I 'get' exactly what you are saying.  I don't think you're 'getting' what I'm saying though.  I was pointing out that it is neither here nor there to suggest not using DNA as a form of digital control just because some would get around it; just like it would be ridiculous to scrap DNA controls in the physical realm because some criminals get around them there.

To quote myself from my earlier post:

"Using DNA isn't a foolproof system, it is however better than nothing. Which is exactly what we have when it comes to digital-accountability.........nothing."

Correct, but is that reason to stop using DNA?  No.  Which makes the system useful even if not infallible.

DNA checks for accountability?  How is this any different than simply requiring a password?  

I mean really really think about it...in theory, passwords work perfectly....I create my password and only I know it...so, when I enter my password, there is no doubt that it's me....

Of course, in practice this system isn't perfect....people can steal passwords, hack them, tell them to someone else, etc...

What does DNA do to solve this?  Nothing other than raise the threshold of difficulty to "hack"...sure, at first it would be really difficult to pull off illegitimately...but people's DNA is now going to have to be stored somewhere, and it's going to be just as vulnerable to infiltration as stored passwords....a few months, and someone is going to have a way to mimic someone else's DNA and pretend to be them...

Any society that can afford to implement "DNA checking" on every digital device and have it work accurately and quickly is also a society where certain people will be capable of "faking" or synthesizing DNA...

I'll acknowledge that DNA is harder to "crack" than a mere password...but in the end it doesn't end piracy to guarantee accountability...

Criminals carry swords, the police carry shields...police carry shields, the criminals carry guns...the criminals carry guns, the police wear bullet proof vests...the police wear bullet proof vests, the criminals use armor-piercing rounds...

It is a never ending process...doesn't mean you should just give up, but there comes a point where you have to stop and think if maybe your methods are too costly or too invasive (and DNA is both of those)... 

I think what we're pointing out is that in order to use DNA for digital tracking, you have to have some access to it, like a fingerprint or a password. That means that people have to be put on file, no exceptions. This would not be accepted from a freedom of liberties point of view. Short of that, there is no DNA to be used. I send an e-mail. You track it to my account and that may be tied to my ISP, but then you have to prove that I actually sent it. Yes, my keyboard has DNA, but it also has the DNA of three or more people. Shadow of a doubt comes in and a jury finds me not guilty. So unless you plan on making people give their DNA to a national registry, it doesn't make sense that it would contribute at all to digital crime solving any more than a series of witnesses, passwords, or weak alibis would.

a people who are cavalier with their liberties are in danger of being stripped of them.

Liberty could loosely be defined as the extensive of negative rights i.e. the right to not be killed, not be raped, not have your property damaged, etc...the right to privacy arguably falls into that category, and one's DNA arguably fits into the "privacy" category...

Practically speaking, we all know we don't have true liberty...I would argue that DNA isn't any more or less private than fingerprints, and I have to have my fingerprints on record with the authorities (for my job) so if they have one then I honestly could care less if they have the other...

Hooooorah!........or wait.......is it.......America......fuck yeah!?! 

The problem is, that same 'authority' you like to talk into a submissive position is the very reason you even get to enjoy the 'liberties' you do and since 'goverment' is actually the collective voice of the 'peoples' you keep referencing I don't see how 'revolt' could ever be seen as positive.

You may have no fingerprints, DNA on file but if you believe that you aren't being tracked even now as you read/respond to this......well........

I don't buy into phrases such as "civil liberties" and/or "freedom" etc. mostly because I believe they've long since changed from the ideals of the 'people's who coined them into the agenda-pushing parade floats they resemble today.  Instead I choose to look at my own life (and those around me) who as I've stated before have absolutely nothing to lose by submitting a DNA sample to a DNA-registry.  A registry that as I see it could/would do many times more good for a nation (and the world) than whatever bad could ever be attributed to it.

Well that's great, but how exactly do you tie this DNA registry into authenticating people on line?  That's my question.  Do I need to spit on the screen or something?

There are plenty of biometrics already in use today (to varied corporate levels) some with greater success than others, but I've never heard of someone getting their finger chopped off.     It's not like I'm suggesting new technology or even new use of existing tech.  I'm simply suggesting expanding what is now being used (pioneered) by the corporations to the population at large that's all.  Someday it will happen, in my opinion it can't happen soon enough.

The only thing you need to know is Big Brother is watching you...you love him.

Time to boycott sins of a solar empire rebellion. I was so about to preorder it but then my impulse said the magic words that stopped me from buying the game.

Warning: This game requires the Steam client to install & play.

With the all red flags went up. WTF was stardock thinking? What the best way to piss off our fan base and kill our company? Cause that must have been what they where thinking to even think Steam was a good idea. Rest in peice StarDock I so hope you become the next flagship studio over this big mistake.

I don't know what you're talking about, Neilo.

COOKIES!!!!!!!!!!!