RE: WSJ: NSA Computer Upgrade
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:41:27 -0500, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
The reports of DNA evidence showing that up to 28% of fathers are not the biological fathers of children for whom they are legal parents is a reminder that revisionist intelligence is not limited to the spooks as data mining becomes more widely available.
I'd like to see a cite to this. Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com
Aluger commanded:
I'd like to see a cite to this.
New York Times, March 11, 2001, page 1: "According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earliet. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father." The article goes on to say that most courts still require a non-biological-father to support the kids he once believed were his own. To protect the kids. This parallels law that favors bosses, property owners, and high office holders over those they fuck, well maybe not fuck, but you know what I mean if you are an employee, non-propertied, no public office to lever ransom. As a kidless self-unemployed gypsy blueballed uni, I got nobody to blame for befucked. Pet python eyes the blues.
And of what percentage of the population does this represent? What are the statistics related to marriage-divorce-remarriage? What were the economic-social breakdowns? There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Worded as is, this is nothing but spin doctor bullshit. Press always get technical stuff wrong. Always. On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Young wrote:
Aluger commanded:
I'd like to see a cite to this.
New York Times, March 11, 2001, page 1:
"According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earliet. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father."
____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, 14 Mar 2001 at 21:46, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Aluger commanded:
I'd like to see a cite to this.
New York Times, March 11, 2001, page 1:
"According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earliet. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father."
A similar study of email to cypherpunks shows that up to 28% of all emails are trolls.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Young wrote:
"According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earliet. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father."
Paternity test subjects are hardly representative of the whole population. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi> writes:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Young wrote:
"According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earliet. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father."
Paternity test subjects are hardly representative of the whole population.
Indeed. Women are underrepresented. YY
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Young wrote:
"According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earliet. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father."
Paternity test subjects are hardly representative of the whole population.
I've heard similar figures from the CDC - when they discover genetic disease, they often do tests to find out which parent it was inherited through - and about the same fraction of the time, they find that kids are no relation to their fathers. Bear
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
I've heard similar figures from the CDC - when they discover genetic disease, they often do tests to find out which parent it was inherited through - and about the same fraction of the time, they find that kids are no relation to their fathers.
Here's another tidbit ... this time on a page that deals with genetic testing. Their estimates for general population seem to be in the 10% range. at http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctf706.htm: ... In about a third of the welfare cases and 10% of other cases, lab directors say that the father named by the mother turns out not to be the biological parent.... Bear
At 09:46 PM 3/14/01 -0500, John Young wrote:
The article goes on to say that most courts still require a non-biological-father to support the kids he once believed were his own. To protect the kids.
The motivation for this is that the legals have decided that supporting the children is more important than fairness. Its that simple; some legals will even admit it. There are similarly motivated restrictions on how much you can deny your spouse when you die. FYI
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Honig wrote:
The motivation for this is that the legals have decided that supporting the children is more important than fairness. Its that simple; some legals will even admit it.
"Fairness" is such a slippery word. Is it fair for a child to have no support available? Remember, it's not because of anything the child did. I think the criterion here is that the adult is more capable of coping with the unfairness than the child, hence in a situation where you have to be unfair to one or the other, you favor the child's interests over the adult's.
There are similarly motivated restrictions on how much you can deny your spouse when you die.
This one I don't hang with. Your spouse is presumably an adult, and ought to be able to cope with not getting the estate. But that certainly doesn't stop it from being a serious shitheel type maneuver to leave your spouse in the lurch when you go, and since you're dead at that point you don't really have that much of a compelling interest in the estate any more... But anyway, this has little to do with crypto... Bear
At 7:58 AM -0800 3/15/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Honig wrote:
The motivation for this is that the legals have decided that supporting the children is more important than fairness. Its that simple; some legals will even admit it.
"Fairness" is such a slippery word. Is it fair for a child to have no support available? Remember, it's not because of anything the child did.
The core ideological value of our Western society--and most of the rest of the world as well, is that families are the primary care providers for their offspring. While there are things like public schools (which have their own problems) and publically-funded vaccinations, the "Schelling point" for parents, children, and society is that those who have children pay for them. Those who have children must support them and must work out the arrangements for supporting them with the biological fathers, the biological mothers, the adoptive fathers, the adoptive mothers, the surrogate fathers, the surrogate mothers, etc. It is not the role of neighboring families (or families elsewhere in a state) who have their own problems to deal with to support the children of others based on some notion that "it's not because of anything the child did." The same rationale could be used to justify society support for every child. In fact, some political ideologies have tried this approach. The argument that my money should be taken from me to support a litter of kids that some other family elected to have is not persuasive. There are also excellent Coaseian reasons to not shift the costs of raising children to others in the society. As for the "Is it fair for a child to have no support available?," there are many good answers to this. For starters, adoption. And charity. And orphanages paid for out of charity. Also, long term work contracts (indentured servitude).
But anyway, this has little to do with crypto...
For the 23rd time, this list is not just about crypto. As the "Welcome" message which was just posted, for the 19th time, points out, there are academic and other fora which are purely crypto-related. This list was started in 1992 to place more of an emphasis on the sociopolitical implications of strong cryptography, including remailers, nyms, digital money, laws, new political and economic systems, black markets, etc. The issue of paternity and DNA tests is not directly related, but can be loosely related to these issues. As Big Brother demands extensive DNA data bases "for the children," note the points of intersection with our interests. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
participants (9)
-
alugerļ¼ hushmail.com -
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Ralph Wallis -
Ray Dillinger -
Sampo Syreeni -
Tim May -
Yeoh Yiu