View Full Version : F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases
BuckeyeBOSS
04-18-09, 20:52
Just curious what you guys think of this...
"Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?hp
Yep... welcome to the brave new world folks, remember its "change we can believe in"!
:eek:
woodandsteel
04-18-09, 22:16
I don't see the problem with this. If you are arrested now, you are fingerprinted and photographed. To get DNA, all they do is rub a q-tip inside your cheek.
If you don't want the government to have your DNA on file, don't break the law.
woodandsteel
04-18-09, 22:29
"not yet convicted"
You still get fingerprinted and photographed without being convicted.
Unfortunately, once you are in the system you are in it for good. You are innocent until proven guilty, but the government gets to keep your prints and information.
Although, I do understand the argument that this smacks of big brother. But, I can't really see the problem here.
I am open to hearing why some would argue against it, though.
Yep... welcome to the brave new world folks, remember its "change we can believe in"!
:eek:
DNA ID collection predates Obama by a long shot. It's the new fingerprint, and in the not distant future will be as commonly collected.
DocHolliday01
04-18-09, 22:37
I don't see the problem with this. If you are arrested now, you are fingerprinted and photographed. To get DNA, all they do is rub a q-tip inside your cheek.
If you don't want the government to have your DNA on file, don't break the law.
+1, You have to be charged with a Person or Drug Felony to have DNA taken. This has been the case for a while now. Taking DNA for a Drug Felony is the newer of the two but is still almost a year old.
For years i donated blood, finally stopping when informed that they were using a new test for HIV identification, that involved dna. when i asked if the data was destroyed after testing, they assured me it was. Later they contacted me regarding different test results. If the testing is annonomous (sp) and they destroy the data, how did they know who to contact?
sorry but if you donate blood, your dna is already on file somewhere.
woodandsteel
04-19-09, 00:34
For years i donated blood, finally stopping when informed that they were using a new test for HIV identification, that involved dna. when i asked if the data was destroyed after testing, they assured me it was. Later they contacted me regarding different test results. If the testing is annonomous (sp) and they destroy the data, how did they know who to contact?
sorry but if you donate blood, your dna is already on file somewhere.
I wonder if, in the case of donating blood, the DNA/Blood would be protected under HiPAA or some sort of Doctor/Patient Confidentiality.
But, you are correct. Once it is out there, it's out there. There's no getting it back.
I don't see the problem with this. If you are arrested now, you are fingerprinted and photographed. To get DNA, all they do is rub a q-tip inside your cheek.
If you don't want the government to have your DNA on file, don't break the law.
Comparing fingerprints/photos to DNA is comparing apples to enriched uranium. No parity whatsoever.
Government wants to get into the healthcare business - and have final say in what sort of care you get, as well as when to write you off. Some congress members have, for months, spoken of the government deciding when you are not worth saving - in the name of "efficiency" and avoiding money wasted on "experimental" treatments.
With every passing day, the ability to use DNA to screen for all sorts of conditions, risk factors, etc. increases. Insurance companies without scruples would LOVE to have that sort of info at their fingertips; a government-run healthcare bureaucracy would too, for the same reasons.
You do the math. The possibilities for abuse are staggering.
The health predispositions issue is not new and a lot has already been said on it; but if you really want to get into tinfoil territory, think long and hard about the increasing tendency for lefty academics to explain away competing ideologies as "mental illness", and to pin mental illness on genetics.
DNA ID collection predates Obama by a long shot. It's the new fingerprint, and in the not distant future will be as commonly collected.
Not without a fight. There is a good bit of public outrage in the UK at the moment over the very same topic, for the same reasons I've mentioned. There is no reason law abiding citzens (and I include in that category those who have not been convicted ) should have their DNA information in the hands of the government
...Doctor/Patient Confidentiality...
R.I.P.
(soon to be known as Doctor/Patient/Government "Confidentiality")
QuietShootr
04-19-09, 02:20
I don't see the problem with this. If you are arrested now, you are fingerprinted and photographed. To get DNA, all they do is rub a q-tip inside your cheek.
If you don't want the government to have your DNA on file, don't break the law.
Jawohl!
On the surface, it doesn't seem like a big deal, I mean they already have your photo and fingerprints, so they know who you are, right?
A similar argument can be make for national gun registration. They already have your information on 4473, so where is the harm, they already know who you are, right?
The problem with both is not the information itself; but what can be done with that information, especially by those lacking scruples or on a witch hunt. If you can't think of a half dozen ways to misuse such information, you aren't trying very hard.
woodandsteel
04-19-09, 08:13
Guilty until proven innocent, huh? :rolleyes:
This has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. This has to do with probable cause to make an arrest. They are already going to be taking your photo and fingerprints, at the time of arrest.
BuckeyeBOSS
04-19-09, 10:03
This has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. This has to do with probable cause to make an arrest. They are already going to be taking your photo and fingerprints, at the time of arrest.
Did you see the report the DHS put out this past week? Doesn't take much to be a suspected extremist/terrorist these days. Just disagreeing with those in control on 1 issue seems to be enough.
woodandsteel
04-19-09, 10:11
Did you see the report the DHS put out this past week? Doesn't take much to be a suspected extremist/terrorist these days. Just disagreeing with those in control on 1 issue seems to be enough.
Yes, I saw the DHS report, and it is a bunch of crap. However, just because we are here discussing 2nd Amendment issues and probably have pretty conservative, does not mean that we are breaking the law. If DHS tried to arrest anyone for having conservative, pro 2A views, I think we would see the end of the DHS.
woodandsteel
04-19-09, 13:02
Photograph and finger prints aid in identifying you. However, nothing more can really be determined such as any private medical issues (either current or genetically predisposed to having). DNA provides an ID and so very much more about the individual. Do you really think anyone that has an "encounter" with law enforcement should have to give up their genetic code?
Where do we draw the line? Perhaps everyone should have a DNA swab taken that wants to have a social security card. This way we can suspect and check everyone whenever we want and for what ever. :rolleyes:
No, I don't think every encouter should require a DNA sample. Nor do I think there should be one for the normal issue of ID's or Social Security Cards.
I will admit, I am biased on on this one. I see it as a tool that can be very useful for law enforcement. Where I live, they gather DNA after a conviction for certain crimes. That has helped to clear cases from burglary to sexual assault.
But, I can agree with the posters on this thread that it can be abused. And I understand that there are definite privacy concerns.
Yes, it is a slippery slope. There is a possibility of governmental abuse of power. In my opinion, and I have been wrong before, we haven't reached that point yet.
woodandsteel
04-19-09, 14:26
Surrender my liberties for your safety? I think NOT!
Where did I ever ask for you, or anyone to surrender you liberties for my safety?
I am not asking you to do anything to make me feel safer. By all means, live as free as you can.
I am just saying that I have no problem with this policy. But, I am open to any arguments that people may have against it.
And, it would be great if there were any lawyers on this forum who could chime in with any relevant case law on this.
RogerinTPA
04-19-09, 16:06
Don't know about LEO's, but most folks serving in the military having served in a secret or higher billet, has been finger printed, photograghed and background checked. In my case, several times, for having a TS (with identifier) clearance. It's not good people they are going after. They simply don't know what they have on their hands, until a suspect is processed. I don't have a problem with most of it, but they should not get to keep DNA samples of folks not convicted of a crime. A provision should be written, if an individual has been found not guilty, to destroy the DNA evidence or a mechanism put in place to petition/appeal, to have their sample destroyed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.