I am sorry but this article was a ton of garbage. There is nothing close to Nazi style " experimentation" mentioned in this study. Like his last article, Lovelace is like a 2 with Matt being a 10
I didn't even read this one. I lost respect for Ryan Lovelace over his failure to rebut what appeared to be a logical, serious, and well-founded criticism in the comment section of his use of statistics in order to trash Kash Patel's F.B.I. One concludes that he has no answer; and if that is so, a reporter must fall on his sword and acknowledge error. He isn't even a 2 in my book.
I share your concern and suspect many of us do. Something's up with Matt. Maybe, as happened to Glenn G. and "System Update," he's taken on too much overhead with Racket and there's mission dilution. And exhaustion.
I'm guessing Matt is near-burned out.. How could he not be? The amount of work he has cranked out in the last ten years or so has me feeling a contact-exhaustion. The pressure of only being as good as your last article hard-on must be overwhelming.
That said, I'm keeping/renewing my subscription. Matt has earned that loyalty.
I'm with you on that. Every career has its high and low notes. As an employer, I always thought it was worth it to give a solid team member grace during tough periods, even extended ones. As you say, that is earned, and we do ourselves the favor by allowing for humanness.
Yes, these whiners are nowhere as productive in their fields or they would be respectful of the process in massive onslaught of events & info...and just leave quietly.
Failing to acknowledge that very little of depth and substance results from a snap of the fingers is a facile and offensive slur on many of us who do not expect Matt to produce anything other that witty commentary on the week's events after - (and here's the hard part for you, Matt, and his 'I'll set for a cup of nothing' stalwarts to grasp), AFTER a few days of calm reflection and a little digging.
That - buttressed with the best literary discussion I've been part of online ever, led by Matt and the inimitable Walter Kirn would have earned my lifelong loyalty.
What you and others I respect here fail to grasp is that wasn't enough for greedy, incurious Matt. Maybe he saw Bari's industrious power-play, or GG's, and elected not to tend his own garden.
Matt's not going back - Matt has five plus folks on the payroll and is going to ride "going to take a little getting used to" pony until it drops dead to the ground.
Matt will still get invited onto all other pods coz he generates traffic - will still produce quality work of his own (I've never found his writing compelling enough to read in book form, personally) for which he will be rightly and fairly rewarded.
Matt has "big plans" and like many people with big plans, a few eggs are bound to get broken. I know lots of researchers and teachers you've branded as "whiners" who work tirelessly making small, incremental improvements. Matt wants the accolades and awards. A large part of his career rests/rested on making yuppy pricks feel good about getting rich while the rest get/got zip.
To be blunt: I get that Matt can use his loyal base as a toilet and still make millions; just don't expect me to clap, or hold his unit while he does so.
Here's my own most recent - free - accessible and the result of several weeks of research, reading, and listening.
You're right. He should engage with his readers in the comment section. I'll use Alex Berenson's "Unreported Truths" as an example. While Alex is a seasoned journalist and a solid writing stylist, sometimes he misses obvious connections and other times he's just dead wrong. His readers let him know by roasting him in the comments, and he's not afraid to answer them; either by defending his position or admitting fault. As long as the comments remain reasonably civil, the result can be a lively and entertaining debate.
I appreciate your criticism, but the article was not "a ton of garbage" -- it wasn't up to Matt's standards, but it was relevant, informative, and well-researched journalism. I'd give it a solid 'B', with kudos for having interviewed the FBI agent, but points off for lack of objectivity and historical illiteracy. It's certainly better than the real garbage I'd otherwise be wading through in, say, the New York Times or Washington Post. Lovelace is a 5 with potential for improvement.
If “lack of objectivity and historical illiteracy”—never mind all the article’s other demerits—is still worthy of a B, then what deserves an F?
If comparing torturous, deadly, demonic Nazi mad science experiments with voluntary, disclosed biometric info collection—about which Lovelace can’t find a whiff of corruption, not even of mere bureaucratic neglect—isn’t worthy of an F, what is?
If glibly invoking those unspeakably evil Nazi acts just to try and build up a feeling of scandal around a nothingburger isn’t worthy of an F, what is?
If clinging to failed hypotheses instead of following facts and logic where they actually lead isn’t worthy of an F, what is?
Lovelace keeps proving he doesn’t know what he’s doing as a reporter. And sadly, he keeps proving that Matt doesn’t know what he’s doing as a manager of other reporters.
You've put your finger right into the wound. I watched an interview with one of the designers of early Sfanford X computer science program, offered free to anyone across the globe - 35,000 students - none of the top percentiles were actually studying at Stanford. Had Matt settled for what he knew - literature, books, Russia, American culture, sports - he'd be fine.
I don't frankly see how even well-trained and highly capable researchers can produce quality work without investing a tone of time and energy. And we'd expect some acknowledgement of historical context.
Suggesting data preservation "dwarfs" Nazi experiments (didn't read the article, coz I've already learned bout MT's crew) manages to transform a serious question - Trump abuses - into a trivial and offensive pos. If one can't make a point without referencing Hitler.. I mean, you see, how F-ed up this is?
Is anybody really going to have a "debate" about whether to reference Nazis? That's this a topic at all in April 2026 IS the damning proof of what a waste of time MT inc; has devolved into. But hey, It's Matt Taibbi, so enjoy!
Pretty spot on (I probably would say grade of C though) - I suspect too that Lovelace also picked the TikTok video partially because of similar ideology - more left?. However, the prevailing attitude (or my takeaway of the article and TikTok video) of 'don't trust the government' is one I definitely share.
Yeah, I'm paying in money and the even more limited time to read this article, and it basically told me "the FBI sponsers reputable universities' research to ensure that DNA identification is scientifically valid. And that's just like the Nazis vivisecting kids!"
I am not telling myself anything. There is certainly nothing in the article or the documents that show otherwise. Until there is I will not form an opinion
Reviewing the FBI presentation, slide by slide, seeing the details of all the various government departments and policies, once again served as a reminder of the BLOAT of our government and how off message every single department has become.
Far worse than "off message", unfortunately. Links in replies to expert testimony they will NEVER willingly tell you about. FBI targeting, CIA/DARPA tech, military administration. #NurembergII
This may be a crazy question, but in this day and age, why do we need an FBI? With the advent of interconnected databases, as well as the Internet, apart from a few groups (behavioral analysis, some kind of IT department to maintain federal databases/systems, HRT, and maybe some high level financial crime investigatory units), I don't see much use for the whole bureau. These groups can be small DOJ divisions....
If only. Over the years the Dems have deliberately swollen the ranks in the federal government, thereby guaranteeing voters for their side. According to reports the FBI was in on Savannah Guthrie's mom's disappearance investigation, so I have to agree with you. What the hell are they good for?
Extremely sensationalist nonsense article about what essentially boils down to biometric collection with informed consent. What a complete fall from grace for Racket over the past few months.
As I understand it, the question is why does the FBI collect saliva samples, ie. DNA from American citizens not specifically targeted for investigation? There may be an innocent explanation, but it certainly lends itself to sensational headlines.
After baking in the most salacious and unfounded innuendo, this very silly article finally says what the data was used for: basic identification ability testing, i.e. testing whether genetically similar individuals have different fingerprints and so forth.
This reeks of a reporter desperate to publish something, *anything*—a reporter who invested some time into a subject and, upon finding nothing worth reporting, lacked the minor sense, courage or basic work ethic to admit it was a wash. And who unfortunately lacks an editor willing to send him back to the drawing board.
It is trivial to collect saliva samples surreptitiously. The fact that subjects got disclosure AND $50 makes this seem like a failed attempted hit piece. Tossing in the obligatory ‘nazi’ reference just proves the point. Do better or do without my subscription $.
Where in the world is Emily Kopp? I'd venture to say that the only organization less transparent than the FBI is The Racket. Maybe Ryan Lovelace can investigate? Meanwhile, in the grand tradition of spitballing on these pages here are my theories:
1) She realized what a MAGA swamp she landed in, and hightailed it out of here.
2) Walter Kirn kidnapped her and is holding her hostage in his basement in Montana.
3) She saw the plummeting subscriber base and thought better of it.
What exactly is the purpose of collecting this data? And, mere collection of saliva and some pictures, so to speak, is a far distance from “experimentation,” à la Mengele or even the CIA in the 1950s.
It is a long article but I cannot tell if there is a “there,” there. What is the purpose, what are the risks, and why should I care?
I like that Matt wants to make Racket into a politically neutral investigative journalism hub, but if we have learned anything from the last decade or two it is that even talented reporters (and podcasters!) need good editors.
...I think the article starts with a good idea ... then abandons the idea ... the LSD/Frank Olson debacle was known since 1975 ... the Clinton Executive Order mentioned in the FBI presentation was NOT an EO but a Memorandum coming from the testing of radiation exposure (EO 12975) 1995 ... limiting the *waiver* of consent (always a good thing) ... I don't know why the article would want to imply comparison to the Mengele experiments unless the author has evidence to suggest the similarity ...twins not being enough ... the question I would have is if the FBI is annually reporting these experiments and the number of individuals involved to Congress? ...
Agreed. I see the privacy issues, but as I do not know the purpose of the collection, privacy is all I am left with. And in that sense, comparing to Auschwitz and people on LSD jumping (or being pushed?) out of windows is more hysterical than helpful.
These are the kind of questions a good editor would raise.
Where are you going for your news now that Racket is kaput? This particular article we are commenting on read to me like there’s nothing there. The Nazi tie wasn’t explained. Sensationalism. Where are now getting your news. I read Epoch Times but beyond that.
Various substacks written by people whose work I trust. Try Coffee and Covid, Jupplandia, Sasha Stone, Jotting in Purple. I also follow people on X--there you have to find people whose posts give good/current info. Reliability depends on who you follow. I use Grok AI to check on facts. That's a process--to find people who don't waste your time.
Thank you Racket for shining a light on the FBI's collection of human data. What we can see is kinder and gentler than the experiments of the not-so-distant past and wrapped in the gauze of informed consent. Nevertheless, this sort of systematic bureaucratized collection of human data is disturbing.
The folks who are saying "nothing to see here" sound like the same set that shrugs and claims that they don't mind government snooping and other creeping infringements on freedom because they have "nothing to hide."
It's a bit amazing that readers of this site are still so trusting of the government!
Not an FBI spokesperson, but I'm guessing: the FBI often needs to identify people from DNA, and wanted to be able to testify whether or not twins are distinguishable by DNA.
What are you talking about? All this article manages to assert is that the FBI used perfectly lawfully and ethically collected biometric data in order to gain insights relevant to crime-solving and therefore, as you weirdly put in air quotes, “public safety.”
Right? Unless Nazis got signed consent forms and paid their victims each 50 bucks before releasing them unharmed we may be dealing w/ a false equivalency. This article is about what they would’ve written had there been any evidence or any sources would agree to talk to them. Even this would work w/ enough humor or a competent style.
For me It's instructive to look at the amount of hate and hyperbole the "old guard" have employed, voiced, and facilitated towards any outside forces that seek to alter the course, of the BLOB.
Of course, the Founders foresaw today's political climate. They were escaping from the same type of system.
I have been a Racket subscriber from basically the beginning, listened to every single ATW, and pretty much never comment on anything, but jeez this article sucks like so many others have lately. Allusions to Nazi programs where most of the participants perished but the FBI is collecting routine biometric data? That's it? Boring, sensationalist headline, shittily written. I don't blame Matt for wanting to take a break but the Racket brand is in free fall right now.
I am sorry but this article was a ton of garbage. There is nothing close to Nazi style " experimentation" mentioned in this study. Like his last article, Lovelace is like a 2 with Matt being a 10
Collecting 10 year old saliva “dwarfs the scope of deadly Nazi experiments”?
MK Ultra was horrific and tracking biometrics is dodgy, but they dwarf Nazi experiments?
Why was the specter of Nazis even remotely pertinent to invoke here? Because, they also studied twins?
“New” Racket has had some great reporting, but the absurd hyperbole and bias dwarfs the good stuff.
I didn't even read this one. I lost respect for Ryan Lovelace over his failure to rebut what appeared to be a logical, serious, and well-founded criticism in the comment section of his use of statistics in order to trash Kash Patel's F.B.I. One concludes that he has no answer; and if that is so, a reporter must fall on his sword and acknowledge error. He isn't even a 2 in my book.
I agree, but my question is whether Matt even edits or reviews this stuff before it is posted. I subscribed to Racket for Matt's reporting
I doubt that Matt has any involvement anymore. I'm an annual subscriber, and will not be renewing.
I share your concern and suspect many of us do. Something's up with Matt. Maybe, as happened to Glenn G. and "System Update," he's taken on too much overhead with Racket and there's mission dilution. And exhaustion.
I'm guessing Matt is near-burned out.. How could he not be? The amount of work he has cranked out in the last ten years or so has me feeling a contact-exhaustion. The pressure of only being as good as your last article hard-on must be overwhelming.
That said, I'm keeping/renewing my subscription. Matt has earned that loyalty.
I'm with you on that. Every career has its high and low notes. As an employer, I always thought it was worth it to give a solid team member grace during tough periods, even extended ones. As you say, that is earned, and we do ourselves the favor by allowing for humanness.
👏🏻 you took the words right out of my mouth! Lovely expressions!
Yes, these whiners are nowhere as productive in their fields or they would be respectful of the process in massive onslaught of events & info...and just leave quietly.
Failing to acknowledge that very little of depth and substance results from a snap of the fingers is a facile and offensive slur on many of us who do not expect Matt to produce anything other that witty commentary on the week's events after - (and here's the hard part for you, Matt, and his 'I'll set for a cup of nothing' stalwarts to grasp), AFTER a few days of calm reflection and a little digging.
That - buttressed with the best literary discussion I've been part of online ever, led by Matt and the inimitable Walter Kirn would have earned my lifelong loyalty.
What you and others I respect here fail to grasp is that wasn't enough for greedy, incurious Matt. Maybe he saw Bari's industrious power-play, or GG's, and elected not to tend his own garden.
Matt's not going back - Matt has five plus folks on the payroll and is going to ride "going to take a little getting used to" pony until it drops dead to the ground.
Matt will still get invited onto all other pods coz he generates traffic - will still produce quality work of his own (I've never found his writing compelling enough to read in book form, personally) for which he will be rightly and fairly rewarded.
Matt has "big plans" and like many people with big plans, a few eggs are bound to get broken. I know lots of researchers and teachers you've branded as "whiners" who work tirelessly making small, incremental improvements. Matt wants the accolades and awards. A large part of his career rests/rested on making yuppy pricks feel good about getting rich while the rest get/got zip.
To be blunt: I get that Matt can use his loyal base as a toilet and still make millions; just don't expect me to clap, or hold his unit while he does so.
Here's my own most recent - free - accessible and the result of several weeks of research, reading, and listening.
https://gericault.substack.com/p/orlando-furioso-and-la-gerusaleme
I'm speculating that Matt is busy working on long-term projects, and is hoping that his staff can carry the ball until they are ready to publish.
You're right. He should engage with his readers in the comment section. I'll use Alex Berenson's "Unreported Truths" as an example. While Alex is a seasoned journalist and a solid writing stylist, sometimes he misses obvious connections and other times he's just dead wrong. His readers let him know by roasting him in the comments, and he's not afraid to answer them; either by defending his position or admitting fault. As long as the comments remain reasonably civil, the result can be a lively and entertaining debate.
Does one need a lot of data to trash Kash Patel's FBI?
Of course not. The MSM does a fine job of trashing Kash with fake data.
I wouldn't know as I don't indulge in MSM. I observe 👀 & with discrimination assess applying logic.
We need a benchmark against which to measure Patel. Which former FBI head should be the standard for "good"?
Good thinking, now that you mention it!!!
Unfortunately Matt is no longer a “10.”
Exactly. That's where I stopped reading. I can't with this nonsense.
You might consider a hobby other than bitching and griping about things.
You might consider getting a hobby other than calling paying subscribers' input as "bitching and griping about things."
Why -- it is so apt & takes so little effort as opposed to the "product" you are deriding!!!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Not worthy of response
I appreciate your criticism, but the article was not "a ton of garbage" -- it wasn't up to Matt's standards, but it was relevant, informative, and well-researched journalism. I'd give it a solid 'B', with kudos for having interviewed the FBI agent, but points off for lack of objectivity and historical illiteracy. It's certainly better than the real garbage I'd otherwise be wading through in, say, the New York Times or Washington Post. Lovelace is a 5 with potential for improvement.
If “lack of objectivity and historical illiteracy”—never mind all the article’s other demerits—is still worthy of a B, then what deserves an F?
If comparing torturous, deadly, demonic Nazi mad science experiments with voluntary, disclosed biometric info collection—about which Lovelace can’t find a whiff of corruption, not even of mere bureaucratic neglect—isn’t worthy of an F, what is?
If glibly invoking those unspeakably evil Nazi acts just to try and build up a feeling of scandal around a nothingburger isn’t worthy of an F, what is?
If clinging to failed hypotheses instead of following facts and logic where they actually lead isn’t worthy of an F, what is?
Lovelace keeps proving he doesn’t know what he’s doing as a reporter. And sadly, he keeps proving that Matt doesn’t know what he’s doing as a manager of other reporters.
You've put your finger right into the wound. I watched an interview with one of the designers of early Sfanford X computer science program, offered free to anyone across the globe - 35,000 students - none of the top percentiles were actually studying at Stanford. Had Matt settled for what he knew - literature, books, Russia, American culture, sports - he'd be fine.
I don't frankly see how even well-trained and highly capable researchers can produce quality work without investing a tone of time and energy. And we'd expect some acknowledgement of historical context.
Suggesting data preservation "dwarfs" Nazi experiments (didn't read the article, coz I've already learned bout MT's crew) manages to transform a serious question - Trump abuses - into a trivial and offensive pos. If one can't make a point without referencing Hitler.. I mean, you see, how F-ed up this is?
Is anybody really going to have a "debate" about whether to reference Nazis? That's this a topic at all in April 2026 IS the damning proof of what a waste of time MT inc; has devolved into. But hey, It's Matt Taibbi, so enjoy!
"it was relevant, informative, and well-researched journalism"
It was relevant, given the focus so many of us have on the FBI and government.
It was informative in the sense that information, including lies and stupidity inform of lies and stupidity
It was not in the least well researched
This was really a shit article. Amateurish. Rabbit-in-the-hat reporting. This author had a bias going in and that never left his thinking.
Horseshit effort. Taibbi, this should be beneath you. Should be. Is it?
Agreed on all points. I think you've answered your own question. Tune in for more o' the same next week...
Pretty spot on (I probably would say grade of C though) - I suspect too that Lovelace also picked the TikTok video partially because of similar ideology - more left?. However, the prevailing attitude (or my takeaway of the article and TikTok video) of 'don't trust the government' is one I definitely share.
Yeah, I'm paying in money and the even more limited time to read this article, and it basically told me "the FBI sponsers reputable universities' research to ensure that DNA identification is scientifically valid. And that's just like the Nazis vivisecting kids!"
Pure waste of time on a clickbait "article".
Came here to say this. Total nothing burger.
you keep telling yourself that
I am not telling myself anything. There is certainly nothing in the article or the documents that show otherwise. Until there is I will not form an opinion
Yup, and MKUltra is made up too.
This article was not about MK Ultra my friend
Ah, yes, a tried and true Democrat. How's Bernie doing, by the way?
Reviewing the FBI presentation, slide by slide, seeing the details of all the various government departments and policies, once again served as a reminder of the BLOAT of our government and how off message every single department has become.
Far worse than "off message", unfortunately. Links in replies to expert testimony they will NEVER willingly tell you about. FBI targeting, CIA/DARPA tech, military administration. #NurembergII
https://x.com/ProtectPatient1/status/1973173998948089966?s=20
This may be a crazy question, but in this day and age, why do we need an FBI? With the advent of interconnected databases, as well as the Internet, apart from a few groups (behavioral analysis, some kind of IT department to maintain federal databases/systems, HRT, and maybe some high level financial crime investigatory units), I don't see much use for the whole bureau. These groups can be small DOJ divisions....
If only. Over the years the Dems have deliberately swollen the ranks in the federal government, thereby guaranteeing voters for their side. According to reports the FBI was in on Savannah Guthrie's mom's disappearance investigation, so I have to agree with you. What the hell are they good for?
Extremely sensationalist nonsense article about what essentially boils down to biometric collection with informed consent. What a complete fall from grace for Racket over the past few months.
I remain dedicated to the proposition that our Security Services are a threat to the American people.
This article intentionally misleads the reader into believing the FBI conducted experiments on twins.
In actuality, they collected saliva samples but no experiments were conducted on them.
This article:
Raises questions
Points to loosely related documents
Suggests a narrative
But it does not meet the threshold of evidence for the claim.
As I understand it, the question is why does the FBI collect saliva samples, ie. DNA from American citizens not specifically targeted for investigation? There may be an innocent explanation, but it certainly lends itself to sensational headlines.
After baking in the most salacious and unfounded innuendo, this very silly article finally says what the data was used for: basic identification ability testing, i.e. testing whether genetically similar individuals have different fingerprints and so forth.
This reeks of a reporter desperate to publish something, *anything*—a reporter who invested some time into a subject and, upon finding nothing worth reporting, lacked the minor sense, courage or basic work ethic to admit it was a wash. And who unfortunately lacks an editor willing to send him back to the drawing board.
👏🏻👏🏻
It is trivial to collect saliva samples surreptitiously. The fact that subjects got disclosure AND $50 makes this seem like a failed attempted hit piece. Tossing in the obligatory ‘nazi’ reference just proves the point. Do better or do without my subscription $.
Where in the world is Emily Kopp? I'd venture to say that the only organization less transparent than the FBI is The Racket. Maybe Ryan Lovelace can investigate? Meanwhile, in the grand tradition of spitballing on these pages here are my theories:
1) She realized what a MAGA swamp she landed in, and hightailed it out of here.
2) Walter Kirn kidnapped her and is holding her hostage in his basement in Montana.
3) She saw the plummeting subscriber base and thought better of it.
4) She's on vacation.
What exactly is the purpose of collecting this data? And, mere collection of saliva and some pictures, so to speak, is a far distance from “experimentation,” à la Mengele or even the CIA in the 1950s.
It is a long article but I cannot tell if there is a “there,” there. What is the purpose, what are the risks, and why should I care?
I like that Matt wants to make Racket into a politically neutral investigative journalism hub, but if we have learned anything from the last decade or two it is that even talented reporters (and podcasters!) need good editors.
...I think the article starts with a good idea ... then abandons the idea ... the LSD/Frank Olson debacle was known since 1975 ... the Clinton Executive Order mentioned in the FBI presentation was NOT an EO but a Memorandum coming from the testing of radiation exposure (EO 12975) 1995 ... limiting the *waiver* of consent (always a good thing) ... I don't know why the article would want to imply comparison to the Mengele experiments unless the author has evidence to suggest the similarity ...twins not being enough ... the question I would have is if the FBI is annually reporting these experiments and the number of individuals involved to Congress? ...
Agreed. I see the privacy issues, but as I do not know the purpose of the collection, privacy is all I am left with. And in that sense, comparing to Auschwitz and people on LSD jumping (or being pushed?) out of windows is more hysterical than helpful.
These are the kind of questions a good editor would raise.
The US government loves to experiment on service members. I’d love to see those files. 😂
👏🏻 Historically...one would think this article would make the connections & raise a red flag among engaged readers. Alas, not so ...
This piece is a hit piece. It isn't journalism. Yellow journalism isn't what I expect from Racket News. But, oops. That Racket News is...dead.
Where are you going for your news now that Racket is kaput? This particular article we are commenting on read to me like there’s nothing there. The Nazi tie wasn’t explained. Sensationalism. Where are now getting your news. I read Epoch Times but beyond that.
Various substacks written by people whose work I trust. Try Coffee and Covid, Jupplandia, Sasha Stone, Jotting in Purple. I also follow people on X--there you have to find people whose posts give good/current info. Reliability depends on who you follow. I use Grok AI to check on facts. That's a process--to find people who don't waste your time.
Thanks
Thank you Racket for shining a light on the FBI's collection of human data. What we can see is kinder and gentler than the experiments of the not-so-distant past and wrapped in the gauze of informed consent. Nevertheless, this sort of systematic bureaucratized collection of human data is disturbing.
The folks who are saying "nothing to see here" sound like the same set that shrugs and claims that they don't mind government snooping and other creeping infringements on freedom because they have "nothing to hide."
It's a bit amazing that readers of this site are still so trusting of the government!
I for one am very untrusting of the government however this article is a non-starter in termz of being newsworthy. Kind of a nothingburger.
👏🏻👏🏻 ... and seem so uncurious or need to be spoon fed!
Whadya think ALL these "Data centers" are for?
👏🏻👏🏻
I guess I don’t get why these kinds of studies fall under the FBI’s responsibility. It’s all just ‘weird’.
Not an FBI spokesperson, but I'm guessing: the FBI often needs to identify people from DNA, and wanted to be able to testify whether or not twins are distinguishable by DNA.
There you go -- thinking about things! 👏🏻
More confirmation that "public safety" is not the 1st priority of USA Fed Gov crime fighting & LEO depts.
It's way past time to cull a large number of depts, orgs., and agencies inside the DC Bureaucracy.
Mid-terms are your next chance to make that reality closer to happening.
What are you talking about? All this article manages to assert is that the FBI used perfectly lawfully and ethically collected biometric data in order to gain insights relevant to crime-solving and therefore, as you weirdly put in air quotes, “public safety.”
Right? Unless Nazis got signed consent forms and paid their victims each 50 bucks before releasing them unharmed we may be dealing w/ a false equivalency. This article is about what they would’ve written had there been any evidence or any sources would agree to talk to them. Even this would work w/ enough humor or a competent style.
Who do you suggest voting for to get that done?
the regime of Politicians that have ruled DC for the last 40+ yrs have not done a very good job imo.
Which ones do you think deserve a chance?
My experience is that once elected, they change to be part of the existing regime of politicians. What's the use?
In some ways we've lost our way due to the fact that are elected officials need jobs or riches (or maybe seek fame).
It's hard to imagine a genuine person of conviction who will put up with the swamp.
To answer your question, I don't know. Could the elite born founding fathers have imagined today? Maybe Franklin.
For me It's instructive to look at the amount of hate and hyperbole the "old guard" have employed, voiced, and facilitated towards any outside forces that seek to alter the course, of the BLOB.
Of course, the Founders foresaw today's political climate. They were escaping from the same type of system.
Just with less technology.
👏🏻
Yawn, and ZZZZzzzzzzzz.
👏🏻
I have been a Racket subscriber from basically the beginning, listened to every single ATW, and pretty much never comment on anything, but jeez this article sucks like so many others have lately. Allusions to Nazi programs where most of the participants perished but the FBI is collecting routine biometric data? That's it? Boring, sensationalist headline, shittily written. I don't blame Matt for wanting to take a break but the Racket brand is in free fall right now.