Bloomberg: No Privacy For Poor People
Bloomberg wants to fingerprint public housing residents. From CBSNY:
The mayor wants to fingerprint more than 600,000 people who live in public housing. He said it would be done to make the projects safer.Bloomberg was responding to questions about Federal Judge Shira Schendlin's ruling on the stop-and-frisk program when the topic shifted to security and the New York City Housing Authority. Bloomberg said there has to be a way to make the projects safer.
"Five percent of our population lives in NYCHA housing, 20 percent of the crime is in NYCHA housing - numbers like that. And we've just got to find some way to keep bringing crime down there. And we have a whole group of police officers assigned to NYCHA housing," Bloomberg said. "The people that live there, most of them, want more police protection. They want more people. If you have strangers walking in the halls of your apartment building, don't you want somebody to stop and say, 'Who are you, why are you here?'"
But residents who live within the confines of NYCHA buildings said the mayor's fingerprinting idea goes too far.
"That's like invading someone's privacy or something. Why you want to fingerprint somebody? It is bad enough you get arrested, you get finger printed, so why you want to fingerprint us? Now Bloomberg needs to get a job. Get out of here already. He's done. Bloomberg is done," Chelsea Houses resident Nino Alayon said.
"Why? For what? We live here all these years, I mean, what seems to be the problem? This is not jail," added Deborah Gatling of the Chelsea Houses.
Notice a pattern here? The government treating citizens unproven to be guilty of anything as criminals? Like at the airports. Those of us who fly are prepared to "assume the position" to be groped by a prison guard. (Remember to ask nicely for a change of gloves before they probe your rectum.)
If they want privacy, they need to stop being subsidized by the taxpayer. (shrug)
Oschisms at August 18, 2013 2:53 PM
If they want privacy, drivers need to stop using taxpayer-funded roads. Otherwise expect to be pulled over and cavity-searched at the officer's whim.
(shrug).
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 18, 2013 3:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/18/bloomberg_no_pr.html#comment-3863602">comment from OschismsFeel free to let us know where in the Constitution that it says people trade their privacy when they live in subsidized housing.
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2013 3:13 PM
"Feel free to let us know where in the Constitution that it says people trade their privacy when they live in subsidized housing."
Better yet; feel free to tell us where in the constitution it says that folks are entitled to taxpayer-subsidized anything? Let alone with no strings attached?
Charles at August 18, 2013 3:39 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/18/bloomberg_no_pr.html#comment-3863642">comment from CharlesPeople have been given this by legislators democratically voted in. I am libertarian and for helping the mentally ill, elderly, learning disabled, but not for helping able-bodied people with taxpayer dollars. People who cannot live in a standard that is humane in New York should live elsewhere. I eventually moved. Los Angeles is not cheap, but New York is outrageous.
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2013 3:41 PM
I am all for drug testing welfare recipients and any number of other reforms to taxpayer funded lifestyle subsidies, but even I find this ridiculous. They've gone mad-they know the public will just up and accept whatever restrictions they want to impose now. We'll be wearing stars on our arms soon.
If the people in subsidized housing want to be safer, they could start cooperating with the cops instead of clamming up and closing ranks and refusing to tell on anyone, all the while bemoaning the lack of effective policework for them.
momof4 at August 18, 2013 4:25 PM
Gog, I can't agree with your argument. Oschisms suggested that if they want privacy, they shouldn't live in government subsidized housing. The government is paying for the house, it's the government's house. The person living there is doing so with permission. They own nothing. The government has the right to conduct a search of its own house.
You countered with the suggestion that that would be tantamount to subjecting drivers to random searches because they use government subsidized roads.
If they were driving government subsidized vehicles, I would agree with you. But the government is only subsidizing the road. The vehicle is still private property. Which is why the analogy fails. The government is not the owner of the vehicle. It's only the owner of the road.
Patrick at August 18, 2013 4:58 PM
I think if this were coming from someone other than nanny Bloomberg it would not get the resistance it is getting. I really have to laugh at the resident quoted: "It is bad enough you get arrested, you get finger printed . . ." Well, is he suggesting that being fingerprinted is the bad part? or being arrested is the bad part? Such is the mentality of too many living on the tax-payers money. "How dare they expect me to follow their rules!"
As for fingerprinting public-housing residents, many other states already have such requirements in place. Teachers in many states already have to be fingerprinted as part of the agreement for working in public schools. That's a part of the agreement - you work for the state or live off of tax-payers money you get fingerprinted. You don't want to be fingerprinted? Then don't work for the state or demand tax-payers subsidize you.
Fingerprinting is not really an invasion of privacy as many here seem to think it is. Seriously guys, having your fingerprints record is NOT the same as being groped in your privates. It is not the same as being stopped on the highway and having your car, without just cause, being searched. It really isn't the same!
Charles at August 18, 2013 5:32 PM
>> drivers need to stop using taxpayer-funded roads.
As a driver I pay a registration tax for my vehicle every year. I also pay taxes when I buy gas. Taxes non-drivers do not pay. So your point is...?
Matt at August 18, 2013 6:27 PM
There is a difference from an active contract to oversee your child than I want to live in government subsidized housing.
This is the other side of the argument.
Part of the problem is the prohibition on drugs that is going on. And many other other laws that have been put on the books that aren't needed.
They go in and raid to find the guy that has kilos of grass, coke, etc. But if pot were legal, they wouldn't have to sweat it.
I just found out tonight that they passed some sort of anti-burn law in my neck of the woods. I live out in a rural area. I quite don't care.
If they come by and try to charge me with it I'm probably going to go to jail because I'll rip up the ticket in front of the deputy.
Jim P. at August 18, 2013 7:17 PM
"People have been given this by legislators democratically voted in"
Yes, and the TSA was established by those same legislators, democratically voted in.
Want public benefits, and public commercial transportation?
It all comes with strings attached.
Pot meet kettle.
Isab at August 18, 2013 8:35 PM
"But the government is only subsidizing the road. The vehicle is still private property"
The property inside the home is private property. According to your logic then they do not have a right to go through it.
And if you argue that it was bought with taxpayer money and it is government property that is not how it works. Some might be things gifted from outside sources, bought without taxpayer money etc. How do you determine which is which? Also, even things given from the government no longer legally belong to the giver.
One more thing, if you argue that it is because their private property is stored in a government facility thus it has a right to be searched-then you are ok with postal workers going through your mail. If a private storage facility has to get a warrant- so should the government.
Ppen at August 18, 2013 10:09 PM
" The government is paying for the house, it's the government's house. The person living there is doing so with permission. They own nothing"
By the way even if I live in someone's house rent free and with their permission they have no right to search my things or take any of my property. It is illegal.
I also have to be given a 30 day notice to leave, I can't just be kicked out.
I hold the government accountable to these same laws.
Ppen at August 18, 2013 10:14 PM
Ppen: The property inside the home is private property. According to your logic then they do not have a right to go through it.
They have a right to know what's in their home. Their roof, their rules.
Ppen: I also have to be given a 30 day notice to leave, I can't just be kicked out.
Depends upon the state you live in. In Florida, you have three days to get out after an eviction. And if you haven't established residency (for instance, by receiving mail at this place), you can be removed immediately.
Patrick at August 18, 2013 11:59 PM
The sad fact is, unti the people who live in the projects decide they want it to be safer, nothing the government does is going to make any difference.
Cousin Dave at August 19, 2013 7:41 AM
Patrick, my point isn't that there's a distinction of sorts between government housing and government roads, but that housing safety = pee tests is not that far from driving safety = warrantless body cavity searches.
Because recipients of government services, like welfare, OWE the taxpayers their pee to keep their neighbors safe, and recipients of government services, like highways, OWE the taxpayers their pee/fluids/nether orifices to keep their neighboring drivers safe.
It's not splitting hairs, it's setting precedents. "Whaddya mean you can't be randomly searched on a government-funded highway? We search people's bodily fluids in government-subsidized housing, and that's their FUCKING HOME. You're just in your car."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 19, 2013 9:48 AM
And yes, I know this program is fingerprints and not pee.
One step at a time.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 19, 2013 10:13 AM
And yes, I know this program is fingerprints and not pee.
One step at a time.
Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 19, 2013 10:13 AM
I agree Gog, It is a slippery slope, and we now know, theough the NSA exposure that the law means exactly zip.
But if you read the entire article, you will find, that fingerprints, were suggested because of the possibility of putting a biometric reader on the door to the housing unit so people who were not residents could not get in.
Isab at August 19, 2013 10:51 AM
Leave a comment