is not whats happening. That was why we had a class action lawsuit take place that captivated the attention of the entire country. It happened for a reason, and the judge came to the correct conclusion.

 

Again, it's suggestions such as those I have just mentioned that will work, not by employing Stalin like tactics to control the masses by means of totalitarian control and instilling fear into the residents of New York. 

[Kamen Rider]

I support a city where people don't need to be afraid. I support the idea that you should be able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, and to do so safley. "Sensitivinty training" doesn't keep us safe. "cultural awareness" doesn't keep us safe. Being proactive is what keeps us safe. You don't wait for the crime to happen, you PREVENT it from happening.

 

You only have the "consituional" leg to stand on becuase some idiot judge gave it to you for the time being. Though I should point out that rights are NOT absolute. People only insist they are when it suits them. Your rights can be supressed if it is found that excersing your right causes greater harm to someone else than the harm caused to you by not being able to act.

 

The question is what defines a resonable search. The standard is Terry v. Ohio, hence why they are sometimes know as "Terry Stops."  You do not need probible cause to conduct a terry stop, only a reasonable susption that the subject is invovled in a crime.

 

If you think about it, it is instilling fear into people. fear into the criminals who know if they walk the streets with weapons, they will get caught. On a wiretape used in conjuction with a major gun bust the other day, you can hear on of the gun runners saying that he refused to bring his load to the city, becuase of stop and frisk. He knew he would get caught. Illegal guns not making it to our streets. not being used to kill our neighbors. in 10 years, 8,000 illegal guns have been pulled through stop and frisk. 8,000. That's not counting the knifes and anything people had on them that they shouldn't. Think off all lives and livleyhoods that have been saved.

 

It's because of being proactive that crime is down in the first place. and now everyone wants to go back to the old ways, just cause crime is down now. You go on a diet to loose wieght. If you reach your goal, and then go back to your old habbits, you end up right back where your started. If you activly keep your habbits in check, you don't get the weight back. Same deal with public safety, you let things slide, and crime goes right back up, and the city goes right back down.

 

Let me tell you a story. When I was a toddler, my parents were late picking me up from my grandparents house. Dad double parks the car, and mom runs out to get me. A junkie sees my mom run out, and reached for a gun, thinking her a cop. fortunily, when he saw my mom wasn't actually headed in his direction, he stopped, and went on his merry way. had he kept reaching, my dad, who was a cop, porbibly would have shot him. Mom gets me, and for a few years, they activily considered leaving the city. It was only becuase crime dropped that I didn't end up growing up in the ass end of Dutchess County. How many others here still live in the city because it became safer? How many of us get to call oursevels true New Yorkers? How many more have joined our ranks? For 30 years the city was a dying, decaying husk. Now it is vibrant, alive.

 

That's what I support.

[CenSin]

I support a city where people don't need to be afraid. I support the idea that you should be able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, and to do so safley.

Apparently, everyone else will be afraid of the government and will not be able to go wherever, do whatever, whenever without arousing suspicion. They will comprise the proles with a select few in the outer party. I'm guessing you will be in the inner party.

[realizm]

I support a city where people don't need to be afraid. I support the idea that you should be able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, and to do so safley. "Sensitivinty training" doesn't keep us safe. "cultural awareness" doesn't keep us safe. Being proactive is what keeps us safe. You don't wait for the crime to happen, you PREVENT it from happening.

 

The problem again is that all minorities pretty much.... really people in the low income bracket in general do feel threatened by the policies supported by City Hall. As I stated before 87% of searches against latinos and blacks ends up inconclusive or in the determination that they were not involved in  crime. Also consider that the rate of minorities subject to stop and frisk are not in the majority by demographics in the Big Apple.

 

If the police officers were indeed retrained in cultural awareness and sensitivity training then law abiding citizens will not be afraid. Your notion of people not being afraid and wanting to be safe from criminals is understandable. However those who are more subjected to stop and frisk, or be forced to be fingerprinted equally are in for not fearing cops. The police needs to do their jobs, that's clear, but the approach is wrong in the sense that it violates, again their constitutional rights. The judge is not in the wrong here, she must defend our constitutional rights. The 4th and 14th amendments are being violated. It shoots down the notion that all men are created equal.

 

Furthermore, I am not clear on why you rather see people's constitutional rights being violated for the sake of the fingerprinting of people in low income housing or with the past preemptive methods enacted by the NYPD involving stop and frisk. 

 

Now why are you stating that cultural awareness does not deter crime? I would like for you to answer that question for me also. Training such as this kills the problem with racial profiling. If that can be eradicated, then the stop and frisk policy will work better in the sense that perhaps the NYPD will not be viewed in a negative light. As rashes in incidents of crime occurs, people in poorer neighborhoods will not be as afraid to communicate with the NYPD to take down the gangbangers.

 

 

Apparently, everyone else will be afraid of the government and will not be able to go wherever, do whatever, whenever without arousing suspicion. They will comprise the proles with a select few in the outer party. I'm guessing you will be in the inner party.

 

And that's exactly my take on it. 

 

 

And, what....

 

Furthermore, it aint about what law enforcement would "do" with them... AFAIC, it's the fact that they would have them - for people that haven't even been admitted to any jail or prison or whatever.... Why would law enforcement (or the feds or the state or whoever) even need your prints if that's the case.....

 

I understand all that... I'm not exactly sure why you're even telling me this, or the fact that you have a security license, as it relates to what I originally said.... Again, I already stated that there are other reasons as to why someone would get fingerprinted..... It's like you're posting about your situation to try to show somehow that there are other reasons for getting fingerprinted.....

 

That's what I would like to know.

 

 

All fair point Realizm.Its as if he doesn't care a bit for the majority of the people under his juresdiction.

Exactly.

[realizm]

There are other methods of restricting those with a criminal record from entering, so I fail to see why treating everyone like a criminal would be anymore efficient.

 

Also, on a side note I wouldn't be surprised if many of the supporters of stop and frisk supported this as well, under the reasoning of keeping out the "thugs"...

Apparently that is where the debate is going in politics by politicians and the general public. Debunking the fact that the US constitution must be upheld because it is the foundation upon which American society was built upon. If it wasn't for that we would not be in a democracy this country would be a police state. I would imagine even the most hard core far right extremists need to appreciate that.

 

Let me add that all the mayoral candidates are appalled by what Bloomberg are proposing here, again, even Christine Quinn. With reactions like that it is apparent something is wrong here, obviosly, with this fingerprinting policy which is a slap in the face to the poor.

[Kamen Rider]

The judge was wrong, the cops HAVE a constitutional right to stop anyone if they think they're involved in a crime. It's called a terry stop. Carrying an illegal weapon is a crime. I just told you morons that.

 

And you still refuse to answer my question. How would you keep crime down? Mostly cause it seems to me none of you have an answer. Your more worried about someone's feelings vs someone else's life. You going to tell the thousands of people still alive thanks to proactive policing they don't deserve to live because someone else's rights were violated? That's what you're all doing right now!

[realizm]

Put more cops on the streets. The cops will have to be trained in terms of cultural awareness and sensitivity training as well. That's the answer you are not acknowledging. I answered you question three times. That will work, not by racial profiling. Understood?

 

And watch your mouth. First you insult B35 via Church by calling him illogical now you are calling anyone who oppose your take on this morons.

 

 

And, what....

 

Furthermore, it aint about what law enforcement would "do" with them... AFAIC, it's the fact that they would have them - for people that haven't even been admitted to any jail or prison or whatever.... Why would law enforcement (or the feds or the state or whoever) even need your prints if that's the case.....

 

I understand all that... I'm not exactly sure why you're even telling me this, or the fact that you have a security license, as it relates to what I originally said.... Again, I already stated that there are other reasons as to why someone would get fingerprinted..... It's like you're posting about your situation to try to show somehow that there are other reasons for getting fingerprinted.....

You are illogically equating fingerprinting with being arrested. Fingerprinting is one of the most secure methods for confirming one's ID. My laptop has a built in fingerprint scanner that can not only be used to log into the computer in place of a password, but log into secure websites instead of signing in. Where as a key can be replicated and a password guessed, a fingerprint is more complicated.

 

 

 

 

The judge was wrong, the cops HAVE a constitutional right to stop anyone if they think they're involved in a crime. It's called a terry stop. Carrying an illegal weapon is a crime. I just told you morons that.

 

And you still refuse to answer my question. How would you keep crime down? Mostly cause it seems to me none of you have an answer. Your more worried about someone's feelings vs someone else's life. You going to tell the thousands of people still alive thanks to proactive policing they don't deserve to live because someone else's rights were violated? That's what you're all doing right now!

[Q10 Airport]

So you support police practices that violates the personal freedoms of others who are law abiding citizens? You support the throwing away of the 14th amendment that supports of due process and equal protection? You support the overriding of the 4th amendment that protects the US citizen from unreasonable seizures and searches? That's what you are saying? Those were questions I repeatedly asked you to no avail, no comments on that. 

 

In regards to the other question: It's not just about stopping crime, it's about doing so without violating constitutional rights or resorting to racial profiling. How many times do I have to repeat myself?  If the NYPD would have their officers go through the process training in regards to sensitivity training and cultural awareness, along with a monitor to oversee activities, then the stop and frisk would probably make sense. But that is not whats happening. That was why we had a class action lawsuit take place that captivated the attention of the entire country. It happened for a reason, and the judge came to the correct conclusion.

 

Again, it's suggestions such as those I have just mentioned that will work, not by employing Stalin like tactics to control the masses by means of totalitarian control and instilling fear into the residents of New York. 

 

I support a city where people don't need to be afraid. I support the idea that you should be able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, and to do so safley. "Sensitivinty training" doesn't keep us safe. "cultural awareness" doesn't keep us safe. Being proactive is what keeps us safe. You don't wait for the crime to happen, you PREVENT it from happening.

 

You only have the "consituional" leg to stand on becuase some idiot judge gave it to you for the time being. Though I should point out that rights are NOT absolute. People only insist they are when it suits them. Your rights can be supressed if it is found that excersing your right causes greater harm to someone else than the harm caused to you by not being able to act.

 

The question is what defines a resonable search. The standard is Terry v. Ohio, hence why they are sometimes know as "Terry Stops."  You do not need probible cause to conduct a terry stop, only a reasonable susption that the subject is invovled in a crime.

 

If you think about it, it is instilling fear into people. fear into the criminals who know if they walk the streets with weapons, they will get caught. On a wiretape used in conjuction with a major gun bust the other day, you can hear on of the gun runners saying that he refused to bring his load to the city, becuase of stop and frisk. He knew he would get caught. Illegal guns not making it to our streets. not being used to kill our neighbors. in 10 years, 8,000 illegal guns have been pulled through stop and frisk. 8,000. That's not counting the knifes and anything people had on them that they shouldn't. Think off all lives and livleyhoods that have been saved.

 

It's because of being proactive that crime is down in the first place. and now everyone wants to go back to the old ways, just cause crime is down now. You go on a diet to loose wieght. If you reach your goal, and then go back to your old habbits, you end up right back where your started. If you activly keep your habbits in check, you don't get the weight back. Same deal with public safety, you let things slide, and crime goes right back up, and the city goes right back down.

 

Let me tell you a story. When I was a toddler, my parents were late picking me up from my grandparents house. Dad double parks the car, and mom runs out to get me. A junkie sees my mom run out, and reached for a gun, thinking her a cop. fortunily, when he saw my mom wasn't actually headed in his direction, he stopped, and went on his merry way. had he kept reaching, my dad, who was a cop, porbibly would have shot him. Mom gets me, and for a few years, they activily considered leaving the city. It was only becuase crime dropped that I didn't end up growing up in the ass end of Dutchess County. How many others here still live in the city because it became safer? How many of us get to call oursevels true New Yorkers? How many more have joined our ranks? For 30 years the city was a dying, decaying husk. Now it is vibrant, alive.

 

That's what I support.

 

The basic practice of stop and frisk is constitutional by itself. The Terry v. Ohio case in 1968 determined that stop and frisk was constitutional, provided that the police has reasonable suspicion that the person is a threat to society.

 

What's not constitutional is the fact that the "reasonable suspicion" in the Bloomberg/Kelly era seems to be that your skin is a certain color and that you dress a certain way. My brother, who is entering into the 9th grade, has classmates of color who have been stopped and frisked several times, and not once has any of these people been found doing anything criminal. Clearly, if there were reasonable suspicion, the accuracy rate of stop and frisk would be a little bit higher than it currently is.

 

If stop and frisk really kept the city safe, why have we seen increases in major felony offenses over the last couple of years? Here are the statistics to prove my point:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/citywide_historical_seven_major_felony_offenses_2000-2012.pdf

[CenSin]

If stop and frisk really kept the city safe, why have we seen increases in major felony offenses over the last couple of years? Here are the statistics to prove my point:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/citywide_historical_seven_major_felony_offenses_2000-2012.pdf

The data looks quite stable to me. In comparison to the overall figures, felonies have been declining. Since being a mayor in 2002, the felonies have decreased by 25% to 33%, and I'm not seeing a convincing trend that crime is increasing. I'm not saying that racial/socioeconomic profiling is a major contributing factor to this decade-long decline in felonies. In fact, it's likely that most of the credit goes to factors that the media has found too boring to pick up for the front page. In a few years, we'll see if this "crime is rising" trend holds any water. For now, this data doesn't do anything for or against racial/socioeconomic profiling, as (in my opinion) it doesn't have as much punch on the crime rate as Bloomberg would like us to believe.

 

The basic practice of stop and frisk is constitutional by itself. The Terry v. Ohio case in 1968 determined that stop and frisk was constitutional, provided that the police has reasonable suspicion that the person is a threat to society.

 

What's not constitutional is the fact that the "reasonable suspicion" in the Bloomberg/Kelly era seems to be that your skin is a certain color and that you dress a certain way. My brother, who is entering into the 9th grade, has classmates of color who have been stopped and frisked several times, and not once has any of these people been found doing anything criminal. Clearly, if there were reasonable suspicion, the accuracy rate of stop and frisk would be a little bit higher than it currently is.

+1

[bobtehpanda]

The judge was wrong, the cops HAVE a constitutional right to stop anyone if they think they're involved in a crime. It's called a terry stop. Carrying an illegal weapon is a crime. I just told you morons that.

 

And you still refuse to answer my question. How would you keep crime down? Mostly cause it seems to me none of you have an answer. Your more worried about someone's feelings vs someone else's life. You going to tell the thousands of people still alive thanks to proactive policing they don't deserve to live because someone else's rights were violated? That's what you're all doing right now!

 

The judge said that the criterion being used to stop and frisk people was unconstitutional, and has appointed a lawyer to ensure compliance with existing laws. Keep in mind that the stop and frisk program was not shut down.

 

As she said, forced confessions and warrantless searches also reduce crime, but are illegal, and all crime tactics must be used on the basis of their constitutionality and not if they reduced crime.

 

IMO, civil forfeiture is a bigger problem, but no one's targeting that big fish anytime soon.

[Turbo19]

The judge was wrong, the cops HAVE a constitutional right to stop anyone if they think they're involved in a crime. It's called a terry stop. Carrying an illegal weapon is a crime. I just told you morons that.

 

And you still refuse to answer my question. How would you keep crime down? Mostly cause it seems to me none of you have an answer. Your more worried about someone's feelings vs someone else's life. You going to tell the thousands of people still alive thanks to proactive policing they don't deserve to live because someone else's rights were violated? That's what you're all doing right now!

I was really looking to stay out of this discussion, but I guess that didn't really work out.

 

Typical Terry stops are constitutional, but they generally don't involve actually frisking the individual, and even the pat downs aren't allowed without individual consent.

 

And moving on to your last point, crime won't rise all of a sudden if the stop and frisk is ceased, as most of the people stopped weren't involved with criminal activity to begin with. Stop acting so damn paranoid.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

I was really looking to stay out of this discussion, but I guess that didn't really work out.

 

Typical Terry stops are constitutional, but they generally don't involve actually frisking the individual, and even the pat downs aren't allowed without individual consent.

 

And moving on to your last point, crime won't rise all of a sudden if the stop and frisk is ceased, as most of the people stopped weren't involved with criminal activity to begin with. Stop acting so damn paranoid.

Ditto. If you are stopped you have to be reasonably suspected of a crime, and you cannot be searched or frisked without a warrant or consent.

 

I'm interested though as to what would happen to someone who knew their shit, asked the officers why they were being detained and refused to consent to a search.

[Grand Concourse]

I'll weigh in on the fingerprint thing. In the theme parks in florida like Universal Orlando and Busch gardens tampa, they make everyone scan their finger on the fingerprint reader to make sure the person who has the ticket cannot just pass the ticket off for someone else to use. Now I'm not saying it sounds fair, but I don't see people raising hell about that. This is what I think Bloomberg is getting at: make sure the people that actually lives in the buildings can get in and keep those that don't out. The main problem is justifying the cost. Let's face it, if anyone gets a key, they can just copy it and get in. You can't really copy a fingerprint unless you were targeting someone to get in.

What they really need though is a security guard at every entrance to make sure only residents are coming in.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea.  No one is forcing these people to live in public housing.  If they don't like it they can move elsewhere but they're living on taxpayer dollars.  

[Turbo19]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea.  No one is forcing these people to live in public housing.  If they don't like it they can move elsewhere but they're living on taxpayer dollars.  

On the contrary, I view this as a form of discrimination towards those earning a low income. It's bad enough when you have very few places, if any at all, to fall back on besides public housing. Treating residents as criminals just adds insult to injury.

 

Furthermore, if I were an NYC resident I would not want my tax dollars or any other city funds going towards this program.

[realizm]

On the contrary, I view this as a form of discrimination towards those earning a low income. It's bad enough when you have very few places, if any at all, to fall back on besides public housing. Treating residents as criminals just adds insult to injury.

 

Furthermore, if I were an NYC resident I would not want my tax dollars or any other city funds going towards this program.

 

Pretty much how I feel as a taxpayer. Two way street where it comes to hard working citizens having to pay their dues from income earned. Excellent point.

 

Even as VG8's point is acknowledged and respected as far as I see it, I feel the same way you do, indeed.

[bobtehpanda]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea.  No one is forcing these people to live in public housing.  If they don't like it they can move elsewhere but they're living on taxpayer dollars.  

 

With that logic, we should also fingerprint everybody using the schools, public hospitals, and post offices, because if they don't like it they can take their business elsewhere.

 

Infringing on rights is a slippery slope - take rights away for one group and then those rights for everyone else are endangered as well.

[Kamen Rider]

What they really need though is a security guard at every entrance to make sure only residents are coming in.

 

Guards are human. When I was getting my license, they kept bombarding the class with "Guards gone wrong" stories.

[Astoria Line]

How many of you here have lived in the "projects" before?

 

Now speaking as someone who lived in public housing for 15 years, I feel that this program is rather pointless. I think Bloomberg is also finger pointing and being prejudiced towards those who live in public housing. There are actually very many law abiding, hard working people who live in public housing that have nothing to do with any crime there (my family fell in that category), is there a reason to punish them with this because of a few bad apples? I also feel there is finger pointing because of the stigma that all projects produce all the crime here, which isn't the case. Oh yeah, may I also add, if finger print scanners were added here, they'd be broken and defiled quickly, so that in itself makes the reason to put it as moot.

 

Now some of you people say, it is tax dollars going to these projects and these people should be finger scanned because of it? ....really? ......really now? As bobtehpanda said, you might as well do that for all the services that we use with those taxpayer dollars with that backwards ideology.

 

Most other points that I agree with have been stated by Turbo and realizm.

 

@GC : with the guards.. I believe there were tax dollars removed from the community forces and given all to the NYPD 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

On the contrary, I view this as a form of discrimination towards those earning a low income. It's bad enough when you have very few places, if any at all, to fall back on besides public housing. Treating residents as criminals just adds insult to injury.

 

Furthermore, if I were an NYC resident I would not want my tax dollars or any other city funds going towards this program.

And whose fault is that? You can't dictate how things go when you're living off of someone else's dime and not contributing for your own upkeep.  Public housing is supposed to be temporary and many of these people use it as a permanent set up, draining the city of scarce monies that could be better used elsewhere, like hiring more cops or more teachers.  This program would eliminate the waste of having to constantly replace broken locks, and allow savings to be used elsewhere.

 

With that logic, we should also fingerprint everybody using the schools, public hospitals, and post offices, because if they don't like it they can take their business elsewhere.

 

Infringing on rights is a slippery slope - take rights away for one group and then those rights for everyone else are endangered as well.

Public housing is a completely different situation from public schools, post offices and so on and you know it.  These people are choosing to live there.  No one is forcing them to.  I compare it to the auto companies that got bailouts off of taxpayers due to their reckless behavior.  They wanted the money and that money came with stipulations and they either accepted them or they got money from elsewhere.  Same thing here.  Don't like the rules of the housing projects, well go shack up elsewhere.  In fact I'd argue they'd be better off living with family until they can do better for themselves, rather than draining the system.

 

How many of you here have lived in the "projects" before?

 

Now speaking as someone who lived in public housing for 15 years, I feel that this program is rather pointless. I think Bloomberg is also finger pointing and being prejudiced towards those who live in public housing. There are actually very many law abiding, hard working people who live in public housing that have nothing to do with any crime there (my family fell in that category), is there a reason to punish them with this because of a few bad apples? I also feel there is finger pointing because of the stigma that all projects produce all the crime here, which isn't the case. Oh yeah, may I also add, if finger print scanners were added here, they'd be broken and defiled quickly, so that in itself makes the reason to put it as moot.

 

Now some of you people say, it is tax dollars going to these projects and these people should be finger scanned because of it? ....really? ......really now? As bobtehpanda said, you might as well do that for all the services that we use with those taxpayer dollars with that backwards ideology.

 

Most other points that I agree with have been stated by Turbo and realizm.

 

@GC : with the guards.. I believe there were tax dollars removed from the community forces and given all to the NYPD 

And that's the problem with public housing.  Tax dollars constantly wasted by people who are uncivilized and constantly break down everything.  The biggest mistake that "gubment" ever made...