Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.

[DBTrek]

Starting with your second point,

You cited this:

The Oregonian/OregonLive review of the controversial gang affiliation database showed that police labeled someone a "criminal gang affiliate'' more than 100 times each year, without a conviction, without an arrest. Police were able to add someone to the list if the person self-identified as a member of a gang, participated in a gang initiation ritual, committed a gang-related crime or displayed two or more observable signs of gang membership.

Those labels would pop up as a red flag when officers ran someone's name on their mobile computer database. Nicknames, employers, schools, vehicles and associates were included in the gang designation reports.

Do you typically post quotes without reading them very carefully?

No.
Do you typically increase the fonts of words without knowing their meaning?
"criminal gang affiliate''

affiliate - a person or organization officially attached to a larger body.

So you're bent out of shape because police labeled gang members as " a person or organization officially attached to a larger body (in this case gangs)" without a criminal conviction?

You realize that makes no damn sense, right? The idea that someone has to be convicted of a crime before their affiliations can be mentioned? Where on Earth did you come by the idea that a criminal conviction is required before you can say someone is a member of the Elks Club, Catholic Church, or Crips?

Explain.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"criminal gang affiliate''

affiliate - a person or organization officially attached to a larger body.

Officially attached without having been arrested or convicted of a crime.

Are the cops compiling lists of Elks Club members now? 'Cause, I would be against that too.

[DBTrek]

OMG "Officially Attached"?!?! Without a conviction?!?!?

What's that mean, again?

Like, the cop saw the guys gang tattoos, asked the guy if he was in a gang, the guy said "yeah" and the cop typed "gang member" into the private database.

Is that what "Officially attached without having been arrested or convicted of a crime" looks like?

Because I'm not seeing the heinous impact on society or individual there.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Again with the society-ending damage.

[DBTrek]

Again with the society-ending damage.

Any damage.
You've failed to cite any damage - from society, to the individual, to unseemly scuffing of furniture.

You're against it, even though you can cite no ill associated with it.
Just a general, unfounded, strong feeling of unsupported opposition, I guess.
Or, "irrationality" as them science folk might call it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You're right. No reason to care about freedom of association or that other anti-science leftist nonsense.

[DBTrek]

You're right. No reason to care about freedom of association or that other anti-science leftist nonsense.

?

Identifying who people choose to associate with in no way interferes with people's ability to associate with whom they want.

[Fife]

Sounds like simple metadata. Who could complain about that?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You're right. No reason to care about freedom of association or that other anti-science leftist nonsense.

?

Identifying who people choose to associate with in no way interferes with people's ability to associate with whom they want.

Of course you are free to associate with whomever you like. But if we don't like 'em, you are going on a list, and we will be keeping an eye on you.

[DBTrek]

Of course you are free to associate with whomever you like. But if we don't like 'em, you are going on a list, and we will be keeping an eye on you.

OMG - you mean, you're going to write down that I associate with people you don't like in your private database?
OMG.
Sounds like racism.
That practice should be prohibited by law.
In fact, we should probably search your papers to make sure you're not recording any other public information about me on the sly.