Federal Agencies To Collect Genetic Info

protagoras writes "According to a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities may have their DNA forcibly collected for permanent storage in a central database. The bill is supported by the White House as well, but has not yet gone to the floor for a vote. Current law permits this only for those convicted of a crime. So even though completely innocent, should the Feds decide to detain you for any reason, your genetic data will grace their database beside that from murders, terrorists, and other miscreants." From the article: "The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved. Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics."

Comments

At it again

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans at it again, always touting "smaller government" while doing the exact opposite...

pathetic...

Cheers,
J

Re:At it again

[jonfelder]

The current government is -not- Republican. Just so you know, I'm not either.

They are neo-cons. Republican's are traditionally small government, and pro states rights. The current administration is anything but. There are many true republicans out there that dislike the current government just as much as liberals do.

Re:At it again

[cybpunks3]

It's for small government if it has anything to do with helping the disadvantaged. They have to get dragged kicking and screaming into it (tsunami, katrina aid, for instance, privatizing social security).

Re:At it again

[van der Rohe]

Parent is correct in principle, of course. But it's important to understand that the Republican notions of "smaller government" and "freedom" only have to do with government's relationship with BUSINESS, not with individuals.

"Smaller government" means "less market intervention" and "freedom" only refers to freedom to earn.

Someone's going to mark this as flamebait or troll, but it's not a value judgement. It's just the way things are. In fact, once this is clear you realize that there's nothing contradictory or hypocritical about the Right's message at all.

Re:At it again

[laffer1]

I'm only 26, but generally agree with the traditional Republican ideas. One might label me as a moderate conservative. I'll keep voting for democrats until the republicans wake up.

Re:At it again

[Schemat1c]

Republican's are traditionally small government, and pro states rights.

Yes just look at the first Republican president, Lincoln. He was all for small central government and states rights.

Oh, wait...

Re:At it again

[Dutchmaan]

" 'Smaller government' means 'less market intervention' and 'freedom' only refers to freedom to earn.

It's just the way things are. In fact, once this is clear you realize that there's nothing contradictory or hypocritical about the Right's message at all." ...provided everyone defines freedom and smaller government in the way you just did.

Most do NOT define it that way.

Re:At it again

[supabeast!]

You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid and see where it gets you. The old "small-government and states rights" platform republicans love to tout has always been a load of bullshit. From Lincoln to Nixon to Reagan to the Bushes, the Republicans have touted those ideals and then sold the voters out to big government ideals.

Re:At it again

[Manchot]

"Smaller government" means "less market intervention" and "freedom" only refers to freedom to earn. Someone's going to mark this as flamebait or troll, but it's not a value judgement. It's just the way things are. In fact, once this is clear you realize that there's nothing contradictory or hypocritical about the Right's message at all.

That's exactly what's contradictory about it. They don't say "less market intervention" and "freedom to earn," they say "smaller government" and "freedom." Saying one thing while doing another is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Re:At it again

[van der Rohe]

Of course, and I don't either. But if you can see it through the eyes of the Right, you'll realize why they can talk all that "freedom" talk without looking like they're lying - because they're NOT lying.

It's not about you and me. It's about GM and Microsoft.

Re:At it again

[van der Rohe]

They don't say "less market intervention" and "freedom to earn," they say "smaller government" and "freedom." Saying one thing while doing another is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Of course it's hypocritical. But if that's really the world view you hold, then you can't really come out and say that. Who's going to go along? You lose the entire flyover/hick voter base, and you're left with nothing except the predatory millionaire class.

It's not blatantly lying - it's just using potent, ambiguous words because clear and concise ones will leave your position in the gutter where it belongs.

Re:At it again

[jonfelder]

Um...right because he should've let the states secede...yeah that would've been great.

The Republican party back then was all about ending slavery. That's why it was formed. After the states seceded, Lincoln thought it might be a good idea to try to keep them from doing so. I think most agree that was a good idea.

When I say "traditional" I mean as far as modern politics since the early 20th century are concerned.

Re:At it again

[Stalyn]

The Democratic Party's endorsement of the Civil Rights Movement caused many white southerners to move to the Republican Party. They brought along with them their ideas about small government and states' rights. The Republican party as it is now is really the old southern Democratic party. Also I'd like to mention there is some debate over whether or not Lincoln was gay. Which I find hilarious when you compare that notion to the Republican's stance on gays.

Re:At it again

[sgt_doom]

Well, no need to collect Georgie W's DNA - we all know he got high - then became president......so many members of his family are cokeheads, it goes without saying - that, and stupidity, must be genetic.

Re:At it again

[Anonymous Coward]

According to that statement, there never has been a Republican government. Republicans did the same thing under Nixon and Reagan long before the neo-con scapegoats surfaced. I also seem to remember a "Contract with America" (remember that?) that stated one of the goals of the Republican (not the Neo-Con) Party would be to balance the budget. Interesting how that feat was accomplished during Clinton's reign. Does that mean that the Democrats aren't really Democrats? And maybe Libertarians aren't really Libertarians and Communists.....

You see where your fantasy world leads you?

Re:At it again

[untaken_name]

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Abraham Lincoln.

Um...right because he should've let the states secede...yeah that would've been great.

Considering that they ostensibly had that power, yes, he should have. It was better to fight the bloodiest war in American history? It was better to have Americans fighting each other, looting, burning, pillaging, destroying good people and good land? Rights of the state are supposed to trump the rights of The State. The War of Northern Agression proved the lie of that concept once and for all.

Re:At it again

[KarmaMB84]

and letting the states have the ability to just threaten to leave rather than obey the law would've been so much better. If it weren't for the civil war, a minority wouldn't be allowed to walk down the street in the southern US without risking a (perfectly legal) lynch mob coming down on them because some white girl said they looked at her the wrong way.

Re:At it again

[untaken_name]

How on Earth does that logically follow? Should the voters of the state not be able to decide that they don't want to be one of the "United States"? If they are kept in by force, that's not very "united", is it? You're saying that thousands of American lives lost and billions in property lost is a preferable alternative to letting the voters of a state express their will? That's sick. As for the 'slavery would still exist' fallacy, back this up with something, please. There was an abolition movement in the South, too, you know. The underground railroad didn't START in the North. Whatever. You declare what would have happened as if it actually did, back it up with some fact, please. As to "If it weren't for the civil war, a minority wouldn't be allowed to walk down the street in the southern US without risking a (perfectly legal) lynch mob coming down on them because some white girl said they looked at her the wrong way.", these days, it's any man can be accused by any woman no matter the evidence.

Re:At it again

[tjstork]

That quote ranks right up there with Weapons of Mass Destruction as one of the great all time invented reasons for a war. Everyone in the civil war knew it was about slavery. Hell, the Republican Party had at its core a bunch of bible thumping abolishinists that wanted to ban slavery. Slavery dominated the Constitutional Convention with the slave is a fraction of a man compromise, through the various compromises of the 1800s to the 1850s, through the Bleeding Kansas battles, all the juggling over admitting a state slave or free. Then Lincoln comes out and says that he's in it to "preserve the Union", and escalated a secession into an all out war by refusing to leave Fort Sumter and then, after shots were fired, invading Virginia, blowing British and French proposals to mediate the conflict, in short, the war always was about Slavery.

Lincoln rolled the dice big and won, and that's why he's great. But the irony of the situation is that the most recent President like him is actually George Bush. Both had a reputation for being stupid hicks but were politically shrewd. Both blew off their own party dogmas and cooked up reasons to fight expand an attack against them into an all out ideological war, both were famous for ignoring their generals, and if anything, both won re-elections against decorated veterans that were considered to be much more intelligent than they were, and both were generally despised by much of the country.

The Civil War was -not- popular in the North. I mean, you think people are pissed off about the war in Iraq, try selling the civil war to the public just after Antienam, when nearly 12,000 Union soldiers were killed in a single a few day's fighting.

Re:At it again

[biggreddy]

NWO will stop at nothing to rule over our lives in such orderly fashion that we have no idea why. http://www.myspace.com/biggreddy

Re:At it again

[Anonymous Coward]

"these days, it's any man can be accused by any woman no matter the evidence."

Death To women's Rights

Re:At it again

[blincoln]

But the irony of the situation is that the most recent President like him is actually George Bush.

You are making baby Je^H^H^H^H^H^H^H one of the branches on my family tree cry. Um, bleed sap, I guess. Sad, sad sap of misery. Please stop.

Re:At it again

[tfcdesign]

The Republican party back then was all about ending slavery.

Dont believe the hype. Neither party is about human rights. Both practically extort human rights for voting leverage. The civil war was not about slavery, but rather money. Nothing else. Additionaly Lincoln violated states rights and the constitution.

The only reason any politician was against slavery was to limit the power and gain control over souther industry.

Re:At it again

[tfcdesign]

Just as pathetic as the Democrats in my opinion... Considering the V-chip, the Clipper chip and other technology Gore and Clinton backed, this is just an exetion of prior administrations. The truth is neither party wants to be smaller otherwise they can't get your money nor control your life. Anyone who thinks any government program will give them more freedom and liberty is a fool. Liberals want choice without responsibility. Conservatives want no-choice with responsibility.

Re:At it again

[Ms_Phitt]

Of course it's hypocritical. But if that's really the world view you hold, then you can't really come out and say that. Who's going to go along? You lose the entire flyover/hick voter base, and you're left with nothing except the predatory millionaire class.

True. And since the latter only makes up about 1/2 of 1% of the population, that flyover/hick voter base is very important.

It's not blatantly lying - it's just using potent, ambiguous words because clear and concise ones will leave your position in the gutter where it belongs.

Well, most people like to think they're good people, whether it's true or not. A phrase like "smaller government" is going to be much more palatable than "let the corporations victimize and pillage the poor and weak; it's cheaper because they can't defend themselves." (And it has the added bonus of being much easier to say.)

Also, a little (okay, a LOT) of blind self-congratulating patriotism can do wonders to distract and amuse the public while you systematically strip away their constitutional rights. Why change something that works?

Re:At it again

[jcenters]

IIRC, Jefferson was the first Republican president.

Re:At it again

[untaken_name]

That's funny, the Southern representatives walked out in protest, and THEN a vote was taken about whether they could seceed. Then, when they did so after being told that they couldn't, the North started a war. The war was expressly and specifically to 'preserve the union' and no matter how much you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Had the Southern states not seceeded, the North wouldn't have fought a war over slavery. The War of Norhtern Agression was fought over secession. Period. It may have been *sold* as a war over slavery, even. But that isn't why the people who started it started it. I'm sorry if that's too radical a concept for you to wrap your mind around.

Re:At it again

[untaken_name]

I'd say it should be more like 'Death to special priveleges'. I've never had a problem with equality, only supremacy disguised as equality.

Re:At it again

[tjstork]

Dude, if there was no slavery in the south, there would be no secession. The southern states seceded because they did not have equal power in the House and Senate and so it became increasingly likely that the Federal Government would outright ban slavery and they would no power to prevent it.

Re:At it again

[untaken_name]

Dude, if there was no slavery in the south, there would be no secession

So what? The fact is that secession was written in to the Constitution and so it doesn't really matter what the issue that caused secession was. What matters is that the voters of the Southern states excercised their supposed rights and had a war declared on them for it. I'm sure it isn't at all relevant that the majority of the tax revenue collected in the US came from the South and flowed to the North. Funny how the North had no problems selling slaves, spending tax money collected from selling slaves, and returning runaway slaves to their owners, yet supposedly the war was all about slavery. Right.

Re:At it again

[KDR_11k]

I thought "Republicans" was just the label for the party and "conservatives" is the actual term for the political position?

Re:At it again

[pixelpusher220]

Oy..having grown up in the North, and then lived in the South I get tired of this 'War of Northern Aggression' crap.

Yes the North fought the war to prevent Secession, however the South seceded because of the limits being imposed on slavery. And since the South couldn't function economically WITHOUT slavery, they tried to pick up their chips and leave.

So yes it was a war of aggression, but only against a way of life that depended upon the enslavement of human beings.

There are many nuances to this, many arguments that can be made both ways. But without slavery the South couldn't have survived, hence why they left the table and seceded.

Re:At it again

[japhmi]

The fact is that secession was written in to the Constitution and so it doesn't really matter what the issue that caused secession was.

Please site where in the Constitution this is. In fact in Art I section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation" would probably prohibit the south from froming a 'confederated states.'

What matters is that the voters of the Southern states excercised their supposed rights and had a war declared on them for it.

And who shot the first shot of the Civil War? Oh, it was the South? I guess we should rename it 'The War of Southern Aggression" then...

Re:At it again

[Anonymous Coward]

The north and south simply had different economic interests. The North had a higher population and was primarily a manufacturing economy. The South was primarily a rural agrarian economy. The north wanted duty free goods such as cotton but put tariffs in place to protect their manufactured goods...such as textiles. The south wanted no tariffs on the export of their cotton/grain/tobacco and no tariffs on imported manufactured goods. This can be seen in the confederate constituition which forbade tariffs.
The south was put in the position of having to pay tariffs on goods produced by their trading partners. For example the south would export cotton to England but then find the textiles made in New York were cheaper due to the tariffs placed on English goods. This made the English less likely to buy cotton from the US (which was under an export tariff as well) as they did not have an open, reciprical market for the English export of their own products in the South.
              The list goes on and on with examples such as this and was the true basis for the south walking away. The border states simply did not want the federal govt exercising power over them which exceeded what the states agreed to in the constition.
            Many of the northern states came to rue their decision for exactly this. An example was federal taxation which was started in the North to pay for the civil war expenses and only grew over time rather than ceasing at the end of the war.

Re:At it again

[quarkscat]

You are repeating the propaganda of the current regime in power when you refer to them as "neo-cons" (as in "new conservatives"). The actual (and historically well-documented) term is "neo(Con)artists" (as in "new age (1984) con-artists").

Democracy is a prominent "plank" in the neo(Con)artist platform, but only appies to "the appearance of democracy". Tiawan's pro-democracy demonstrations and pronouncements are, by US State Department judgement, "counter-productive" to their dealings with the PRC. Egypt's and Pakistan's "democracies" set the gold standard for governments whose "appearance of democracy" conceals autocracy, while an Iranian governments "democracy" overseen by a theocratic "court" unfriendy to the USA is a sham. Similarly, the Venezuelan governments "democracy that favors the welfare of the majority of its citizens over that of the elite is also a sham. Finally, the 2000 and 2004 national elections in the USA were decided by (1) a "theocratic" court, or (2) corporate (Diebold, et.al.) interests.

Another "plank" in the "neo-con" agenda would appear to be the creation, by direct action or omission, of disasters that will be exploited by their corporate masters, in the form of government (frequently no-bid) contracts.

The shifting of all power, influence, and wealth from the USA's middle class to the wealthy, and the construction of institutional supports to sustain the new "American royalty" (eg. tax cuts & elimination of the death tax) is another plank.

The current regime in power, as self-proclaimed "neo-cons", are no more conservative in the classical sense than Joseph Stalin could be considered a "true humanitarian". The increased consolidation of power from the American people, and from the 50 states, into the hands of the current regime running the Federal government is neither accidental nor unrelated to the fiscal "constraint" they exercise. The "neo-cons" are, figuratively speaking, "draining the swamp" that empowers the "welfare state" that has evolved over the past 80-plus years. The taxes that supported that government "largesse" have already been re-routed to the wealthy elite and corporations, to the detriment of any/all state-based (but often Federally mandated) welfare programs.

The acquisition of DNA from all individuals that come in contact with the regime now in power is yet another example of (1) the new-found power of the (central) state over personal privacy, and (2) may well represent an era of absolutism as seen in "1984". Considering the close ties between the corporation and the state under this regime, it is not outside the realm of possibility that our own DNA "fingerprints" will all be patented by the corporate state. Rather than barcodes or other numerical tattooes that have been predicted as "the sign of the beast", our DNA in a central database may well be that sign.

New "nose-bleed" heights of corruption of politicians and the political process in the USA has only taken 10 years with the "neo-con" control of the US Congress and then the Executive branch. The neo(Con)artists in power today make the 40-plus years of Democratic control of Congress and whatever corruption might have occurred there make the Dems look like amateura and pikers compared to the "rape & pillage" professionals now in power.

All of which argues the point that the correct label for the current regime in power is neo(Con)artist, and not neo-con.

Re:At it again

[Anonymous Coward]

that's just silly. They asked the north for vacate Fort Sumner. They asked the officer in charge to leave. Both refused. Lincoln sent in a resupply ship specifically to precipitate the war. The South had simply fired on their own property. I quote Jefferson Davis on the day he left the Senate, "All we ask is to be left alone."

Re:At it again

[EternityInterface]

Thank you, that's the only non-positive freedom definition I've ever seen on slashdot.

There is no left or right anymore, there is just blind-faith media-machine corporatism-supporting consumers, and those who see past that.

Ha!

[ScrewMaster]

To all those ostrich-human hybrids who have ever said, "But ... this is America, it could never happen here!" I say, "PHOOEY!"

Gattaca, here we come.

Re:Ha!

[fryke]

I'm glad _you_ mention it. Articles like this one should include "US" before words like "Senate", even though to the author it might seem clear...

Re:Ha!

[Cally]

This will probably be modded flamebait, and it will probably deserve it here - which is unfortunate, because it's intended seriously.

This is addressed to those Americans who defend the right to bear arms partly on the grounds that it gives the people the right to rise up and overthrow the government if it becomes oppressive or undemocratic. (I recognise there are other arguments, but I'm thinking specifically of this one.) Now it seems to be (a self-confessed liberal - capital L - Brit) that for many of those people who defend guns with the "ultimate governmental veto" point, a government DNA database would seem to be an almost biblically prophetic sign (or do I mean 'Sign'?) that the time to rise up has come, because (as you said) most people who have thought "surely it could never happen here!" is asked - yet here you are... (I can only imagine what NRA types would have said if this had happened under Clinton!)

So, which is it? A harmless but essential means to defend America against the terrorist hordes, or the beginning of the black helicopter putsch to introduce a Liberal secret police rounding up meat eaters and shooting in the streets anyone who goes to church?

They might say "Ah, but we still have a democratic means to express our opposition to this measure", but (a) anyone can see there's no such thing, and (b) Bush IS a Republican, ferchrisakes!

Just curious...

Re:Ha!

[uncqual]

(I can only imagine what NRA types would have said if this had happened under Clinton!)

Actually, I suspect that a lot of "NRA types" (since you use the term "types" rather than "members", it's impossible to identify what group you speak of) are very much against this - regardless of who is POTUS. In my unscientific sample group, there is something of a libertarian bent among many active NRA members - esp. those who are not also from a law enforcement background.

So, which is it? A harmless but essential means to defend America against the terrorist hordes, or the beginning of the black helicopter putsch to introduce a Liberal secret police rounding up meat eaters and shooting in the streets anyone who goes to church?

Neither. But it is a continuing trend of incursion on the freedoms of residents of the United States and it's likely to be accepted since we've been sliding (apparently quite willingly in most people's eyes) down the slippery slope of more central control for years - sometimes because "it's for the children" or because "it takes a village".

From a logical standpoint, this DNA initiative is really no different than keeping the fingerprints of those who are detained but not convicted and I've heard little outcry about this. Back in the dark ages, the local police would keep the prints of those they ran across but there was limited coordination across local police departments - this seemed fine to many (after all, if your fingerprints were on file in Oakland California and you were picked up in Dallas Texas, the odds of your Oakland prints being accessed by the police in Dallas would have been very close to 0%). Then, there was increased consolidation of prints and records at State and Federal levels - this seemed fine to many (after all, only in the most extraordinary cases, such as perhaps the assassination of a POTUS, would anyone actually dig through all those prints to match the ones found at a crime scene). Then, the prints got scanned and a program was developed to electronically match prints - this seemed fine to many (after all, "pre deployment" use of this program identified the Night Stalker [Richard Rameriz] in California back in 1985 and led to his conviction and that was the best of all possible worlds).

Frogs, welcome to our warm water spa... [yes, I know the frog/boiling water thing is a myth].

They might say "Ah, but we still have a democratic means to express our opposition to this measure", but (a) anyone can see there's no such thing, and (b) Bush IS a Republican, ferchrisakes!

I don't understand the claim we don't have a democratic means to express our opposition to this measure. Call, fax, and write your congresscritters. In 2006 and 2008 and 2010 vote a straight Libertarian ticket. That's how the process works - hopefully enough of the frogs notice the spa is getting a bit too hot before they find themselves terminally overheated.

Re:Ha!

[fyngyrz]

From a logical standpoint, this DNA initiative is really no different than keeping the fingerprints of those who are detained but not convicted and I've heard little outcry about this

No. Fingerprints let someone know who you are. They can also correlate your physical presence at a scene. No more than that. And the system can be gamed.

A DNA sample potentially lets the holder know how smart you are, what diseases you're prone to, what genetic faults are inevitable, what kind of children you can have, exactly what race(s) you are, what poisons will work best on you, ditto what biologicals will work best on you, what color your eyes are, how strong your bones can get, how your nerves, airways and musculature form... in short, DNA lets the government know way too much. The reason I am convinced that it is way too much is that the government has proven that it will mismanage and break promises about data we allow it to handle. From social security numbers to tax records to the witness protection program, government FUBAR is evident at every turn. It goes beyond the government as well. Because in the final analysis, the government is made of people and most people have a price beyond which they will bend the rules. By extension, if the government has a database that has your DNA in it, you can be darned certain that database will end up (for instance) in the insurance companies hands.

Gaming... entirely possible. Someone gets a sample of your (whatever) and plants it at a crime scene. Now because DNA mismatch is extremely unlikely, you are a major suspect. Sadly, you have no alibi (you didn't know you'd need one and you were out driving around in the rain that night.) Guess what's going to happen to you?

You really think the government will never do anything you won't like with your DNA if you let them have it? I don't have that level of confidence, sorry.

Re:Ha!

[ScrewMaster]

I agree ... but I think the parent was expressing the dangers of incrementalism rather than a belief that DNA retention is a logical and acceptable extension of forensic technology. I particularly don't want this happening under our current Administration: if nothing else, the Transport Safety Administration's ongoing misuse of personal information and repeated lying about it should clue everyone in that our current government can't really be trusted to handle this stuff. If it ever could have been: but it certainly can't now.

Re:Ha!

[uncqual]

Well, no, I don't trust the government with DNA of non-convicted people - any more than I trust them with a lot of stuff (like what firearms, if any, that I own)! I just wish people worried about this stuff more before we had slid so far down the slippery slope. I believe both the DNA and the data extracted from the DNA collected from a suspect should be kept only until the suspect is cleared (admittedly, if the police believe the suspect to be guilty but can't find enough evidence, the suspect might never really be cleared because the case remains open for a very long time). Even if the suspect is not cleared (but not convicted either), the data should probably be purged from any central databases after some fixed time (perhaps a couple of years) except under an explicit court order for each individual case.

You are correct that DNA can tell vastly more about a person than a fingerprint can. However, don't the criminal DNA databases record VERY little of this (less than 20 core loci? but I really don't know nothing about this part of it)? Such limited data seems likely to be of little use to insurance companies or anyone else except for matching two samples with a fairly high degree of reliability. Of course, the police will probably keep the original sample somewhere (and, presumably, preserve it) so the government could go back in the future and extract the additional information without having to re-apprehend the person - but we could prohibit extracting and recording of data beyond what is useful to law enforcement to associate or disassociate an individual from a sample found at a crime scene.

Actually, it is the ease of planting DNA and even the ease of it being transported unwittingly that I suspect may eventually make DNA less acceptable to jurors. It's much harder to plant a fingerprint than to plant a few hairs from someone.

Re:Ha!

[blincoln]

Obviously I only speak for myself here. I fully support the right of private citizens to own firearms, I've fired them a few times, and eventually I'll get around to owning one myself. But actually holding a real gun gives me a sense of dread about the possibility for misuse, and a strong sense of responsibility to stay as far away from those misuses as possible.

As much as I hate the direction my country is taking, it is so far removed from Thomas Jefferson time that the idea of raising arms against the government is lunacy.

Re:Ha!

[dryeo]

From a logical standpoint, this DNA initiative is really no different than keeping the fingerprints of those who are detained but not convicted and I've heard little outcry about this.
Do you guys really keep prints from people who have been cleared (or at least not convicted) in a court of law? I thought you were a free country with a bill of rights including a clause about undue process. Here (Canada) if you're not convicted the crown only keeps your prints for 6 months. Only convicted people have their prints on file forever.

Re:Ha!

[uncqual]

Do you guys really keep prints from people who have been cleared

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm not sure that we do. Somehow I thought we did, but I can't identify a source. After searching the web, it appears that the prints are supposed to be purged from the FBI database when a suspect is cleared. However, there seem to be some cases (such as a suspected gang member) where these prints will linger for 5 years past becoming "inactive".

Re:Ha!

[Ersatz Chickenweed]

"the idea of raising arms against the government is lunacy."

You've got that right. That's the problem with that old NRA argument -- the time when a bunch of citizens could have banded together and actually revolted against the US government is so long past as to be quite laughable. No matter how good your justifications, doing that now will just get you declared a terrorist, with half the citizens in the country howling for your blood and several branches of law enforcement shooting to kill.

Ahh, for the good old days when a few bullets could make a difference and votes actually counted (if you were a white male, that is).

Don't mind me, I'm extremely bitter and jaded but relatively harmless. Really.

Re:Ha!

[Shaper_pmp]

Indeed. Here in the UK we've got the government trying to push us into national ID cards, and the police granted permission by the courts to retain 3 million "innocent" DNA samples taken during investigations and, completely illegally, not destroyed when the donors were proven innocent. We've also followed the US into two wars, and massively increased our risk of terrorist threats. We have so many CCTV cameras in major cities that on average you're photographed every ten seconds.

In the US you've got an unprecedented restriction of civil liberties, terror of (and scapegoating of) "the terrorists" (despite the fact that statistically you're still unimaginably unlikely to get injured or killed by one), a single political party with complete control of the presidency and all three wings of your government apparatus, and that party institutionally corrupted by religious and corporate special-interest groups. You've also invaded two other nations (one on provably trumped-up charges), massively increased your own exposure to terrorist threats, and incurred the disapproval of the world for your flouting of international law and opinion. You are also flouting violating human rights accords and engaging in torture, abuse and humiliation of prisoners on a daily basis, while your tame media keeps the populace ill-informed and apathetic.

But we're still the shining examples of Democracy and Freedom, right?

One question - exactly what has to happen before you'd agree with the statement "The US (and UK) are sliding inexorably to totalitarianism"?

Really? Please? I'd like a short list.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

> One question - exactly what has to happen before you'd agree with the
> statement "The US (and UK) are sliding inexorably to totalitarianism"?

Hollywood movies with US/UK govt as the Bad Guy. That's what.

And I'm actually serious.

The US culture 'teaches' its people to think in terms of 'we' vs. 'them'. Seriously. Listen carefully to the speech patterns of people on the news; compare with other countries. People say 'we' even when they have no practical personal involvement whatsoever. The personal involvement is purely emotional. Why can't fascism happen to us? Because 'we' are the Good Guys, collectivelly.

Sidenote factoid: if you teach people to say "We are free!" by rote and make it a matter of national pride, they'll stick to it no matter what happens.

Emotion always trumps logic. That's the core secret of doing politics.

Re:Ha!

[Prophet of Nixon]

Yea, I too miss the good old days, when life was simple, and brains flew through space, and everybody ate lasers...

This is especially troubling...

[null etc.]

...because of the FBI's recently-announced task force to crack down on "deviant" porn on the Internet. Should you be detained or arrested for such a crime, even if not found guilty, your DNA would be tied on-file to the sexual preferences which caused you to get busted.

Re:This is especially troubling...

[no_barcode]

...crack down on "deviant" porn...
Links?

Re:This is especially troubling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... deviant porn? Exactly HOW is this DNA going to be extracted?

Re:This is especially troubling...

[doschie]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-5346 .html

Re:This is especially troubling...

[Seumas]

The worst part is that this isn't about convicted criminals. This is about anyone ARRESTED or even simply DETAINED by federal authorities. It doesn't take much to be arrested and it takes absolutely NOTHING to be detained by federal authorities other than someone, oh say like the president, calling you a threat or a risk of some sort or implying that you have some sort of involvement with those who are.

Fortunately, we're still a free country aside from the whole arrested, detainment, imprisonment without trial, genetic material databasing (hm, 4th amendment much?) at the whim of a public official part.

Re:This is especially troubling...

[dreamer33]

As a matter of fact they are collecting various other body samples too... a sample of hair, semen, stool,... etc.

Re:This is especially troubling...

[cdrdude]

You want links to deviant porn!? :P

Re:This is especially troubling...

[andreMA]

As a matter of fact they are collecting various other body samples too... a sample of hair, semen, stool,... etc.

I have no idea if that's true, but it raises an interesting question. What happens if they want a semen sample from a religious fundamentalist who believes that masturbation is a serious sin? Or what if the knowledge of what the sample is to be used for creates impotence?

Those would be interesting cases. Almost makes me wish we had Ashcroft back so that a defendant could call him a pervert.

Anti-conservative Republicans.

[CyricZ]

Indeed, this further shows how anti-conservative the Republican Party has become. True conservatives would never support legislation that intrudes so terribly into the lives of innocent citizens. It's against the very ideals that a real conservative holds.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok this will get overturned. Religious conservatives do not believe in the existance of DNA, or microbes, for that matter.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as a "real conservative". There is no document or standard that describes what a conservative is. You can argue that someone is a conservative, and you can claim to be a conservative, but there is no single definition.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ive

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[mc6809e]

Indeed, this further shows how anti-conservative the Republican Party has become. True conservatives would never support legislation that intrudes so terribly into the lives of innocent citizens. It's against the very ideals that a real conservative holds.

Yep, but that didn't get many Republicans elected, did it?

Face it. "The people" want the largest possible central government to solve all their problems.

Just reflect on the cries that went up after Katrina. The people want a dictator to come in and take care of them and all their problems. You can't have a small, unintrusive government like that.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Pinefresh]

I think youre confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Seems to me that all consevatives in recent memory (except maybe Ragan) have been about restricting rights.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that the Republican party is a bunch of hypocrites!?

That's a shocker! Have they ever been anything other then a bunch of overbearing power trippers?

But honestly, are there any Conservative republicans left? Anyone who actually believes in smaller government and keeping the military as a defensive force?

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, if it's on the internet, it has to be true.

this too is on the internet, you're a fucking moron.

it must be true too.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[ScrewMaster]

Indeed. I actually got to speak to a real conservative once ... right before he was dragged off by the FBI's Deviant Control Division to have his his DNA sample taken. Apparently, someone had left a picture of a nude Michael Jackson on his hard drive.

Seriously, in the past decade or so I've been seeing less and less difference between the two parties. Oh sure ... they make lip noises about "being the Party of the People" or "wanting to lower taxes because we're the real Party of the People" but all I see is increased government spending, more bureacracy, more waste, and more taxes.

I mean, when you have a Republican cowboy oil-baron for a President, and Democratic leadership that is just as heavily monied, how can we honestly expect our government to "feel our pain" when gas reaches three bucks a gallon. Just watching the Elder George Bush's reaction to a grocery-store laser checkout scanner showed me just how out-of-touch they are with the rest of us.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know YOU are, but what am I?

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the special olympics.. you might win... but you're still retarded.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before he was elected, Clinton hadn't driven a car in decades. When he was president, he drive a secret service car around on the whitehouse lawn and crashed it.

Al gore doesn't know how to use an ATM.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

That really tells us nothing. It really tells us less than nothing because "traditional values" are a moving target to say the least. The GP was correct, conservative and liberal have no meaning outside of self identified and self defined. These words are thrown around by the intellectual lazy and dishonest. The lazy use it in place of research and the dishonest use it as propaganda balloon words.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Minwee]

"Religious conservatives do not believe in the existance of DNA"

That's okay, they will just put stickers on all of the DNA tests that say it is just a theory.

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[falconwolf]

Indeed, this further shows how anti-conservative the Republican Party has become. True conservatives would never support legislation that intrudes so terribly into the lives of innocent citizens. It's against the very ideals that a real conservative holds.

Actually it's anti-liberal as in the Jeffersonian or classical liberal idea of liberty and small government.

Falcon

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[Pinefresh]

its just not as funny without the tasteless picture

http://members.dodo.net.au/~grindercom/argument.jp g

(sorry to who ever im stealing the bandwidth from hehe)

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[falconwolf]

But honestly, are there any Conservative republicans left? Anyone who actually believes in smaller government and keeping the military as a defensive force?

What's ironic is that the so called conservative is supposed to be for small government, when during the US and French Revolutions liberals were for small government and liberty as exemplified by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine.

Falcon

Re:Anti-conservative Republicans.

[ScrewMaster]

That may be ... but I while I may not be able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, when something is conservative in nature, I damned well know when it isn't. And what is being done today in the name of conservatism most certainly is not. Period. The so-called "conservatives" running the show right now can take each and every one of their anti-Constitutional, "anti-terrorist", anti-civil-liberty, Homeland (???) protecting, power-grabbing "initiatives" and stick them where the Sun don't shine.

And of course, that applies just as well to the liberals and quasi-liberals among us: this lot has been systematically looting the treasury to buy votes for the past half century, under the guise of "uplifting the common man". It's funny, you know, how every effort to uplift this mythical mass-man has degraded the individual. And raised taxes into the bargain. Just get off our backs: we'll uplift ourselves just fine, like we were doing until you began to dick with us.

At this particular point in time, both sides make me sick. Neither the liberals, the conservatives, the Democrats nor the Republicans have the best interests of the nation and it's people at heart. They have their own interests at heart. Modern politics less to do with improving the standard of living and making America a better place than it does with pigging a bigger share of the goodies. "The Chair {oink} recognizes the {oink} distinguished Senator from {oink} Texas. {oink oink}"

There were certain things that did, in fact, make America special ... nay, unique among nations, these past two-hundred-odd years. Little things like the Constitution, respect for the law, respect for the citizen, respect for people of other countries ... all those things that made people want to come here to live and work and raise their children. And there's enough of that left that people of a multitude of nations still want to come to the U.S. ... in droves.

But still I wonder: at what point will Americans be desperate to leave this great land of ours ... in droves.

Excellent

[Solr_Flare]

Now, if arrested I can attempt a wild, crazed escape and know that if I am killed in the attempt my clone can stand trial for me instead.

Re:Excellent

[UnapprovedThought]

my clone can stand trial for me instead

Actually, they will use the opportunity to make 1000 clones of you for their clone army but forget that these people have jury duty, and so they will all show up as jurors claiming they have never met you before. You will thus be acquitted but will be mistaken for someone else because your DNA matches, so that you are then sent to Afghanistan, where you will be placed on landmine removal duty. In the meantime, the soldier-clone you displaced is arrested trying to board a military transport and, obviously an impostor, is sent to jail, where the process starts all over again.

As millions of copies of you begin to spread all over the Earth, nobody is the wiser when you manage to elect yourself as president. With majorities in all political bodies, you and your clones pass a law banning the forcible collection of DNA.

~The End~

Quite a development, really....

[Malor]

It's like bar codes on your forehead, without the pesky tattoo.

This is the ultimate surveillance tool. It trumps all other forms of ID.

Re:Quite a development, really....

[Anonymous Coward]

huh

just like finger prints are a form of surveillance right? or a mug shot will tell them where you are at any given moment?

moron

Re:Quite a development, really....

[temojen]

Unless you're a twin.

That will help in rounding up the Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if Hitler had this capability, now substitute the word "Jews" for any other ethnic minority/oppressed/handicapped people and see how chilling a database like this could be used, but we all know that Hitler and his ideas was just a one off and those kinds of ideas couldnt happen here right ?, right ?

where exactly is America heading ?

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin'ed!
</Strong Bad voice>

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

They are already there; fascism!

-exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.

-stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.

-engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

where exactly is America heading ?

Judgement Day.

The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:9 -12

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[nwbvt]

Well unless he could find some easily identifiable gene that is common to and unique to Jews (or whatever minority he feels like getting rid of), it wouldn't be of any help. Genetics don't work the way you apparently think they do.

Imagine how much more powerful Hitler could be if he had digital computers or a space program or an interconnected network of computers on which he could spread his propoganda. Should we ban all of those technologies? Any technology can be misused, that doesn't mean we should go back to the dark ages.

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[Mechcozmo]

Hitler rose to power because people wanted him to come to power. Digital computers, space, blah blah blah. Hitler put a radio in every household-- so that he could tell them what he wanted, when he wanted. The people were in a state where $1 billion marks couldn't buy bread. Hitler offered a way out. Desperate people will believe what you tell them.

Hitler was an evil man. But he was also very smart. He went with what the people wanted, and gave them it-- the return to Germany's former prestige.

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

> Imagine if Hitler had this capability, now
> substitute the word "Jews" for any other ethnic
> minority/oppressed/handicapped people and see how
> chilling a database like this could be used, but we
> all know that Hitler and his ideas was just a one
> off and those kinds of ideas couldnt happen here
> right
> ?, right ?
>
> where exactly is America heading ?

Imagine if some Jews decided they wanted to get
even with Arayn's, Christian's, or Arabs. See how
chilling a database like that could be used? But we
all know that Jews are perfected human beings who
would never think such things (er, like using
America to invade its Arab neighboors).

?right?

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[heson]

Finally someone who thinks, it actually connects back to TFA. /"Do you expect the american inquistition?"

Re:That will help in rounding up the Jews

[indifferent children]

No one expects the American Inquisition!

Call me paranoid but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suspect the government already has large percentages of the population's DNA/prints on file, they just can't legally use them for prosecution.
If this is the case, a law such as this being passed might give law-enforcement agencies a precedent to be able to access this larger hypothetical already-collected database of information straight away.

Re:Call me paranoid but...

[clone22]

Speaking of paranoid, I suspect that insurance companies have already started genetic databases using material gleaned from the seal on envelopes in which bill payments are enclosed.

Re:Call me paranoid but...

[glitch23]

Well remember, DNA/prints are things that a person has to be able to give to law enforcement in most cases (at least if law enforcement wants to match the data to a person/name for someone who has not been arrested yet, and if they have been arrested the prints are already on file). It's not like the gov't can take it without you even knowing (99% of the time). They can grab your DNA off of the glass of water that you used but if they don't already know you then they won't have a name to match up with the data. This link http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis.htm details what the gov't has so far as of the last update to the site (it's mainly static content). Basically there are around 47 million subjects in the database right now. The majority of those are criminal but some are civil (gov't employees, contractors, subcontractors). Also, for anyone who knows someone who subscribes to National Geographic there was an article about the fingerprint database in a recent issue (although it wasn't that good I thought; focused too much on fingerprints when the Division handles more than just those) http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0505/featur e7/ Unfortunately the full article is not on the actual website however I read it a while back when it first came out (someone is borrowing it and I can't look again right now) and it details the current count of fingerprints but I don't remember what it was without looking. So in summary, the gov't has a lot of prints on file but only for those people who have submitted them (either b/c of a crime committed or because of a background check needed for a job).

Re:Call me paranoid but...

[mbius]

Okay, you're paranoid.

The government has your prints on file if you've been arrested.

The government has no business whatsoever holding your DNA.

What are you going to do about it?

[CyricZ]

I'm not sure if you're an American or not, but if you are, what are you planning to do about this? I mean, at least you're aware of this situation now. That's probably a step ahead of most Americans. But are there any Americans who are actually willing to do something serious about this? And by "serious" I mean not just posting messages of displeasure on various Internet forums or blogs.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[in7ane]

Like a good American he will fully comply with his government's new policy. I mean who would oppose such a measure? By cataloguing those who may be interested in pornography you create a database of potential future offenders - and would you oppose a measure that could protect so many children in the future?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Associate]

What would you suggest we do?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Wyatt Earp]

Well, I'm not going to commit a Federal crime for starters. Then IF it does pass, eventually it will go to the Supreme Court and if it's Unconstitutional, it'll get outlawed.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[sgant]

Exactly...what do we do? We vote, but as I voted in the last election, the guy I was voting against still won. OK...now what? I've written to both my congressmen and senators about topics like the National ID and things like this...they write back to me with a form letter stating that they too are concerned, yet they never say one way or another if they're for or against anything. Which leads us back to the voting booth which has lead no where in the past.

So what would you suggest we do? Take up arms against our government? The only arms I have are the ones attached to my shoulders and possibly a pointed stick. And sorry, I don't want to be detained down in Guantanamo Bay.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Itchy Rich]

Like a good American he will fully comply with his government's new policy. I mean who would oppose such a measure? By cataloguing those who may be interested in pornography you create a database of potential future offenders - and would you oppose a measure that could protect so many children in the future?

Banning smoking in public places would protect children, but plenty of people oppose that. It's a trade-off between crime-prevention and (in this case) privacy. Some people will oppose it, it's just a question of what percentage. The people that do oppose it have a right to do so without being labelled "bad americans".

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[schon]

Well, I'm not going to commit a Federal crime for starters.

I think you missed the part where they can do it to you even if you're innocent..

That's the problem - it doesn't matter if you haven't comitted a crime, they still get to profile you.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Infernal Device]

It would appear that we don't have too many options for "doing something about it". We could take up arms, but the government is better armed than most people, and those who are willing to fight in defense of rights are smaller than those willing to bear arms to support the government (unless it's for the right to bear arms). We all seen how effective acts of terrorism are. Plus, there has to be something better than killing off the people you're trying to persuade.

All of the power is with the Republicans right now and they've shown that they don't actually believe in the Constitution, unless it's for Republicans, nor do they care about the people, unless the people are rich or think like they do.

I, like many, don't have much investment in this country, and so, I would gladly get the hell out, except that I don't have much investment in anything else to allow me to afford to get the hell out.

So, any other brilliant ideas?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Seumas]

So you're suggesting that, in a country where you can be DNA-catalogued, arrested, detained and imprisoned without trial without evidence or judicial review of your situation, you should vocally dissent and make yourself a mark? Screw that. That didn't work so well for people in Germany, Russia or China and since we're following suit in practice, it won't work here.

As much as I appreciate the advanced concepts of true freedom and autonomy, I prefer the reality of not being disappeared more.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[anthony_dipierro]

Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, for starters. Honestly though, I don't see how this is so bad. It's not good, but I don't really see how the government having your DNA is a bad thing. I've given the IRS my fingerprints. How much worse is DNA? What is the potential harm?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Education IS serious.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Wyatt Earp]

Like they do with mug shots and fingerprints already at the State and Federal level.

They profile EVERYONE who has been arrested or detained already, even if innocent, even if charges are dropped.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[droptone]

Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, for starters.

This is a cute suggestion, but not very practical. I agree that both political parties are corrupt beyond repair and that democracy needs more than 2 dominant political parties, but what should we do? Vote for some candidates who have barely spent the energy formulating a coherent policy? Let's see... we have the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, plus a cadre of smaller ones. I certainly am not going to vote for third party candidates merely because they are a third party candidate. I consider myself more knowledgeable about the current state of American politics, and I am at a loss of suggestions. I would love to find a political party that actually represents my political views, rather than finding the best fit among the big two. Does anyone have any suggestions about what to do? I mean I could go into politics, but I am quite sure I am not suited for such a job.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[aarku]

We were kinda hoping you'd help us out...

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly had no idea that the US had turned into such a police nation. comments like these have really opened my eyes - it gives me the feeling that the terrorists have already won. Osama's probably laughing his ass off as America implodes into its own fear. It's amazing what the power of blind faith and fear can do to the human heart and mind. I'd laugh if it was't so pathetic.

Really, what can american citizens do, without resorting to even more unnecessary blood and violence?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[andreMA]

it will go to the Supreme Court and if it's Unconstitutional, it'll get outlawed.

Because we all know the Supreme Court is (1) apolitical and (2) infallible. If there's serious question about the Constitutionality of a law, it is the responsibility to Congress not to pass it in the first place.

To do otherwise displays contempt for the Constitution and their oath of office. It's never OK to go along with violating people's rights on the theory that the Supreme Court will eventually put a stop to it. Unless somehow they can "make it didn't happen" for every last person whose rights were trampled on in the interim.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're an American or not, but if you are, what are you planning to do about this?

The same thing is being put in place in several European countries. Post 9/11 everything goes, and if you oppose giving more power to law enforcement you're with the bad guys. Human och civil rights are just ink on paper.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Wyatt Earp]

We don't know if it's violating anyone's rights as a Mob or Individuals. The fingerprints, testimony, photographs and other evidence is kept if one is found innocent or released or even if not charged. Why should DNA be different?

My stance is, I don't know if this is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional, thats the Court's role. Thats why I said and why I say, it will go to the Supreme Court and if it's Unconstitutional, it'll get outlawed.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[falconwolf]

So what would you suggest we do? Take up arms against our government? The only arms I have are the ones attached to my shoulders and possibly a pointed stick. And sorry, I don't want to be detained down in Guantanamo Bay.

Here's what you can do, vote Libertarian.

Falcon

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[falconwolf]

Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, for starters. Honestly though, I don't see how this is so bad. It's not good, but I don't really see how the government having your DNA is a bad thing. I've given the IRS my fingerprints. How much worse is DNA? What is the potential harm?

You find you've been dropped from health insurance and come to find out it's because you've got a genetic predisposition to cancer.

How's that for a reason?

Falcon

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Simon Garlick]

I don't really see how the government having your DNA is a bad thing. I've given the IRS my fingerprints. How much worse is DNA? What is the potential harm?

No harm. Until...

You get rejected for health cover because you have a gene giving you a predisposition to cancer.

You can't get a drivers licence because you have a gene giving you a predisposition to bad eyesight.

You can't get a job because you have an X chromosome giving you a predisposition to violence.

Get the drift?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[andreMA]

The fingerprints, testimony, photographs and other evidence is kept if one is found innocent or released or even if not charged. Why should DNA be different?

This is true. Testimony I feel is a somewhat different case, as the individual has an opportunity to consult legal counsel, choose how he phrases answers and/or invoke his 5th Amendment right.

Photographs in the case of mug shots are information that is in effect already publicly available; anyone can look at your face as you walk down the street. If I recall correctly, there was some recent controversy concerning pictures of Michael Jackson's genitals that he wanted destroyed following his acquittal. Much as I personally think he's a scumbag, he was found not guilty and I support him in his bid to have the pictures turned over to him or destroyed.

The courts have held that fingerprints may be retained even if no conviction ultimately results. I see fingerprints and DNA falling under "papers" in which we should be secure from unreasonable search. There should be a requirement for a warrant, so that an attempt to quash it may be made. This "routine Administrative collection" is a means of circumventing Constitutional protections in the name of "Think of the Children" "Well if you have nothing to hide..." "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" Err, whatever the excuse is this week.

Have an actual need for a DNA sample (or fingerprints)? Convince a Judge to issue a warrant after you state an articulatable justification. It's not hard; there are plenty of incompetent judges who'd sign their own death warrant if placed before them. And if the suspicion or cause turned out to be invalid, the warrant evaporates, as do the samples and all records of them. Period.

Court ordered handwriting exemplars should be treated the same way - destroyed unless a conviction they are relevant to occurs. --I should probably be modded "(-1) Ewwww!!!!" for the Michael Jackson example...

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am, most seriously, going to lobby the /. powers that be (Cowboyneal) to slap that little bitch Zonk down. I mean, seriously. This guy is out of control.

(*waving to zonk* yeah...you know where I live, I know where you live. Punk.)

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[anthony_dipierro]

Well, I don't have health insurance. But what does the government having your DNA have to do with your health insurance? Are you suggesting that the government is going to drop medicare coverage from people who are predisposed to cancer?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Wyatt Earp]

"The courts have held that fingerprints may be retained even if no conviction ultimately results. I see fingerprints and DNA falling under "papers" in which we should be secure from unreasonable search."

Exactly my point. What we feel about it doesn't matter. What the Courts decided matters in regards to our personal freedoms in this Country and others. They decide what Rights the Individual gets. If it was up to the Masses to decide things, then in the 1920s through 1940s there would have been mass steralizations of the poor and minorities across the Western World, if the Public decided policy than all sorts of terrible things would happen. The Courts are the people society has decided gets to decide for us. I see a world where rapists are publicly executed and a citizen can own weapons up to 23mm without registration and you see fingerprints and DNA falling under a lockbox. It's not up to us to decide these things, but the Courts.

The Courts keep whacky ideas that a person has from becoming a terrible reality.

Right or wrong, I trust the Courts to make the right decisions more than they make the wrong ones.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[anthony_dipierro]

You get rejected for health cover because you have a gene giving you a predisposition to cancer.

I don't have health cover, but what does this have to do with the government? You don't think the govt. is going to drop medicare coverage for people predisposed to cancer, do you?

By the way, what the health insurance company is more likely to do is exempt cancer from your coverage, unless of course you're willing to pay specifically for that coverage. I don't see this as a bad thing. If you are predisposed to cancer, then you should pay more for health insurance covering cancer treatment.

You can't get a drivers licence because you have a gene giving you a predisposition to bad eyesight.

Please. They give people drivers' licenses who *have* bad eyesight. It's ridiculous to think they're going to take them away from people who are merely predisposed to getting it.

You can't get a job because you have an X chromosome giving you a predisposition to violence.

Again, you're talking about private industry, not the government.

Get the drift?

No, I don't, not at all. The only example you gave that was even related to the government was the drivers' license one, and it seemed pretty silly to me. If the government really does get that crazy, I don't think details of a few people's DNA is going to matter.

You might as well argue that it's wrong for the DMV to store your driver's license photo, because they might take drivers' licenses away from all black people. Or because health insurance companies might drop people with fair skin who are more likely to develop skin cancer.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[falconwolf]

Well, I don't have health insurance. But what does the government having your DNA have to do with your health insurance? Are you suggesting that the government is going to drop medicare coverage from people who are predisposed to cancer?

All it takes is one person with access to the dna database who's willing to give or greedy enough to sale said data to insurance companies.

Falcon

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.geocities.com/theseconddarkage/letters. html

I for one, and for starters, will write some letters to my senators and congressmen telling them I don't want them voting for this and why. You can expect me to post my letter here within a day or 2.

Anyone and everyone please join me in participating in our (U.S. Citizens) government

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[andreMA]

Exactly my point. What we feel about it doesn't matter. What the Courts decided matters in regards to our personal freedoms in this Country and others. They decide what Rights the Individual gets.

Technically, they decide what rights people are deprived of; any unenumerated rights are reserved to the States or citizens under the 9th Amendment. And, in my opinion stay, there unless the government is able to prove a compelling interest under the deliberately limited powers granted to it.

Right or wrong, I trust the Courts to make the right decisions more than they make the wrong ones.

And I don't trust them - either I'm paranoid or you're gullible. If it's upheld it would be an error, regardless of how frequently such mistakes occur (we can agree that sometimes the Courts get it right, and sometimes they don't).

But if I'm detained for something bullshit and they come at me for a sample, I will walk out. If I'm not allowed to, I'm not "detained" -- I'm under arrest. And they damned well better be prepared to justify that, or face a lawsuit.

Going somewhat offtopic...

I see a world where rapists are publicly executed and a citizen can own weapons up to 23mm without registration and you see fingerprints and DNA falling under a lockbox.

I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think. If we have capital punishment, I'd favor it for rape as well as murder and a few other things. And if it's being done in the name of the society, it should be done in public.

My issue is the possibility of error; you can't un-execute someone. In heinous cases, I'd favor life-no-chance-of-parole and the criminal is given the chance to volunteer to be executed rather than face an unpleasant life behind bars. Hell, possibly give them a small incentive, perhaps - let them volunteer for execution and waive their appeals in exchange for a more comfortable life in prison for a duration not exceeding half the typical appeals process. (I also think people should be allowed to suicide if they're mentally competent, but that's another issue only tangentially related.)

As to individual possession of weapons without registration, I'd not limit it as much as you do. There used to be a time when farmers could buy dynamite for stump and rock removal; it didn't seem to cause many problems. Fireworks used to be legal; there weren't many problems - falling out of a tree was a greater hazard for children than playing with firecrackers and bottle rockets. But now they're illicit, and the risk is greater. Same applies to firearms - the criminals and idiots aren't going to obey a law taking them away, and I don't want the government to have a list of who has what guns so that in any (real or imagined) emergency they can decide to collect them "for the public good." Personally I don't own any guns and don't want to - I have too short a temper to be a responsible gun owner. I prefer that a percentage of my neighbors are, though (except the asshole with the loud music at 3AM).

I guess a line does need to be drawn somewhere on weapons/firearms though. Plutonium for sale at the local gunshop isn't a great idea. The problem with drawing any line, anywhere is that as soon as you do so, some asshole wants to move it...

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[blincoln]

If you are predisposed to cancer, then you should pay more for health insurance covering cancer treatment.

This is kind of a nice idea, but totally impractical to implement fairly. Think about cataloguing every possible ailment that someone can be predisposed too. Then figure out how much each of those costs to treat. Only they won't cost the same for everyone, so you have to figure out how much it will cost a particular person based on all the other factors.

In the end, it would just be another excuse for insurance companies to fuck over the people on their plans, and for both them and the medical industry to make more money. Every single change I've seen to medical insurance in my life has been towards that goal.

I'm willing to accept the theory that what you are predisposed to and what I am predisposed to will generally even out once you look at everything, and pay the same as you. Every once in awhile there will be an Accutane baby who also has Down's syndrome and a genetic predisposition to spontaneous combustion. But I don't believe that the bureaucracy involved to make it "fair" for the vast majority of us who are closer to average would be worth it.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Associate]

You get rejected for health cover because you have a gene giving you a predisposition to cancer.

I don't have health cover, but what does this have to do with the government? You don't think the govt. is going to drop medicare coverage for people predisposed to cancer, do you?

By the way, what the health insurance company is more likely to do is exempt cancer from your coverage, unless of course you're willing to pay specifically for that coverage. I don't see this as a bad thing. If you are predisposed to cancer, then you should pay more for health insurance covering cancer treatment.

Your amount insurace coverage or lack there of does nothing for your argument. It's at best anecdotal. Do I think the government will drop coverage of people predisposed to cancer? No. What I do think is that they will eventually be persuaded into selling the database to insurance companies which will. And incase you misunderstand the idea behind health insurance, the idea is to spread the risk. As a relatively healthy, 29 year old, non-smoking, white male, my risk to my insurance company is pretty low. While many of my aged coworkers who's health is declining present more of a loss. The idea is that when I eventually shift into their shoes, there will be enough people like I formerly was to offset the difference. I typically agree that insurance is a scam. But the alternative is universal healthcare. In which case, the government will deny coverage for predisposed illness.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Apocros]

"My stance is, I don't know if this is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional, thats the Court's role."

i would suggest that most anyone should be able to determine whether something is immoral or not. whether others, let alone a majority, agree with you is tangential. as to whether something is illegal or unconstitutional, again, i think most people/citizens should be able to make such a determination for themselves. the legislature or court may not agree, but then it becomes a question of how well you're represented by your government, and what (if anything) you're going to do about it. of course, we're all free to absolve ourselves of the right (responsibility?) to make these determinations for ourselves, but i don't view that as being a particularly good idea.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Znork]

Actually, I think it's more likely you'll get scapegoated for some crime instead. With a one-in-a-million chance of random DNA matches and a database of 300 million people you'll get 300 people for every sample to pick a suitable suspect from (not to mention the far better chances for suitable matches in homogenous populations).

It's even better than random arrests in the area, because the DNA 'proves' you were there.

Great stuff for DA's with a political career and a high profile case.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Crystalmonkey]

If you're not going to use at least be kind enough to // it for all of the people who might think you're actually serious.

That's just sloppy coding there.

Unless of course you are serious, in which case your head needs to be examined by a trained medical official.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[anthony_dipierro]

All it takes is one person with access to the dna database who's willing to give or greedy enough to sale said data to insurance companies.

What would be the point of the company stealing the information from the government when they could just require you to give it to them freely?

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[anthony_dipierro]

This is kind of a nice idea, but totally impractical to implement fairly.

Perfectly fairly, of course not. The whole point of insurance is you're dealing with uncertainties. But it's more fair to have accurate information than less accurate information.

In the end, it would just be another excuse for insurance companies to fuck over the people on their plans, and for both them and the medical industry to make more money.

It's not like anyone is forcing you to get health insurance. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You can even set up your own health insurance company.

I'm willing to accept the theory that what you are predisposed to and what I am predisposed to will generally even out once you look at everything, and pay the same as you.

Actually, I kind of doubt it. Some people probably have much higher likely medical costs than others. But it sounds like what you want is for everyone in the country to be covered by insurance on an equal basis from the start. I could probably live with that, but it really doesn't have anything to do with DNA.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[anthony_dipierro]

Do I think the government will drop coverage of people predisposed to cancer? No. What I do think is that they will eventually be persuaded into selling the database to insurance companies which will.

Why, because it's so hard for the insurance company to ask you for a strand of hair? If the insurance companies want your DNA, they're just going to get it from you directly. It makes no sense for them to buy it from the government, especially when the government's database only contains the DNA of a small subset of the population.

And incase you misunderstand the idea behind health insurance, the idea is to spread the risk.

If you really want to spread the risk, don't get health insurance from a company that checks your DNA. Sure, you're going to pay a lot more, but it'll be the same price as the others.

As a relatively healthy, 29 year old, non-smoking, white male, my risk to my insurance company is pretty low. While many of my aged coworkers who's health is declining present more of a loss. The idea is that when I eventually shift into their shoes, there will be enough people like I formerly was to offset the difference.

It sounds like what you're looking for is an investment plan, not an insurance plan. Do you really think you as a 29 year old, non-smoking, white male, should pay as much as an 54 year old, smoking, alcoholic white female? It seems like you're looking for a government program to even things out for everyone, because otherwise what's supposed to be the incentive for a healthy person to pay into health insurance if they have to pay the same costs as someone who is unhealthy? Sure, they might get sick one day, but some people are a lot more likely to get sick than others.

If you want everyone treated fairly, then just have the government provide a single health insurance program to everyone. Then they can force everyone to buy in regardless of their health, at an equal rate.

I typically agree that insurance is a scam. But the alternative is universal healthcare. In which case, the government will deny coverage for predisposed illness.

Why would they do that? The whole point of universal healthcare is that it's universal.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Associate]

I apologise to the slashdot community for feeding the trolls.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[indifferent children]

Here's what you can do, vote Libertarian.

Thus ensuring that one of the two guys you are voting against will always win.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Funksaw]

I"m trying to save up and move. Of course, being underemployed with an M.A. makes that hard, but I am making progress.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[japhmi]

My stance is, I don't know if this is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional, thats the Court's role.

See, that's the problem. You've given the court 3 jobs when they should only have 2. They seem to have liked that added job for the past 70-odd years too much, IMHO.

My stance is that it's the Court's final role to determine if it's "illegal or unconstitutional." If it's immoral, then that's up for the people to decide through their elected representatives.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Red Flayer]

"Exactly...what do we do? We vote, but as I voted in the last election, the guy I was voting against still won. OK...now what? I've written to both my congressmen and senators about topics like the National ID and things like this...they write back to me with a form letter stating that they too are concerned, yet they never say one way or another if they're for or against anything. Which leads us back to the voting booth which has lead no where in the past. "

Legislators have teams of people tracking correspondence like this... and it definitely makes a difference. They rank correspondence according to medium, from emails on the low end to hand-written letters on the highest end.

Contact info for US Congress people available here:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

What else can you do?

Organize friends and acquaintances to write letters and make phone calls. Support organizations that lobby for your position(s).

Get the main-stream media involved. Write a letter to the editor, follow up to get it published. Create a group consisting of like-minded people and hold a press conference, send out press releases. It helps if you build a coalition of acitivst groups. Organize protests. Catch your legislators coming out of lunch, and videotape yourself asking them their stances, and their responses.

Voting is not participating in government. Voting is one way of deciding who participates in government. If you want to participate in government, you can... but it takes more than voting, and to be really effective, it takes more than writing a letter.

Remeber, one vote doesn't mean anything to a US legislator. 10,000 votes do. 1,000 votes do.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[Red Flayer]

"So you're suggesting that, in a country where you can be DNA-catalogued, arrested, detained and imprisoned without trial without evidence or judicial review of your situation, you should vocally dissent and make yourself a mark? Screw that. That didn't work so well for people in Germany, Russia or China and since we're following suit in practice, it won't work here. "

It didn't work in in China, at Tiananmen Square? Did not the actions of the protestors bring massive world attention to a problem, and push the Chinese government to institute some reform?

Or how about all the other places where such loud dissent prevented government from going that far?

"As much as I appreciate the advanced concepts of true freedom and autonomy, I prefer the reality of not being disappeared more.

Ignore tyranny to save your own skin? This is the exact attitude that allows fascist governments to take complete control. "Hey, as long as I'm personally doing OK, what does it matter?"

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this, but you should have posted as an anonymous coward.

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[falconwolf]

Here's what you can do, vote Libertarian.

Thus ensuring that one of the two guys you are voting against will always win.

Not if everyone else did the same, unfortunately too many have the attitude you express and won't do anything. If someone doesn't try to do something they have no reason to complain.

Falcon

Re:What are you going to do about it?

[indifferent children]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is 'doing something'. And if more Naderites had understood that in either of the last two elections, our country would be a loss less broke and a lot less screwed-up right now. Throwing-away your vote on some who has zero change of winning, that's not 'doing something'.

Its eugenics back again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this URL for some of the history of genetic and racial classification in America. This data is the health insurance companies wet dream. They want to be able to deny coverage based on your genetis background. So, for example, if you had an uncle who got cancer, or a parent who had a predisposition to a disease, you could become unemployable..

See http://waragainsttheweak.com/articles.php, especially the article in Reform Judaism about this 'new kind of selection'.

This is the real reason behind the big push for medical IT, and its vert scary.

For profit health insurance and medical IT are not compatible..

Re:Its eugenics back again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this URL for some of the history of genetic and racial classification in America. This data is the health insurance companies wet dream. They want to be able to deny coverage based on your genetis background. So, for example, if you had an uncle who got cancer, or a parent who had a predisposition to a disease, you could become unemployable..

I'm already unemployable, you insensitive clod.

Re:Its eugenics back again...

[betterthancats]

/me Dons Devil's Advocate Hat

But I don't like subsidizing the healthcare of members (of the human race) who would otherwise be removed by natural selection.

Re:Its eugenics back again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if one of those members happens to be a loved one? Family member? Yourself?

It's easy to say you don't want to pay for the problems of others when you're sitting pretty. Situations can change fast though.

Re:Its eugenics back again...

[jmv]

This data is the health insurance companies wet dream

Sometimes I wonder wether it really is. In the short term, it might, but thing about it in the long term. If you knew exactly what what's going to happen to your health, why take an insurance? If you know you're in very good shape, you probably won't take a medical insurance (or at least insist on a very low price). Insurances make money on incertainty. The less incertainty there is, the less clients they have.

Makes sense.

[RyanFenton]

Since they're "detaining" people without charging them with crimes now on a fairly large scale, in cases where they don't want to be forced to show their evidence in a public setting, they'd need this loophole to track people who they feel they unfairly have to release for what they feel are political reasons. Seems a consistant, if highly corrupted logic.

Reminds me of the British legal tradition of jailing people without any right to a speedy trial. Seems like we created a constitution in order to get away from that kind of thing.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Makes sense.

[timeOday]

A Consti-what?

Really, I have almost given up on the idea that words on paper have meaning. Today's govt. is so vastly different from even 100 years ago, all with scarcely any alteration to the document that is supposedly its charter.

Re:Makes sense.

[Minwee]

You know what they say, the United States' Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what they have now.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

If 1,000,000 different agencies each want a 100 mg sample from me, what does that leave me with?

Re:Great

[Excen]

A sore arm? A chafed and spongy member?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the average slashdotter be left with a new svelte physique?

I kid, I kid...

Re:Great

[mobby_6kl]

About -25 kg of meat? Unless you're CowboyNeal posting as AC, in wich case multiply that by -1.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the newest form of indefinite detention without trial: Provide semen samples for all those agencies, then you're free to go.

Re:Great

[md10md]

Well if you say an average human male is 80kg, and 1,000,000 * 100mg is 100kg, Then you would be less than a person. Makes you think...

I love how the title

[Pinefresh]

implies this is GOING to happen and is about to start. Then in immediately contradicted by the little snippet.

This reads like a plot from a comicbook

[Pao|o]

Wasn't this a storyarc on the Uncanny X-Men comics back in the 80s? All we need now are mutants.

Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

We should get to vote on things like this.

Re:Vote

[van der Rohe]

Vote? You don't get to vote for much more than your student council president. Everything more important is decided outside of the electoral process entirely.

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I understand how it works. I just don't understand why our political system puts so many misguided policies into place without asking for any input from it's citizens. I know I get to vote for elected officials (much like a student council president), but many politicians don't have a great track record for making the best decisions once elected. I definitely don't try to understand the finer points of politics, but I just don't understand why we can't vote more often on policies that are going to, at least in this example, effect all citizens on a national level. I also know the voting population doesn't have a great track record for making, what I believe to be anyways, great decisions, but at least policies would be decided by the people that were going to have to ultimately deal with the repercussions.

Re:Vote

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah, like that's going to make a difference. If we could vote on things like this it already would have been implemented years ago.

There SHOULD be a flip side

[Anonymous Coward]

What about DNA typing all govenrment officials / employees, and also taping them all the time, with mandatory release of the tapes after 10-20 years ?

have your cake and eat it too?

[bani]

if the feds really want the right to forcibly collect dna evidence, then the feds should be forcibly prohibited from blocking admission of defense dna evidence in trials.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[nwbvt]

"then the feds should be forcibly prohibited from blocking admission of defense dna evidence in trials."

Yes they should. When has a federal court ever upheld a request from the federal goverment to block DNA evidence from the defense?

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

many, many times.

prosecutors regularly attempt (and succeed) in blocking defense from producing dna evidence, because they know it will definitively acquit the defendant. that is unacceptable, so it is regularly blocked on technicalities.

in a few cases defendants on death row have had to fight decades to get dna evidence accepted, and they get exonerated. others are not so lucky and never manage to get dna evidence presented -- it remains blocked.

of course, prosecutors never apologize or admit wrongdoing when the defendant is definitively acquitted -- even when the judge rules the prosecutor was guilty of gross misconduct.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[nwbvt]

I don't see any specific examples of what I asked for, so I'll take that answer as an "I have no clue what I'm talking about" answer.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll liken your response to a child with his hands over his ears screaming "LALALALALA" when they hear something they don't want to.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

take it however you like, you're still retarded.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[bani]

specific examples

four cases

Police and prosecutors blocked all attempts at DNA testing while Johnson was alive

prosecutors blocked dna testing of hair

prosecutors have successfully blocked the testing of DNA before an execution and then fought posthumous tests just as vigorously.

Why did the DA stop new DNA tests ?

frank lee smith

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[nwbvt]

The origional accusation was:

if the feds really want the right to forcibly collect dna evidence, then the feds should be forcibly prohibited from blocking admission of defense dna evidence in trials.

Now lets look at your examples...

• Earl Washington Jr.:

  Convicted by the state of Virginia, not the feds. And the drama here happened post-trial. Sorry, this is not an example of what you mentioned in your origional post.

• Clyde Charles:

  Convicted by the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. And again this didn't happen during the trial.

• Roy Criner:

  Convicted by the state of Texas, not the federal goverment. Again, this didn't occur until 7 years after his trial.

• Joseph Roger O'Dell:

  Again convicted by the state of Virginia. Again the questions on his DNA came up after he was convicted by a jury.

After what I've seen so far, I see no reason to continue reading your links. Do you have a specific example of what you described in your origional post; a federal court denying a defendent's request to introduce DNA evidence during the trial? Or would you like to revise your origional post?

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

roflcakes. you're definitely a child with his hands over his ears screaming "LALALALALA" because you don't like to hear the truth.

what a big baby you are. you must be a real joy to be around. or not.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal courts have (on at least two occasions I'm aware of in the past 15 years) denied appeals following convictions from lower courts despite the introduction of DNA evidence that could exonerate the defendant. I don't have all day here, so just google it yourself.

But judging from your meaningless nitpicking, you've missed the entire point of the argument, anyway. Seems you just don't know how to admit you were wrong, do you, Nick?
--
Sick of pompous windbags? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[nwbvt]

After browsing through your remaining links, they all appear to be the same. State courts convicting people and then rejecting appeal arguments based on DNA evidence.

Now you are of course free to argue that the appeals process should be reformed to make for easier access to DNA testing. In fact, that has already occured in some jurisdicitons, including Virginia back in '01. But do not confuse that with the trial itself. The two are very different processes.

You are also free to argue the states should reform their systems, but then that has nothing to do with the federal database mentioned in this article. In fact, the only state I know of that keeps any such database is Virginia, which as I noted above has already reformed their appeal laws.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

what a pompous windbag you are.

you just can't handle getting publically pwned.

unable to deal with the truth, you stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

can't expect much from a twit who has his own very special fan

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst...

We know you are all the same attention craving person.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

moron. you really deserve to get screwed by the government. there will be zero sympathy for you when you do, too.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst, you are wrong. Nice tinfoil hat you are wearing there though.

Re:have your cake and eat it too?

[Anonymous Coward]

it takes a real asshole like you to defend a corrupt system.

So?

[nwbvt]

How is this different from them collecting fingerprints?

Oh yeah, genetics is a scary new technology whose very mention raises irrational fears.

Sure, this database could be used to intrude on someone's medical conditions. But then again, if some agent of the federal government were inclined to violate the rules governing the use of the database, what would be stopping him from following you around and collecting a sample of your saliva from a soda can or blood from a bandage? Unless you are like the guy from Gattaca and make sure you clean everything you touch...

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

what would be stopping him from following you around and collecting a sample of your saliva from a soda can or blood from a bandage

It wouldn't be admissible in court if obtained in that manner. That's the difference.

Re:So?

[Associate]

Fingerprints have never been proven to be unique to every human. It's just assumed that they are. DNA, short of twins, IS unique to every human.

Re:So?

[littlerubberfeet]

The difference is that finger prints are much like a serial number. The identify and differentiate who a person is amongst billions. DNA, on the other hand serves as much, much more then just a serial-number like ID. It is a means to a vast, vast amount of medical information, information on one's family, even one's future children.

Sure, they could collect samples from a saliva sample or band-aid, but this is a congressional-approved, legal database, and having a database allows comprehensive DNA testing easily, cheaply and without public supervision. If they started collecting huge numbers of soda cans, bandages, hars and ass-lint, people would start to notice.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

No, its perfectly possible (though highly unlikely) for two non-twins to have DNA that tests to be identical (remember we are not comparing the stands nucleotide to nucleotide). Just like with fingerprints.

Anyways, all you are saying is that it is a more accurate test. Why should that make it worse?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you'll be hard pressed to find any fact or expert witness to testify that DNA found at a crime seen belonged to the defendent. Yes, they'll testify to the odds that it is the defendent, but never to it belonging to them. Have you ever testified as an expert or fact witness? This is one of those tricks lawyers use to show the jury that the witness is a complete fuckup.

I could tell you more about the joys of testifying to fingerprints, but something tells me you wouldn't care as it doesn't agree with your uninformed understanding of identification analysis.

Re:So?

[necro81]

I am not saying that the notion of a government DNA database doesn't scare the crap out of me, but the "So?" poster has a decent point. If I am picked up on suspicion of any crime, or ask for a gun permit, or any number of other licenses, I must submit my fingerprints - I don't need to be convicted of a crime first. Those fingerprint records are entered into a national database along with with terrorists, murderers, and petty criminals.

Let us not forget that, if someone is picked up for some petty crime and has their fingerprints run through the database, they may very well be identified as someone involved in another crime. Now consider that there's a serial rapist out there - a national DNA database would go a long way towards nabbing that guy for every crime he's committed.

Now that I've played the devil's advocate and must now wash my hands vigorously, I have a counterpoint. The key difference here is that DNA is not merely a fingerprint, but contains a tremendous amount of information about you. One cannot tell, from looking at a fingerprint, the owner's gender, age, race, etc. Let's set aside the fact that all that information appears alongside the fingerprint record. When one has a DNA sample of someone, one can run it screen it for a number of things beyond just physical characteristics: it can pinpoint you as someone that has a predisposition to some disease, reveal race and ethnic details beyond one's appearance, could even show you have a predisposition to rage and mental illness.

That notion - that the government could have a searchable database of anyone ever brought in to the station with such information - really scares me. About the only person I think would be worse off having such a database would be my insurance company - but that's a different topic.

Re:So?

[adam.conf]

My objection to this bill is not an objection to the DNA that they are collecting; I object to the fact that they collect any information in a database about those who have been simply arrested. The United States was founded on the principles of assumed innocence, until guilt has been proven, and the due process of law. I think that no action should be taken against a man arrested for a crime, and there should be no data kept in a databse about those who were simply arrested.

I would have no objection to a database containing the DNA of convicted criminals -- that is, those who our courts have found guilty. But right up until the foreman reads a guilty verdict, the government has no right to store your DNA, your fingerprints, or even your name in some "criminal database" -- an aquittal is just that -- you are fully absolved of guilt for a crime. Without that, justice as we know it no longer exists.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

And people wouldn't take notice if someone is making lots of unauthorized requests to access someone's DNA from the database?

I'm not suggesting we sequence the DNA of the entire nation and make that information available for anyone to download, rather have a protected, access restricted database used solely for crime prevention. In fact, they probably don't even have to store the tissue sample in the first place, just the results of some standardized tests. That would probably be much cheaper and easier.

And contrary to what sci-fi films may tell us, you can't just glance at a DNA strand and know someone's size, color of skin, or personality. If a particular characteristic can be determined from DNA alone, it generally requires extensive tests.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

The fifth amendment states "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Storing someone's DNA (or any information about them) does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property. It doesn't even necessarily mark you as a criminal.

The Constitution not only fails to forbid the government from collecting information on people, but explicitly requires them to do so in Article 1, Section 2, when it calls for the census. So it is not accurate to state that the freedom against the government collecting information on you is a right the US was founded upon.

Re:So?

[adam.conf]

"Life, liberty or property" has implications beyond the literal sense... I can lose the liberty to not have my DNA in a criminal database. And it seems to me that having information about me (in this case DNA) in a criminal database would mark me as a criminal.

And I think we both can tell that there is a difference between having information entered into the census database (a database of all Americans) and a criminal database (the negative connotation of criminal isn't accidental).

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

Would you feel better if we called this a "People who were at some time thought to be connected to a crime database" instead of a "criminal database"? If so I'll send a letter to my congressman to suggest the name change.

Re:So?

[adam.conf]

Regardless of the name, a database of those arrested of federal crimes (which will includes those convicted) will have a negative connotation -- whether its a "people who were at some time thought to be connected to a crime database" or a "criminal database," the implications are still the same; whether you are convicted of a crime or not, you are still more suspect of future crimes. That is not due process of law.

Re:So?

[oolon]

The issue is when you take someone finger prints you get THEIR finger prints, when you take someones dna you also take a part match to all their family members. If enough samples are taken its almost as good as having everyones DNA on catalogue. So relaxing the rules about taking and keeping DNA samples will greatly assist the police in getting that critial mass. Of course if you have a tin foil hat, they could follow arround key people they are missing until they have reason to stop them as small as speeding, and then keep the sample and use if for something else, even though they never prosicuted someone for the offence! Here in the UK they are already keeping all DNA tests innocent or not, and are taking samples from everyone arrested!

James

Re:So?

[thogard]

You hit an important issue.
Most DNA tests these days only weigh the different chromosomes. These tests have been done on such a small number of people that no one knows how good the results are but if each of your chromosomes weigh the same as someone else who committed a crime, you will end up in jail with this system unless they already have the other guy in jail.
At least with fingerprints when the computer says there is a match, a person tends to look at both.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

Ok, fine, what if we open it to the public (like with fingerprints) and allow people completely unconnected to a crime to include their DNA (that actually could be useful for indentification purposes in case something rather bad happens to you)?

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

I've never heard of a test weighing chromosomes. The two most are PCR and RFLP tests. And we do have an idea of how accurate these are, in the 1 in a billion range.

Re:So?

[adam.conf]

You know, if we required all US citizens to enter their DNA into a national databse, and used that to aid police fighting violent crimes, I would have no objection. To me, that's no different than requiring all citizens to fill out the census. And the identification benefits you mentioned are just an added plus.

Re:So?

[thogard]

How does the PCR test work? You take a DNA sample and you use PCR to get it to duplicated its self billions of times and then you take the gunk and put it in a centrifuge to spin it for a while (which sorts it based on chromosomes) and then use some paper that absorbs the stuff. The result is you get different bands higher up on the paper based on their weight and separated for each chromosome.

The one in a billion figure that is often quoted comes from early studies when they had only done less than a few thousand of these types of tests. At least for other animals the results of the simple tests are not one in a billion.

Re:So?

[tftp]

You run a chance to be misidentified (because of contamination, swapped samples, or any other reason.) With DNA being held as irrefutable proof, you can be executed for something you didn't do.

Re:So?

[martinX]

Thankyou, parent poster.

DNA - oooohhhh scary.

In case no-one RTFA, the database is storing the DNA fingerprint as data, not the entire sample. If you don't know what that means, or if you think that DNA fingerprint data can be reverse engineered into an entire genome, please read up on it before replying.

Anyway, even if they did keep the whole thing, here's what they can't do with your DNA sample:

1. Track you. OK, you can be tracked if the Man wants to follow you with a swab just like in CSI, but since he's already following you, why does he need DNA? He just needs a camera and a good pair of shoes.
2. Judge your phenotype. Unless you have some weird elephant-man-type disease and they have specifically tested for that on a hunch, they have NFI what you look like from a DNA sample. And here's something else: since your DNA was collected at the time of your arrest (prior to your acquittal, of course) they already know what you look like. They took your photo! When they arrested you! It's kind of a standard thing you know...
3. Judge your race. Hitler! DNA! JEWS! Hmmm, Hitler didn't need DNA databases and they wouldn't have made him any more efficient at genocide. Take a look at other genocidal hotspots. The perpetrators know who they're going to kill and they just go around doing it. No high tech needed, just a bunch of Chinese-made machetes.
   
   As for "This clearly opens the door to all kinds of race- or ethnic-based stops" (from TFA), well we can do that now just by looking at a person. In any case, we're pretty much a melting pot of genes so using DNA to tell if someone is borderline-black, -euro, -jew, chinese (because it would only be needed in borderline cases. Otherwise we could just use our eyes and built in super-accurate race-sensors) is likely to turn up some very interesting combinations.
4. Diagnose disease. OK, they can but not nearly as well as the Discovery Channel would have you believe. Here's how the database would work: gov't samples your DNA (cheek cells are commonly used), runs a fingerprint analysis on about 10 spots and electronically stores the results. If they're to be kept (and according to TFA, they're not) the original sample would have to be frozen in liquid N2. Storage and retrieval of results is cheap. Storage and retrieval of samples is expensive. So the likelihood of insurance companies "getting" your DNA surreptitiously is minimal to say the least. They can do NOTHING with your DNA fingerprint. They need the sample of cells. Retrieval of samples is time consuming (not to mention sample consuming) and gets expensive. Freeze, thaw, freeze thaw...
   
   Even if all other hassles were overcome, insurance companies are far more interested in your family history and current lifestyle as a predictor of health. Ultimately, everyone's going to die of something and as we eliminate starvation, catastrophic plagues and sabre-toothed tiger attacks, then the chances are we will die from something genetically related. If insurance companies could test for all these diseases (after getting a hold of the samples, because the gov't isn't going to test them for free) and remove these people as customers, there'd be no perfect people left to pay the premiums. Just me and Arnie :-)

Remember those CSI/Law and Order episodes where the judge orders the DNA samples of a suspect destroyed and everyone KNOWS they did it and we all boo and hiss that nassssty liberal judge. Well maybe a law saying all DNA samples can be kept on file might be a way of helping the cops get their man and if lots of "innocent" DNA is also kept on file, remember that it can't actually be used to do all the thing that the otherwise intelligent people on /. think it can, it isn't really "you" and it's possibly the only way a few of you will get to have your genetic material perfom a useful service.

Re:So?

[UncleFluffy]

Storing someone's DNA (or any information about them) does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property.

Given that my body is my property, how can you obtain my DNA without depriving me of (some of) my property?

Re:So?

[adam.conf]

Well, that's the unfortunate case with all DNA evidence. Still, every genetics expert expresses DNA evidence only as a probability -- that is, well, the chances are three-hundred-million to one that the DNA came from this person. However, if the court considers that the victim and the suspect have never met, and if the suspect has absolutely no connection (aside from the DNA) to the crime, they still won't be convicted.

Further, I am sure that authorities will use more than one piece of tissue when doing DNA analysis, so if their is some mishap (contamination, swapped samples, etc...) then it will become obvious (hey, these two pieces of crime-scene DNA don't even match one another!), and more evidence will be taken, or the DNA will be thrown out.

The potential number of lives that could be saved with such a database, taking criminals off the streets immediately and adding an entirely new detterent to crime, vastly outweigh the number of people whose lives would be hurt by such a database. A database containing the DNA of all Americans would definitely be a good thing.

Re:So?

[tftp]

You sit in a bus. You scratch your head. One hair falls on the seat next to you. You leave the bus, get home and fall asleep.

One hour later a criminal on his way to kill someone sits in that seat. The hair sticks to his clothes. He leaves the bus, arrives at his crime scene, commits the crime and your hair falls onto the dead body. The criminal leaves.

Police arrives, collects the hair, finds out that it's your hair, and arrests you for murder. You have no alibi. There is no other evidence. Seventeen famous DNA experts testify in court that the hair is yours. You can't explain how it got there. There are no other defendants (not that police even looked for them, having you.) You are convicted.

Even if somehow you manage to explain the hair away, or wiggle out on thinness of evidence, you are ruined anyway. None of that could have happened if the police has no way to match the hair to you.

Re:So?

[adam.conf]

If one hair fell, then another inevitably would (this one belonging to the real criminal). The investigators go "Hey, those two aren't the same!" They release you.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

Trust me, you'll live without those few cells that end up on the cheek swab. You are not being deprived of anything.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

They need a warrant to get your DNA, and a warrant is due process.

Re:So?

[theLOUDroom]

Sure, this database could be used to intrude on someone's medical conditions.

Which is a HUGE issue.
I don't like how you're just handwaving here. That's a really serious problem, lives could be ruined or even ended. There are tons of really bad things that could be done with this information. Wanna frame your politcal opponent with "airtight" evidence?

But then again, if some agent of the federal government were inclined to violate the rules governing the use of the database, what would be stopping him from following you around and collecting a sample of your saliva from a soda can or blood from a bandage?

Economics, secrecy, etc.
What's to stop me from overthrowing the entire gov't and instituting my own policies?
The list of reasons is about the same.

It's a lot easier to abuse a pre-existing database, than it is to secretly create the database and then abuse it.

We should really be heading in the opposite direction, declaring that individuals are the sole rightsholders to their DNA and placing very strong restrictions on who is allowed to collect this data and what they do with it.

Or maybe you'd just like to wait until you can't get health insurance and no one will tell you why?

Re:So?

[anthony_dipierro]

Couldn't that same argument be used to argue against anything? I mean, you drop your blockbuster card on the ground, right next to that location, someone is murdered. The police arrive, find the blockbuster card, and arrest you for murder. You have no alibi. There is no other evidence. Seventeen blockbuster employees testify in court that the blockbuster card is yours. You can't explain how it got there. There are no other defendants (not that police even looked for them, having you.) You are convicted. Even if somehow you manage to explain the blockbuster card away, or wiggle out on thinness of evidence, you are ruined anyway. None of that could have happened if the police has no way to match the blockbuster card to you.

Re:So?

[tftp]

There are at least two major differences, and some minor:

1. A blockbuster card does not have the clout of infallibility, as the DNA does. Jurors know what a card is, and they comprehend very well how such a card can be lost and found. They have no comparable understanding of minute matters, like hairs.
2. When you lose the card you know it. You have only one such card, and it is a macroscopic object. When you lose a hair you never know it.
3. A criminal is not likely to accidentally pick up a card; he either wants to frame someone, or he doesn't, in either case he won't be relying upon a chance occurence. However the criminal can contaminate the crime scene with other people's DNA without him even knowing it, even if he is not bright enough to frame someone intentionally.

In either case, it's much easier to convince someone on a mysterious DNA evidence than on evidence that is common and well understood - especially if the accused is honest (honest people don't prepare their alibi in advance.)

Re:So?

[anthony_dipierro]

One cannot tell, from looking at a fingerprint, the owner's gender, age, race, etc.

Well, I don't see how DNA is going to tell you anything about a person's age, but a person's race and gender can generally be figured out just by looking at the person. And in fact, the government already has a database of this for every single person in the US in the census records (well, personally I wrote "human" as my race but most people probably didn't do that).

When one has a DNA sample of someone, one can run it screen it for a number of things beyond just physical characteristics: it can pinpoint you as someone that has a predisposition to some disease, reveal race and ethnic details beyond one's appearance, could even show you have a predisposition to rage and mental illness.

That notion - that the government could have a searchable database of anyone ever brought in to the station with such information - really scares me.

I guess it makes it slightly easier for a corrupt government to for instance wipe out all people with a predisposition to rage (or homosexuality or pedophilia). But then again, once the government has decided to do such a thing, is it really that difficult for them to start taking the DNA samples right then?

About the only person I think would be worse off having such a database would be my insurance company - but that's a different topic.

That one's probably inevitable. Of course, at some point people will have to start getting insurance on the test results themselves.

Re:So?

[anthony_dipierro]

A blockbuster card does not have the clout of infallibility, as the DNA does.

I'm not sure how a Blockbuster card is going to fail. I mean, the employees testify that they saw you in the Blockbuster store getting the Blockbuster card. It *is* your Blockbuster card. Your lawyer probably isn't even going to attempt to refute that.

Jurors know what a card is, and they comprehend very well how such a card can be lost and found. They have no comparable understanding of minute matters, like hairs.

Really? You don't think jurors understand how easy it is to lose a hair?

When you lose the card you know it. You have only one such card, and it is a macroscopic object. When you lose a hair you never know it.

Actually, I have a bunch of Blockbuster cards, and I very well could lose one and not know it. But I really don't see how this matters, because the fact that your hair showed up at the crime scene and was identified as yours tells you right there that you must have lost a hair.

A criminal is not likely to accidentally pick up a card; he either wants to frame someone, or he doesn't, in either case he won't be relying upon a chance occurence. However the criminal can contaminate the crime scene with other people's DNA without him even knowing it, even if he is not bright enough to frame someone intentionally.

Yes, and this happens all the time. And the police know it. And the judges know it. And the lawyers know it. And unless these people are *all* grossly incompetant, the jurors are going to know it too.

Re:So?

[Associate]

On the contrary. I agree with what you are saying. I undersatnd that lawyers like to muddle statistical analysis into carved-in-stone fact, especially to the less informed jury. My statements were more along the lines of presenting another idea into the mix, not taking one particular side over the other. Speaking as someone who's fingerprints are on file with the FBI, SBI, CCBI and no less than two local counties, I am more concerned with the abuse of the intended system, not the arbitrary collection of data. Let's face it, fingerprints are not as useful to non-law enforcement entities since their actual use and the regulation there of is limited. DNA on the other hand presents a whole other can of worms as cited by many of the other posts.
Do I think DNA evidence should be used to convict or vindicate? Yes. Do I think long term collection of honest citizens should be default policy? No.
Do I worry someone will eventually sell the data 'for our own good'? Yes.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

"How does the PCR test work? You take a DNA sample and you use PCR to get it to duplicated its self billions of times and then you take the gunk and put it in a centrifuge to spin it for a while (which sorts it based on chromosomes) and then use some paper that absorbs the stuff. The result is you get different bands higher up on the paper based on their weight and separated for each chromosome."

First of all, those are specific sequences being replicated, not entire chromosomes. Second of all, those fragments are sorted by gel electrophoresis, not centrifuges and aborbing paper. At the end of the day, you can see a surprisingly detailed analysis of the target area from a potentially poor starting sample of DNA. This all ends up being a lot more accurate than just weighing chromosomes.

You have the basic idea, but the process is a lot more detailed than you think. If you are interested in more information, there is plenty available on the net, for instance here is a decent animation of the process.

Genetic Profiling

[Bent Mind]

So even though completely innocent, should the Feds decide to detain you for any reason, your genetic data will grace their database

I have to ask, why the farce of being investigated? Why not just force every resident of the US to submit DNA material. They could build a complete genetic profile, find paterens that match criminal behavior, and arrest people based on the probability of criminal behavior. Given the value placed on DNA evidence, it should be easy to convince people that this is in their best interests.

Re:Genetic Profiling

[The Master Control P]

If you throw a frog in boiling water, he'll immediately jump out. If you put him in water then turn on the burner, he'll slowly boil to death. The average American in stupid, but not so stupid you can openly say 'The federal government wants to keep a DNA database of everyone, innocent or not."

First it's only for pedophiles, then for hardcore criminals, then for run-of-the-mill criminals, then for everyone voluntarily (You are here), then you have no choice.

Unless something dramatically changes in the USA and soon, it's not going to be fun living here anymore. Americans are suffering from burnout. So many special interests have been perverting Washington DC and screwing us in new and interesting ways that we're just giving up hope of saving ourselves. You'd think that after having it's leader investigated for ethics violations three times, people wouldn't give Republican claims of moral superiority much heed, yet they re-elect Bill Frist time and time again. You'd think that people would be up in arms over the Democrat's failure to do anything about serious screwups by the Bush administration time and time again. Although everyone seems to know that both major parties are special-interest whores, their sheepish nature prevents them from voting for anyone who will DO something about it.

At risk of going off on a tangent, I'd say that much of the culprit is businesses that no longer pay people a living wage. In the 1950's and 60's, most people were middle class where one person of the family went to work and earned enough for themself and 3 or 4 others to live comfortably. Thus, people had time to think about things. But $7 an hour is ~$15000 a year for a normal 40 hour work week. ONE person can't live on that, let alone 3 or 4! So today a married couple might work 3 or 4 jobs between them to try and scratch up enough money to pay the bills. They don't have time to think about anything else!

[Insert /rant tag here]

Re:Genetic Profiling

[Achromatic1978]

If you throw a frog in boiling water, he'll immediately jump out. If you put him in water then turn on the burner, he'll slowly boil to death.

Just to do my bit at dispelling myths, no, he won't. He'll jump out when the water reaches a threshold of tolerance/discomfort.

• http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview11-18-02.htm
• http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.htm

What if it were universal?

[saterdaies]

What if, rather than just people detained, it were all people either at birth or when they get a license or something? Would that make it better? Then we aren't discriminating against innocent people who just happened to have some bad luck and rather just creating a database that can identify all Americans.

Would this be a little better? Quell all your complaints? Be worse? No difference? I'm curious.

Hitler had a portrait of Henry Ford on his office

[ultraworld]

wall.. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was Hitler's American financier.. (or 'Hitler's Angel' as the NY Daily Tribune put it) and the US was uber-friendly with many Nazis after WWII. It does need to be added that this was in our fight against also-*quite*-evil Stalin and the then hyperrepressive USSR, but this cozy relationship with fascists and fascism survives to this day, as evidenced by the ongoing 'ethnic outreach' efforts of the GOP, which targets many former fascists and their communities that have emigrated to the US, as natural allies of the American far right.

Meh

[lxt]

Here in Britain, police already have powers to retain DNA of those who are innocent - there was a court case in the Lords a few years ago, where the police had retained the DNA of an 11 year boy accused (and found innocent) of a crime, which led to a 4-1 ruling in favour of the police keeping the samples. For example, sometimes in Britain the police will have a mass dna swab session, where they test say a large number of males in a town. The police can then keep the samples, and use them to link anyone who went on to commit a crime.

Yes, you could refuse to give a sample, but if the police really wanted to obtain your DNA samples they'd just obtain a search warrant for your house, and attempt to collect it from hair/nails etc.

Re:Meh

[Wilson_6500]

Yes, you could refuse to give a sample, but if the police really wanted to obtain your DNA samples they'd just obtain a search warrant for your house, and attempt to collect it from hair/nails etc.

Whew. That's creepy. Here come the police: they're searching your house, not for duck porn or drugs or guns, but for your SKIN. That would seriously make me feel like some creepy stalker, if I were a cop and had to visit some guy's house just to swab his toilet seat for a sample of his ass.

Re:Meh

[Shaper_pmp]

Actually, it's much, much worse than that. A few years ago it was discovered that the police had illegally retained as many as 3,000,000 (yes, that's three million) DNA samples taken in investigations.

Lest this be misunderstood, most of these weren't even from "real" suspects - where (say) a rape had been committed in a small town, the police investigation would take samples from every male in the town, and test to see if they could match anyone to samples recovered from the victim. Samples-taking was voluntary, but the overwhelming majority of people went along with procedures like this because they wished to help catch the attacker, and the samples were legally required to be:

1) Only used in a direct comparison with the attacker's sample from that crime (ie, the police couldn't just match against any other sample they had lying aroudn to see if you'd done anything else), and
2) Destroyed as soon as you were ruled out as a suspect - ie, as soon as your DNA didn't match the attacker's sample your DNA would be destroyed, along with any record/checksum/encoded version of it.

A few years ago it emerged that the police, instead of destroying the DNA like they were supposed to, had in fact been illegally retaining and storing it. They appealed to the courts for the right to use it in criminal investigations, and were (amid much uproar) granted the right.

If you ever, for any reason gave a DNA sample to the police since the late 80s, there's a good chance it's now in the national police DNA database, and can be matched against every sample of DNA evidence police recover from any crime, at any time in the future.

Now, to my mind this is a simple breach of contract - these people voluntarily donated their DNA under an agreement, which the Police subsequently illegally broke. The samples should have been destroyed the minute this became known, and the Chief Commissioner (or whoever was ultimately responsible) should have been subject to criminal proceedings, internal investigations and prosecution under the Data Protection Act (since if DNA isn't "personal information", I don't know what is).

Instead the Police unashamedly tried to hang onto the samples, the courts/Lords not only ignored hard evidence of a crime by the Police, but changed the law to avoid prosecuting anyone, and the rest of the government washed its hands of the whole matter.

So, how far away is totalitarianism now then?

Re:Meh

[Catullus]

And let's not forget that now the UK police have the power to arrest you for any offence. So they can arrest you on some trumped-up excuse, take your DNA (forcibly if necessary), then release you a few hours later without charge. But at least you don't have to worry about your privacy if they shoot you dead on the Tube :)

So wait...

[Pichu0102]

...If DNA is required and placed next to high level criminals, does this mean that if you get detained, that you will lose the same rights that people such as convicted terrorists lose even if you're not convicted?

Re:So wait...

[yuriismaster]

Perhaps you haven't heard of Guantanamo Bay?

Your rights are already given up once you get detained as an 'enemy combatant'. You may as well already be dead.

God Bless Corporamerica.

The reason why they want this

[Richthofen80]

So, the reason Federal Law Enforcement Agencies want this is because often times crime scences contain a fair amount of DNA evidence. They can quickly eliminate suspects if they know their DNA does not match.

I'm surprised at all the uproar over this. If you are arrested, but later cleared, your fingerprints are still kept. When is the last time your local police station returned your fingerprint card?

I have been arrested and later the charges were dropped. I didn't get my fingerprints back, and I'm pretty sure they could be in a municipal or state database. Fingerprints, like DNA, are unique. Its essentially the same thing.

I found the best way to avoid false incrimination is to not leave my DNA at crime scenes.

Re:The reason why they want this

[Associate]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/1 8/1326241&tid=14

Re:The reason why they want this

[0123456]

"I found the best way to avoid false incrimination is to not leave my DNA at crime scenes."

So what will you do when a criminal _does_ leave your DNA at a crime scene?

Re:The reason why they want this

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the best way to avoid false incrimination is to not leave my DNA at crime scenes.

So you wear a clean-room bunny suit when you go out to commit crimes? That's got to be a dead giveaway.

Re:The reason why they want this

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem, and the reason everyone is in an uproar is that unlike a fingerprint DNA tells you about the person which can lead to: discrimination, racial or medical profiling. If you had a certian level of something in your system which is usually associated with violence that could be used as evidence(circumstancial or otherwise).

DNA is not simply a more accurate way to show identity. It is the fabric of your vary being. If a corperation got hold of a database like this avertising would be hell. Imagine the scene in Minority Report(TM), where the ads were yelling out his name. This database can and would be misused in the case of privacy loss and possible discrimination.

This type of database could show medical condtions you may not want to be known.

There are lots of problems. This is a system that should definetly NOT be implemented.

Re:The reason why they want this

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding fingerprints -- I am against this also. Weak argument. Just because a lot of people are killed each year on the USA highway system (around 40,000) you don't say something like "Those Pento's blowing up aren't a big deal because 40,000 people already die anyway on the highway."

Just because they can get my fingerprints anyway, doesn't mean I want them to have my DNA also. I don't want them to have either.

Remember the story in the press about 5 years ago where the FBI crime lab faked a bunch of DNA evidence because they just new these gang members were guilty. They worked in conjunction with the LAPD to fake DNA results to get gang members off the street. Regardless that the DNA didn't match. This ended up in a lot of gang members being released.

Don't say the government won't use this in an inappropriate manor. They already do.

Re:The reason why they want this

[simcop2387]

well obviously its not really him then, its someone else because his DNA was there.

Re:The reason why they want this

[pitc]

Probably the same thing I've done all those times a criminal left my fingerprints at a crime scene.

Re:The reason why they want this

[wcdw]

Fingerprints act as a key to identity ONLY. DNA provides a huge amount of additional information, little of which is related (other than as a pattern match) to identity. And all of which has huge potential for abuse.

Not that OUR government has any history of abuse, or anything.

Re:The reason why they want this

[Reziac]

That's a good point, and will probably lead to stuff like, "Who cleaned my hairbrush? Where did I leave my toothbrush?"

Seriously, it would be trivially easy to leave someone else's DNA at a crime scene, all the better if you know it's someone with a record, so they're liable to be a suspect the moment their name comes up ... thus reducing the risk that the cops will keep looking and find the real perp.

Re:The reason why they want this

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing happened to me. I was arrested on felony charges for some stupid thing I did in college (later dropped and I was charged with the appropriate misdemeanor), and from what my lawyer friend tells me, that means that my prints are now in the FBI database, not just the local ones. Although it's slightly creepy knowing that my print is searched for whenever the run a search, I know that I'm never really going to get in any trouble because I'm not running around commiting crimes.

I have to admit, keeping fingerprints of people that are arrested is a good idea, and has probably led to the capture of many criminals. It's not much different with DNA.

Re:The reason why they want this

[Moofie]

It's an awful lot easier to obtain a false, portable DNA sample than a false, portable fingerprint.

Re:The reason why they want this

[JonToycrafter]

Here is an example of what's supposed to happen to your fingerprints. I live in NY, where state law states that fingerprint records shouldn't be kept for those not convicted of a misdemeanor or felony.

Now, there's plenty of reasons why I don't want my DNA recorded in a central database. They include:
- Police suppression of political activists, even those engaging in completely legal actions, is distressingly common. Google "surveillance colorado quakers" for an example. Wouldn't it be convenient if they could take a swab and know the identity of everyone who showed up at a meeting?

- It is notoriously easy for a P.I. to get a fingerprint search run. What if I'm organizing a boycott that's causing trouble for, say, Coca-Cola? Do I want them to have access to the power of the state? They have it in Colombia, and look what happened there.

It's not just the leftists who need to be concerned - by making these searches possible, you're enabling the work of anyone who can pay $500 to a P.I.. That includes the mob, abusive spouses, anyone.

Like you, I've been arrested - fortunately, my fingerprints have been destroyed each time. Thank goodness for that. Sadly, none of my examples (except the mob) are abstract cases to me and those I care about.

Re:The reason why they want this

[thelem]

A lot of it depends on how and when the DNA is compared.

If you have an existing suspect and you compare his DNA to crime scene DNA, then that can be usefully used to either exclude or partially incriminate him.

If, however, you find some unknown DNA at a crime scene, and then run a search on some DNA database then you will almost certainly bring up lots of false positives. DNA tests are not unique, current technology gives about a 1 in a million chance of two people's tests matching. Those odds are good enough when you are comparing a handful of samples, but if you are searching a database of 60 million people then clearly you are going to get about 60 results. Do you bring them all in for questioning?

1ST: "Haven't done anything, nothing to fear" POST

[smchris]

Well, you know _somebody's_ going to say it.

Not surprising. Heck, I'm not so sure this is even a Neocon issue. I could have seen Clinton and Gore signing on. It's that exhilarating smell of fascism in its springtime everywhere.

Typical crap government

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kyl measure was added to a bill to strengthen penalties for violent acts against women and was approved without a roll-call vote. McCurdy said she hopes that negotiations among Judiciary Committee members result in changes before the legislation is voted on by the Senate.

This shit just flies under the radar. Half these asses don't know what is on the bills they pass. Easy to sneak this garbage in with all the crap bills they throw around.

I'm normally in favor of biology, but...

[rdwald]

...if this passes the House and the Senate, we're all really, really screwed. Let's hope this is one of those things that the Senate Judiciary Comittee does to scare us all so that their real plans don't look so evil.

...not that that's good either.

Next step

[greg_barton]

The next step is to redefine "detention."

When the TSA pulls you over for a search at airport security, is that a detention? When a police officer stops you for speeding, and leaving before he's done writing you a ticket would be illegal, is that a detention? When authorities stop you in the subway because you fit s certain profile, is that a detention?

Maybe not now, but it's the next step.

Re:Next step

[Anonymous Coward]

Detention is very well defined. You are detained if you are not allowed to walk away. This means that if they don't have to read you Miranda rights, you're not detained.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

Obviously that is not true. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop, are you 'free to leave'? And have you ever been read your Miranda rights under those circumstances?

There are MANY legal ways to detain someone which do not require an arrest, per se.

Re:Next step

[Achromatic1978]

There's also this paradox in several US states, and Australian, for that matter:

Whereby, if you walk away from a police officer, even whilst not being detained, you can then be hit with 'resisting arrest', even though you weren't or weren't about to be placed under arrest, but rather because you were resisting your possible, suspected, arrest.

Re:Next step

[anthony_dipierro]

The person was thinking of an arrest, not a detention. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop, that's a "Terry Stop", and is a type of detention. But since the detention is of a short duration and is limited in scope it is not considered an arrest. I wouldn't say there are *many* legal ways to detain someone which do not require an arrest. For the police, there's basically just a Terry Stop. In some jurisdictions, including Florida, there are a few other avenues for legal detention for non-police, though. For instance, it's legal here for a security guard of a supermarket to detain someone they suspect of theft.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

For instance, it's legal here for a security guard of a supermarket to detain someone they suspect of theft.

I'm not sure where "here" is, but in most states, it is necessary for a security guard / store employee / whatever to have _proof_ of theft before any detention takes place. Too many negative lawsuits have effectively forced most stores into comparable policies even in other places. And any such person who attempts to _physically_ detain me will be sorry, even if I am guilty. (In which case I'm probably not worried about a little assault case on top of things.)

Just as it is not necessary to let the guy at Best Buy check your receipt.

On Terry Stops, I can easily envision other circumstances, though admittedly they all likely fall under the same general cover. Leaving the so-called Patriot Act aside, anyway.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

Damn, I hate following up on my own posts. Sorry, I missed the FL reference in your original message. I haven't lived there for almost a decade, and am not familiar with the current laws. Except to note that my GA CCW permit is honored there. ;)

Re:Next step

[anthony_dipierro]

I'm not sure where "here" is

I thought I said it was Florida.

but in most states, it is necessary for a security guard / store employee / whatever to have _proof_ of theft before any detention takes place.

Here in Florida, they need probable cause. "If you should enter a retail establishment where goods are placed on display and for sale, the merchant or the employees may detain you on the premises for a reasonable time for questioning if they have probable cause to believe that you have stolen or have attempted to steal goods for sale." http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Sep/1/130723.html

Just as it is not necessary to let the guy at Best Buy check your receipt.

Unless the guy at Best Buy has probable cause that you stole something. Otherwise, it's false imprisonment and you can sue.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

I covered the FL thing in my 2nd post; sorry.

As for 'probable cause', most courts have interpreted that as somebody (or the camera) saw the act in progress, not as in 'the person looked suspicious'; effectively what I was saying.

I personally bridle every time I shop at e.g. Sams Club, as their requirement to check the receipt is perfectly legal; if you don't consent, they simply revoke your membership.

Re:Next step

[anthony_dipierro]

I actually happened to run across this just yesterday, when I was looking up Florida's weapons laws. I found it strange that security guards were required to open carry their weapons but the average citizen was required to conceal them. I always assumed that getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon would be tougher than getting a permit to open carry. But I've lived most of my life in New Jersey, so the whole concept of the government allowing average citizens to exercise their constitutional rights is a bit new to me :).

To be honest, I'm kind of stumped as to how carrying a concealed firearm is going to help you protect yourself when you're not even allowed to take out that gun unless you're being attacked and are unable to run away. At that point it seems like it'd be pretty risky to introduce a gun into the struggle. If you're in the home it's a different story, and if the attacker is actually attacking someone else then the gun might be useful. Anyway, I probably wouldn't be very good at handling a gun personally, so my investigation was mainly just for the sake of knowing the actual laws.

In addition to letting store employees detain suspects upon probable cause, there's another law that says that activation of one of those theft detectors is cause: "The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device." It's all in 812.015(3) of the statutes.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

To be honest, I'm kind of stumped as to how carrying a concealed firearm is going to help you protect yourself when you're not even allowed to take out that gun unless you're being attacked and are unable to run away.

Well, that's not _quite_ an accurate summation of the deadly force laws extant in Florida. One is permitted to use deadly force to defend life (but not property). Yes, retreat is the _first_ thing that a [good] tactical defense course will teach you. However, it is not required under the law, even in non castle-doctrine cases.

As for the 'theft detectors', I've adopted a policy in the last couple years to simply keep walking. I've yet to be challenged by store employees. Admittedly, this is mostly in major chains, and usually associated with specific items (which were legitimately purchased). Those chains, again, won't make more than a token effort to stop you, lest you sue them if you're truly innocent. From what I've observed, mostly the employees don't even blink when the alarm goes off.

My response in any event would be to a) keep walking, b) hit anyone who touched me and c) shoot anyone who looked at all threatening. As I am tall-but-skinny, I can always make the 98-# weakling case when it comes to a determination of whether or not -- in my mind -- I was in fear for my life, which is the current standard in such cases.

Re:Next step

[anthony_dipierro]

Well, that's not _quite_ an accurate summation of the deadly force laws extant in Florida. One is permitted to use deadly force to defend life (but not property).

It looks like they've either just changed it or are in the process of it, but at the beginning of 2005 the law was that you had to use "every reasonable means to avoid the danger, including retreat." Ah, here it is, they've changed it effective October 1. But what didn't make sense to me was under Florida law the restrictions on using a handgun were equivalent to the restrictions on displaying them. (This is how I interpret http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defe nse.html which says "Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse." So if someone threatens you with a knife, but it is reasonable for you to retreat, you can either try to take away the knife or you can run away. You can't shoot them, which is fine as that's a bit excessive, but you can't even take out your gun and repeat your request that he drop the knife.

Yes, retreat is the _first_ thing that a [good] tactical defense course will teach you.

Well, having never taken such a course maybe I just have no clue what I'm talking about, but I would think that there are some cases where it's appropriate to threaten force without necessarily using it. "Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years." (from the same link) So apparently you can't even *tell* the guy with the knife that you have a gun.

As for the 'theft detectors', I've adopted a policy in the last couple years to simply keep walking. I've yet to be challenged by store employees.

I've done this a bunch of times with the same results. But apparently it's legal for them to actually stop you here in Florida. Anyway, my girlfriend is usually with me when I'm at the store, and even if I keep walking she'll stop, so it kind of defeats the purpose.

Those chains, again, won't make more than a token effort to stop you, lest you sue them if you're truly innocent.

My understanding is that in Florida you can't sue them, even if you're totally innocent, if the alarm goes off.

As I am tall-but-skinny, I can always make the 98-# weakling case when it comes to a determination of whether or not -- in my mind -- I was in fear for my life, which is the current standard in such cases.

Hopefully they won't find this slashdot post and know that it was premeditated.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

It looks like they've either just changed it or are in the process of it, but at the beginning of 2005 the law was that you had to use "every reasonable means to avoid the danger, including retreat."

I'm not sure how that squares with, e.g. seeing someone being raped/assaulted, and using deadly force to prevent the confrontation, to be honest. If someone is raping my girlfriend (just by way of random example ;), I'm damn well going to stop them, even if I can reasonably avoid the situation by retreating.

Well, having never taken such a course maybe I just have no clue what I'm talking about, but I would think that there are some cases where it's appropriate to threaten force without necessarily using it.

That shows you have never taken such a course, even without the lead-in. ;) Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose). I'm pretty sure it was also illegal to do the verbal equivalent - but even if not, it's tactically inadvisable. It's sort of like cocking the shotgun to warn an intruder. Well, with 99% of intruders, they'll crap their pants and go running. The other 1% will shoot you, using the sound for aiming.

On the threatened by a knive issue, it was at least true in the past that anyone within ~21' of you holding a deadly weapon was subject to your using deadly force. Personally, I believe that to still be true, as I am more than willing to argue my inability to retreat safely within that distance. (I participated in some demonstrations which showed all too vividly how fast a person can cover that distance.)

My understanding is that in Florida you can't sue them, even if you're totally innocent, if the alarm goes off.

If that's true, it's different from when I was there. Guess the merchants have been busy rewriting state laws, too. Anyway, I've trained my g.f. to NOT stop, so that's rarely a problem.

Hopefully they won't find this slashdot post and know that it was premeditated.

Wouldn't bother me a bit. There is a difference between having a tactical plan and premeditation. There is ZERO purpose in being an armed citizen if you have not made the decision in your own mind that you will use deadly force when the situation requires it. I knew that from reading, but it was also one of the things that was stressed in training.

The odds that anyone would lay hands on me (in this state, at least) is very low; that there would be a big enough threat to justify pulling a weapon is even lower. However, that potential does exist, and refusing to recognize the possibility is also tactically unwise. "Always have a plan" is tremendously useful advice, if and when the fecal matter does hit the oscillating rotary blades.

Also on point is that you 'act as you have trained'. Although I have not trained to go around the country shooting Home Depot clerks, I HAVE trained to respond to both on-going and escalating threatening situations. (And you can bet that if I ever do shoot someone, that the folder will all the training documentation is going to be presented as evidence - by me.)

Re:Next step

[anthony_dipierro]

I'm not sure how that squares with, e.g. seeing someone being raped/assaulted, and using deadly force to prevent the confrontation, to be honest. If someone is raping my girlfriend (just by way of random example ;), I'm damn well going to stop them, even if I can reasonably avoid the situation by retreating.

Well, yes, but I assume the duty to retreat applies only to self-defense. You're also allowed to use deadly force to stop an imminent violent felony (I think the modifier is "violent", anyway).

That shows you have never taken such a course, even without the lead-in. ;)

Well, I'll take your word for it, because I've probably been far too influenced by "stuff I've seen on TV".

Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose).

But, then why is that what the police do?

There is a difference between having a tactical plan and premeditation. There is ZERO purpose in being an armed citizen if you have not made the decision in your own mind that you will use deadly force when the situation requires it.

One of the reasons I haven't gone ahead with getting a license. I'd definitely want to be well trained before I went ahead with arming myself, way beyond any required training to get a license.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion. Something kind of rare on Slashdot...

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose).

But, then why is that what the police do?

Actually, what the police do is "open" (non-concealed) carry. I guess the theory is people won't freak if they see a police officer with a gun. Given the way I look (usually scruffy geek), people probably WOULD freak if they saw I was carrying. CCW permits specificially require strict adherence to the 'concealed' portion of 'concealed carry, weapons'.

(Arizona is the only state I know of which still allows non-concealed carrying of a firearm, and even they have laws similar to CCW states - e.g. no carrying in liquor stores. Open carry IS allowed on private property [e.g. your home], which is why most shooting ranges sport openly armed employees. They simply can't go outside like that.)

One of the reasons I haven't gone ahead with getting a license. I'd definitely want to be well trained before I went ahead with arming myself, way beyond any required training to get a license.

I think that's a) admirable, and b) fairly rare. Especially since the 'training' in FLA for CCW is pretty weak. (Of course, that's better than GA, which doesn't require _any_ training, but hey....) I will say that taking some classes, particularly when I got my first CCW, was probably one of the best things I've ever done.

The training helped not only to get over the 'John Wayne' period of concealed carry, but was also a huge confidence booster. It's darn surprising just how fast one's heart can start beating even in a scenario with [multiple, moving] paper targets!

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion. Something kind of rare on Slashdot...

Ain't that the truth. ;)

Anyway, if you're around the FLL area, let me know and I can pass along some school recommendations. Otherwise, check with the local ranges. I don't remember any of the classes I took costing more than a couple hundred bucks; not bad for multiple lessons with an individual instructor on a private range. (Ammo not included.)

Re:Next step

[ducman]

(Arizona is the only state I know of which still allows non-concealed carrying of a firearm, and even they have laws similar to CCW states - e.g. no carrying in liquor stores. Open carry IS allowed on private property [e.g. your home], which is why most shooting ranges sport openly armed employees. They simply can't go outside like that.)

Colorado allows open carry, and you do, occasionally, see someone, even in a town like Pueblo, openly carrying a pistol. Never seen anybody get too excited about it.

Re:Next step

[wcdw]

Really? I lived in Denver in ~80-81, and don't think I ever saw any open carry. Ditto for the Springs in '67-68. Not that I could have affored an actual firearm during either of those periods. ;)

Does CO have limitations similar to AZ, e.g. no carry in liquor stores? (Georgia is actually more sensible about that, prohibiting concealed carry on where alcohol is actually served, not sold for off-premises consumption.) I know, I could go to e.g. packing.org and look it up for myself. ;)

Re:Good job Republicans

[east coast]

Jesus Christ

Yeah, Jesus told them to do it.

Stop being an idiot. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

Big deal

[raoul666]

It's nothing new, people. If you've been arrested, they can get your DNA without much trouble. I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat or anything. The handcuffs were on too tight? Great, you left behind a load of skin cells. Took a sip of that coffee the nice officer gave you? Well, it's their cup, and guess what, you left saliva on it.

If they want it, and you're in their jail cell, they've already got it.

Re:big deal

[Legion303]

"If you are arrested, they should be able to take a DNA swab, as long as they destroy it if you are released or found not-guilty"

Guess you didn't read the writeup.

This isn't effective

[electrosoccertux]

Most of the terrorists we get now are one shot deals...they pop up out of nowhere without warning. How is this going to protect against them?

Honestly I'm rather a right winged republican, but things like this coupled with seeing the majority of the repub's voting for the PATRIOT act extentio......making me think stuff over again. At least they are dealing with the social security issue in an EFFECTIVE way.

Re:This isn't effective

[van der Rohe]

It's not meant to protect against terrorism. It's meant to keep track of you.

There's no "war on terror". It's just a really convenient way of making you do what you're told.

I wouldn't mind this at all!

[hvatum]

... As long as Natalie Portman is the one obtaining the "sample." :-) :-)

Re:I wouldn't mind this at all!

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair that guy's joke wasn't the best ever, but -1?

Looks like some Slashdot moderator hasn't gotten laid for awhile.

Re:I wouldn't mind this at all!

[LocalH]

You forgot the hot grits.

passed in California

[ggwood]

In my home state, our electorate voted in favor of our state proposition 69 by about 62%. Prop 69 allowed the (mandatory) collection of DNA samples from accused felons. Note: these people have not been convicted. There was some debate as to how easy it would be (and, since we voted for it, how easy it now is) to have such DNA information expunged from the database if one were to be found innocent. As I recall, there would be a hearing before a judge. This is kind of crazy, right? Why isn't it automatic?

Re:passed in California

[wombert]

Because law enforcement doesn't want to throw out identifying information that might help in other cases (cold cases or crimes not yet committed). They don't throw out fingerprints if someone's cleared of charges; why would DNA be treated differently?

Re:passed in California

[Chucklz]

Proposition(ing) 69 also allowed accused felons to swap DNA while in holding cells.

Re:passed in California

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA is more than just identification and there are no restrictions on what else can be done with the DNA collected. It would be perfectly legal for the state to test for various genetic disorders and sell those lists to private companies.

Federal DNA DataBanking

[eskayp]

This is an excellent neoconservative method for King George
to remedy that pesky budget problem he has created
since his appointment by the Supreme Court.
Insurance companies will pay a fortune for this data.
Marketing and sales of the DNA data can be subcontracted
to a deserving large donor/contractor like Halliburton.
Large data-centric corporations can bid on the data
with off-the-books donations to the Republican Party.
If only we could identify and track the DNA coding for
liberalism, populist tendencies, honesty,and fiscal
responsibility, we could sterilize, imprison, and/or
eliminate that treasonous segment of the population.

Re:Good job Republicans

[queef_latina]

Republicans are, at their rotting insectoid core, third-world trash.

Why on earth is this Under "Your Rights Online"?!?

[stevo3232]

Why is this under "your rights online"? It may have to do with people's rights (not mine, I'm Canadian) but definitly not online rights. Sure, the data is stored in a database, but that database isn't necessarily online (and a database with that sort of info I'd expect would not be online). Editors sure need to make sure their heads are on straight...

Enter Private Industry

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

From the governments point of view.

Step 1. Detain suspect.
Step 2. Obtain DNA.
Step 3. Sell DNA to private companies for various research
Step 4. Profit!!

From private companies point of view.

Step 1. Obtain ultra cheap source of DNA.
Step 2. Patent private citizens DNA sequences.
Step 3. Profit!!

From Joe averages point of view.

Step 1. Get arrested, detained and have DNA sample taken.
Step 2. Be released without charge.
Step 3. Have results of own DNA sold back to self.
Step 4. ???
Step 5. Profit.

God bless capitalizm. So much better than all that capitalism rubbish with its silly respect for people and all that rubbish.

Re:Enter Private Industry

[RexRhino]

Big Central Government forcibly collecting and retaining information on people for the "public good" and "collective security" is not Capitalism. It is Socialism. It is a centralized state putting the needs of the state (and hence, "the people", in socialist theory) above the "luxury" of privacy of the individual. Privacy is a false bourgeoisie concept, meaningless to the revolutionary proletariat.

Not only is this plan a socialist idea, it is textbook socialism straight out of the mind of Marx. The only thing new is that it is DNA information, as opposed to financial records, fingerprints, your personal contacts, and all the other things that socialists feel the state has the absolute right to know.

I know it is the habit of socialists to throw the term "Capitalism" on anything they don't without any regard to what the word means, but this is so stretching the term "capitalism" that it really makes the term meaningless.

Re:Enter Private Industry

[mcheu]

From the Desk of ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371):
>From Joe averages point of view.
>
>Step 1. Get arrested, detained and have DNA sample taken.
>Step 2. Be released without charge.
>Step 3. Have results of own DNA sold back to self.
>Step 4. ???
>Step 5. Profit.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing how Step 5 even belongs there.

Re:Enter Private Industry

[Minwee]

You're right. I think it should be a bit more like this:

Step 1. Get arrested, detained and have DNA sample taken.
Step 2. Be released without charge.
Step 3. Have results of own DNA tests sold to private insurance company
Step 4. Be denied coverage because you are suddenly deemed too high a risk
Step 5. Profit! (Just not for you)

Re:Enter Private Industry

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Big Central Government forcibly collecting and retaining information on people for the "public good" and "collective security" is not Capitalism. It is Socialism.
Not when they employ private companies to do this work for them. Then it's dog eat dog capital-erfic-ism. YEEEEEE HAAAHHHH!!!

Re:Enter Private Industry

[RexRhino]

No, it is still Socialism. It is not the fact that private companies are doing it that is the problem. It is the fact that the government is forcing it on people, and keeping it in a central government database that is a problem. It is government acting as a force of "social good" (as percieved by some) by ensuring "collective security" against the will of "selfish individuals" that is the central concept of this idea.

People already give their DNA to private companies voluntarily all the time... sometimes to research their geneology... sometimes to screen for potential diseases... sometimes to test for compatibility of organ transplants. All of this is OK because it is totally voluntary, and the people who are having it done are the people who are paying for it, and there is no centralized database (in fact, a private geneology DNA test a friend of mine took does not use a name, only an anonymous number, specificly to make sure that an identity is never associated with the DNA. When a private company does DNA test for paying customers, they are usually fanatical when it comes to privacy... unlike the government they can be sued and/or go out of buisness if they don't take privacy seriously).

If the government uses private companies (which there is absolutly no indication that they will do), it is simply pragmatic (private companies or universities will most likely do a better job and quicker job than government labs), or maybe a form of graft (giving primo contracts to big campaign contributors), and not any ideological commitment to capitalism. It is just pansy quasi-market third-way socialism as opposed to good-ol' hardcore old-school Marxist socialism.

Re:Enter Private Industry

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Technically, what your describing is authoritarianism, not socialism.

But I think we can all agree that government should have the minimum amount of powers necessary to accomplish its goal, that being; to manage the running of the state according to the mandate given to it to do so by the people. As far as I can see, collecting everyones DNA does not seem to aid the state in doing this, and indeed may hamper that other important task of democratically elected government, that being; try not to let us slip into a dictatorship please.

Seems like a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

At least crimes can be solved much more quickly as suspects with matching dna on a scene can be rounded up. I'd vote for it.

Pennies

[kevin_conaway]

Bah, anyone knows that if you've ever handled a penny, the governments got your DNA. Why do you think they keep them in circulation?

Re:Pennies

[Wilson_6500]

That's why I melt down all the pennies people give me and mint my own commemorative collector's coins (not valid tender anywhere). If the government wants my DNA, they can buy my coins like everyone else.

Re:Pennies

[Anonymous Coward]

You know destroying legal tender is a felony, right?

Re:Pennies

[Wilson_6500]

You know how to recognize a joke, right? What a coward.

Re:1ST: "Haven't done anything, nothing to fear" P

[Pichu0102]

Yeah, but say that you were at a crime scene before a crime occured, and you were once arrested for something you didn't do also.
If they find your DNA there, they'll be able to arrest you and the chances of being convicted for another crime you didn't do are high, seeing as they already have your DNA, it'll be easier to convict you. I mean, I'd say a jury would rule against someone who was arrested before, even if they were let free.

The real question is:

[dark-br]

How many more rights would you give up in name of a so called security?

Fear is the new opium.

Re:The real question is:

[cdrdude]

Fear is the new opium.

No, I would have to say computer games are :)

All we need now is....

[zappepcs]

nano-bio-tech that can alter DNA markers, or leave some sort of trace in your body to make your DNA "fingerprint" be different... and viola, we have almost every really bad scifi movies coming to fruition!

I wouldn't surprise me if they can already tell North Americans by their DNA because years of eating fast food has altered DNA....

Wrong

[Wyatt Earp]

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush only as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA.

Shortly after George W. Bush's election as U.S. president, Canadian bloggers, apparently affiliated with perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, began a determined effort to circulate reports that Prescott Bush himself had been known as "Hitler's Angel".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Nazi_ti es

Jesus Hates Freedom.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Oh how easy it is to destroy America through religious zealotry.

Simply 'detained'?

[nurb432]

If the records are not purged after you are released without being charged ( or charges are dismissed at court ) then there is some major privacy issues that I'm sure the ACLU could get its teeth into.

Next it will be 'everyone that is born, just in case'.

Big Brother....

[tubapro12]

Big Brother thinks you are wrong, Big Brother will find you...

Talk about excessive, but I'm not surprised, it was going to happen one day.

Re:I'm inclined ot believe

[symbolic]

It's not the Republicans to blame for this crap, it's the neo-cons masquerading as Republicans. Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/ . That should give people some idea as to why things are happening the way they are.

oh?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean like in the uk ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3018504.stm

Next step...

[dark-br]

... Guantanamo Bay for everybody! Uhu!

just one more reason to be glad i'm not american

[timmarhy]

america really is on a slow boat to hell. lets take a look at the stats shall we? 1. the world hates you 2. your government is setting up gestapo style agencies 3. you RE ELECTED BUSH

Re:Good job Republicans

[hachete]

Actually, given that the current WH crew is a bunch of god-botherers, they prolly think that jesus did tell them to do it. Punish all you sinners.

Action Item

[jcnnghm]

Does anyone know if this is a monitored action item anywhere yet? If it's not, it should be.

Its not about the DNA

[nurb432]

The issue is not that they are collecting DNA, its that they are retaining *any* identifying information of people that are innocent of any crime.

DNA is just the most concrete form of ID we know of.

Re:Its not about the DNA

[glitch23]

Once arrested your fingerprints are kept on file forever. Given, DNA is more accurate but if fingerprints didn't have the accuracy they have then the FBI wouldn't keep them on file so the question I have is do you already know that fingerprints for arrestees are already kept on file? Whether they eventually are found guilty or innocent doesn't matter. Even civil fingerprints are kept indefinitely.

Re:They can also quickly ADD suspects.

[symbolic]

Case closed.

erm

[pureone]

Unless your a criminal you have nothing to worrie about.
They have been doing this for years in the uk.
If you get arrested they will take a sample of your dna.
The same as they will take a picture of you
and the same that they will take your finger prints
nothing to see here please move along.

Re:erm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you honestly believe that you don't understand the U.S. constitution, nor freedom.

Re:erm

[TheGavster]

There are several problems. First, with DNA on file, you can make all kinds of determinations about someone (race, predisposition to certain diseases, etc). While this data isn't an immediate threat in the hands of the government, at some point that data could make it somewhere harmful, ie your insurance company or employer. Second, at subsequent arrests, you're no longer an innocent citizen. You're a citizen who was arrested for something (that you were fully acquited doesn't seem to make much of a difference anymore). Even if you're innocent of the new charge, it's not going to be a happy arrest.

Bottom line, there's worlds of difference between "identifying data on people who have committed crimes" and "identifying data on people who we think have committed crimes".

Re:erm

[joebutton]

> Unless your a criminal you have nothing to worrie about.

If, on the other hand, you are a criminal then you do.

It's an old story

[kentrel]

This isn't really anything new, or unique to the U.S. A lot of countries have this "problem". Even before genetics this has been a long standing argument in the UK and various other countries (probably most). If you are arrested for anything you are automatically fingerprinted, photographed etc.

If you are never convicted of anything it varies from country to country what you have to do have those removed from the permanent records. The authorities usually like to make it as hard as possible, for obvious reasons. If you did something wrong then you can't really complain, but it's a bummer for innocent people who are unfortunate enough to be taken to a police station.

The fact that it's now genetic material doesn't make a huge amount of difference to any existing rights or laws. I'm not clued up on American law but I would bet that chances are it's already difficult in most states to have your records deleted if you turn out to be innocent.

There is an advantage to this. If someone is guilty then this is obviously a VERY GOOD THING that their genetic material (almost impossible to disguise) is on permanent record. They can pretty much be quickly identified at ANY crime scene for the rest of their lives.

Obviously this can be abused, and mistakes made, and innocent people have to put up with the humiliation of having their records on any kind of "suspect" database. But it does no good to jump up and down in anger just because it's genetics that are getting recorded now. It's pretty much the same set of laws that are making it easy for the authorities to keep your data. This bill is just one of many. Stop this one, yes, but that won't stop your problem. You need to attack each of the laws in your respective states that indicate the use of your data in a police or FBI database.

Like I said earlier, many other countries allow you to have this information removed, but they ALL make it very difficult for you. So the US is not alone in this. It's a very common thing

Re:It's an old story

[zerus]

Fingerprints are currently stored in the FBI database for all arrests, which means it doesn't matter if you're innocent or guilty because it's the arrest record that contains your fingerprints, not the court decision. My one worry is that since we enabled the PATRIOT act to supercede due process and individual rights in many cases, how long before a person could be detained as a threat just to have their DNA sampled if they are just an political undesirable? DNA should only be kept for convicted felons of violent crimes, as it currently is in most states. There is no reason why this should be changed.

Re:It's an old story

[Anonymous Coward]

> If someone is guilty then this is obviously a VERY GOOD THING that their genetic materia

I'm not sure your argument is substantively different from the argument that we should put everyone in jail, because if some of them are guilty (and no doubt, they are), then this will be a VERY GOOD THING to have them already in jail.

Good thinking.

(Classic case of someone lacking understanding of the difference between Type I and Type II errors, I think.)

This serves no purpose...

[iwsmith]

I think people are against this for a simple reason:
National fingerprint databases are seen as 'ok' due to the fact that fingerprints are useless beyond simple identification. A fingerprint can be compared against another for a match, and that is it, the print contains no other information.
DNA, on the other hand, has substantially more information embedded in it than a fingerprint. Moreover, DNA technology is still evolving. Who knows what we can learn about a person from their DNA in 5 or 10 years. The possible misuse of such a database is substantial, and still largely unknown (Though the possible inappropriate uses are increasing by the day).

The biggest question, however, is what purpose does this serve? DNA seems to do the exact same thing as fingerprints, except we tend to leave it everywhere we go, making it harder to mask. Will the day come when convictions are based purely on DNA evidence? How will the police filter the criminals DNA from all the other samples found at a crime scene (say a hotel room)? DNA should be used in conjunction with other evidence when pursuing a case, it should not be the entire case against a suspect.

Is the advantage of DNA evidence over fingerprints sufficient to outweigh the invasion of personal privacy experienced by the public? Given the current lack of transparency in this government, I would say no; the opportunity for misuse is to great.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

All your base really are belong to U.S.

abuse guaranteed - stop it NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

The current administration already allows for widespread abuse of personal information and they will not stop short of allowing abuse of DNA information for genetic profiling and criminalization. The best you can do is to join organizations like the ACLU and EFF that are actively defending the few civil and human rights we have left in our country.

Opt In / Opt Out

[TubeSteak]

How many times do we have to Fscking say it!

Shit like this should be OPT IN.

Nobody should have to petition shit to get their genetic info removed.

All the assholes who say shit like "If i didn't do anything wrong, what do i have to be afraid of?" can go ahead and have their genes saved by the Feds

Come on, if you went up to one of those guys in the street and asked him if you could take a swab for inclusion in a Federal Crime Database you'd get told to back off.

I have an idea. Take all the blood from convicts

[Anonymous Coward]

They should change this from "arrested" to "convicted" and "dna sample" to "all blood". That way we kill all of our convicts and the red cross never has to do blood drives again. Repeat crimes are no longer a reality.

An give them a coupon for 20% grocery discount

[Anonymous Coward]

then Americans would line up for hours for the privilege of giving up their DNA to the government

Re:Good job Republicans

[east coast]

Actually, given that the current WH crew is a bunch of god-botherers, they prolly think that jesus did tell them to do it. Punish all you sinners.

Given that a majority of all Americans say they believe in some form of God (and thus a fairly universal morality) do you think that maybe GW is simply representing the morality of his fellow citizen?

Re:Why on earth is this Under "Your Rights Online"

[dereference]

Why is this under "your rights online"? It may have to do with people's rights (not mine, I'm Canadian) but definitly not online rights. Sure, the data is stored in a database, but that database isn't necessarily online (and a database with that sort of info I'd expect would not be online). Editors sure need to make sure their heads are on straight...

I can't presume to speak for the editors, but as a Canadian you may not realize that this is exactly the sort of database that Americans would expect to be online, in the name of "information sharing" among law enforcement organizations at the local, state, and federal levels, in order to fight terrorism. To believe that this database will be entirely offline is naive at best.

Getting to know ... you

[Anonymous Coward]

"But we just want to get to know the *real* you behind your taxpayer identification number."

Before we get too heated up...

[OSXCPA]

Remember, what we worry about is abuse of said information. So, I get my DNA sampled and stored. I am worried that:

1. The government will sanction me in some way (deny medicaid benefits, etc.) based on my profile.
2. Private sector actors (insurance carriers, hospitals) sanction me in some way based on the data (deny coverage, raise fees).
3. Illegal use is made of my information by some 'other' party - the American Nazi Party starts a 'hate list' of genetically inferior people based on their analysis of the data.
4. Unforseen other use.

For #1-3 above, it is perfectly possible to protect the use of the information by enforcing a prohibition on abuse. For example, If an insurance company has better information about their clients, they can better hedge their risk. With enough valid data, it is possible to hedge virtually any risk to within reasonable tolerances - Wall Street does it all the time. Better hedging = less risk to the insurer, so they can actually adjust their cost/coverage better. Enforce a certain "risk profile" to be allowed to serve as an insurance provider - i.e., make it illegal and civilly actionable to refuse coverage, and everyone wins. An insurance carrier is "stuck" with providing coverage to higher-risk clients, but known risks can be hedged. They already do this sort of thing by pooling customers - young, healthy people and older, sick people offset one another, so overall, the risk is lower - everyone get some coverage, with the healthy subsidizing the sick. That's how it's supposed to work. Better information (DNA) leads to better hedging.

So, you set up the laws such that information is available, may be used for analysis, but if it is used against you, you have a solid legal foundation for a lawsuit, with HUGE fines for violators.

As far as the police use of DNA goes - I live in Illinois, where we have the death penalty, but it is so broken that we've had several people on death row exonerated after their cases were reviewed and DNA evidence was admitted. There is also evidence we may have actually executed innocent people - the state doesn't re-open cases where the convict has already been executed. Frankly, mass DNA testing would not only solve a lot of crimes, but prevent gross miscarriages of justice. More data would mean better prosecutions.

Not just that, but if a person has a genetic predisposition towards, say, Alzheimers, a public database of DNA could be used by researchers to find the prevalance of that gene or gene-sequence in the population and thereby plan for future medical treatments, allocate research resources and maybe even warn the poor, unsuspecting SOB before s/he starts losing mental function.

Of course, someone out there will come up with a "yah, but the secret-government agency who REALLY runs America will use your profile for Bad Things..." If they start rounding people up based on DNA, it's an obvious abuse, and only a Tinfoil Hat would actually think that is anything close to likely - heck, The Economist reports that Guantanamo is shipping prisoners back to their countries of origin because of the uproar - in the US and from abroad - over the abuses there. The administration might (will) do unethical things, but they will pay at election time. As long as the framework is open and transparent, there is reasonable protection afforded to the public.

Yah, I know, you can't always trust the public, we re-elected W, but NOT BY MUCH, and he's on a much shorter leash - see above Economist citation.

And lets face it, if the government wanted a 'secret DNA database', they could already have it and we couldn't do bupkus.

So what exactly is so holy about our DNA that it shouldn't be on file? Unitl I am actually deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, how are my rights being violated exactly?

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[swordgeek]

"Yah, I know, you can't always trust the public, we re-elected W, but NOT BY MUCH, and he's on a much shorter leash - see above Economist citation."

Do you honestly believe that? If so, there's no helping the USA at all.

Guantanamo Bay is shipping virtually NOBODY back to their home countries. It has become the embarassment of the western world to see the Geneva Convention essentially used as toilet paper by the USA. Ditto for all of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties that they've signed over the decades. (In fact, _any_ treaty or agreement or contract seems to mean nothing in the US--just ask the Canadians about softwood lumber for an example.)

If Bush is on a short leash, it's being held by Rumsfeld. There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER to the American people anymore.

"The administration might (will) do unethical things, but they will pay at election time. As long as the framework is open and transparent, there is reasonable protection afforded to the public."

In the USA, elections are decided by the media. The media tells people how to vote, and they vote accordingly. If that doesn't work, the government fixes the election. It sounds like tinfoil-hat territory, but how many dead people voted in the last US Federal election?

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[Lord_Slepnir]

we re-elected W, but NOT BY MUCH

Compared to the margin he won by when he was first elected, 2004 was a blowout for him!

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[whovian]

Those are some reasonable points, especially with rendering medical treatment.

So what exactly is so holy about our DNA that it shouldn't be on file? Unitl I am actually deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, how are my rights being violated exactly?

Say that you are accused of a crime. Thanks to the (un)Patriot Act, the police didn't need a court order to obtain a warrant and thus seize and search your property. Your ass is hauled downtown, and you are fingerprinted, swabbed, and held for a day or two without being given a reason. But you probably do get your one phone call.

To address a different point, this DNA data is obviously going to be held online in a database. What assurance would we really have that someone wouldn't steal, break into, or otherwise abuse the information? The Law's effectiveness for punishing people is not as absolute as you portray.

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[Martix]

I have to say this is a bad thing.....

"As far as the police use of DNA goes - I live in Illinois, where we have the death penalty, but it is so broken that we've had several people on death row exonerated after their cases were reviewed and DNA evidence was admitted. There is also evidence we may have actually executed innocent people - the state doesn't re-open cases where the convict has already been executed. Frankly, mass DNA testing would not only solve a lot of crimes, but prevent gross miscarriages of justice. More data would mean better prosecutions....."

they should reopen the case the reasone they don't they dont want to reveil how broken the system is and how wrong the Death penelty is so wrong.(exacute the wrong person how do you tell the family we fucked up)...so instead the real murder walks free that is the worst part and he/she will kill again.....

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[Anonymous Coward]

"[i]As long as the framework is open and transparent, there is reasonable protection afforded to the public.[/i]"

http://projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm #1

this administration has more secrets than any other in american history...

"The Bush Administration has an obsession with secrecy," says Representative Henry Waxman, the Democrat from California who, in September 2004, commissioned a congressional report on secrecy in the Bush Administration. "It has repeatedly rewritten laws and changed practices to reduce public and congressional scrutiny of its activities. The cumulative effect is an unprecedented assault on the laws that make our government open and accountable."

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, I know, you can't always trust the public, we re-elected W, but NOT BY MUCH, and he's on a much shorter leash - see above Economist citation.

What leash? He doesn't stand for reelection. Once the 2006 congressional elections are over he can do pretty much anything he wants with impunity.

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[will_die]

the police didn't need a court order to obtain a warrant and thus seize and search your property.
There is nothing in the US PATRIOT ACT that that allows this.

Also there is nothing in the US PATRIOT ACT that allows police to detain citizens for 2 days without charging with a crime. The closing is allowing them to detain non-citizens for action related to a specific crime, terrorism, and that is not for 2 day; and they can request in the warrant that the person be held without communication during that time.

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[Anonymous Coward]

The administration might (will) do unethical things, but they will pay at election time

If you are even accused of anything childporn related just because someone else put your DNA near crime scene, you will pay with your job, family comfort, you reputation, and your ruined life. Yes they MAY (not will) lose at election, big deal, they accept the risk of being in politics; but your life WILL be ruined.

...a public database of DNA could be used by researchers to find the prevalance of that gene...

... or by insurance companies who will rake your money because you are predisposed. oh, and scientists are never wrong about the genes, right? remember a /. story about 75% of science papers being waporware - yet insurance premiums are real money.

please don't advocate erosion of right for whatever think-of-the-children reason?

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[phoenxshard]

"Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly." That is what concerns me. One of the tenets that the American legal system is built on is that the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That right there shows me that we're guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of our legislators. ""What we're seeing over time is the equivalent of mission creep: Cases that would not be terrorism cases before Sept. 11 are swept onto the terrorism docket," said Juliette Kayyem, a former Clinton administration Justice official who heads the national security program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The problem is that it's not good to cook the numbers. . . . We have no accurate assessment of whether the war on terrorism is actually working.""
Taken from Washington Post
Out of all the so called terrorists arrests since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, there have been 180 cases that were brought to court that had no ties to terrorism at all. Out of the 142 that have been brought, only 39 have actually brought convictions. And only 14 of those convicted had any clear links to any kind of terrorist groups. The Patriot Act is nothing but a farce that allows for American civil liberties and rights to be stepped on.
This little exercise is another step in that direction. If I commit a crime and convicted of it, then feel free to add my DNA to a database that is intended for CRIMINALS, not CITIZENS, of the United States.

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[whovian]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

Section 215, aka "Attack of the Angry Librarians"

Section 215 is one of the surprising lightning rods of the Patriot Act, engendering more protest, lawsuits, and congressional amendments than any other. In part this is because this section authorizes the government to march into a library and demand a list of everyone who's ever checked out a copy of My Secret Garden but also because those librarians are tough.

What it does: Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.

The law before and how it changed: Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA--the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information--that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge--(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism."

Re:Before we get too heated up...

[will_die]

And the paper given by the FISA judge is a warrant. Enen though given by a FISA judge and under thoses rules it is still a warrant. There have been a couple of legal discussion over if the name warrant should still apply to them as opposed to "court order" but as of now the legal term is still warrant.
Now if the original post had mentioned that the need for probable cause has been lower and for most cases totally removed and this is only in certain limited cases then that would be the true, but to claim that the US PATRIOT Act removed the need for warrants is false.

Re:I'm inclined ot believe

[mOdQuArK!]

It's not the Republicans to blame for this crap, it's the neo-cons masquerading as Republicans.

Whatever...it's the rank & file Republicans who helped vote those assholes into power, all in the name of party loyalty. They don't get a pass by claiming that the people they voted into office "aren't real Republicans".

Re:Why on earth is this Under "Your Rights Online"

[Fear the Clam]

Because it's just a matter of time before this database is leaked or copied and spammers analyze everyone's DNA to target e-mail at them.

big deal

[the_2nd_coming]

DNA is as specific to the person as Finger prints. If you are arrested, they should be able to take a DNA swab, as long as they destroy it if you are released or found not-guilty, like with Finger prints.

I also think that when you get bonded, they should take DNA.

So it's Stupid

[BioCS.Nerd]

I'd like to point out that this database would likely not contain one's whole genome as it would be unnecessary given the vast majority of our genomes are "junk DNA". This database would likely contain expressed sequence tags (ESTs) as the genomic fingerprint in question. With sequences are short as this the amount of medical information you can extract about someone is pretty small, if at all.

That said, I think this is a very bad idea. While today we may use ESTs as genomic finger prints, perhaps tomorrow we use full genomes. Doubly, the policy of the government today (e.g. "We won't do genetic profiling", "The information will be locked up, and for law enforcement purposes only.") has a tendency to change given a set of circumstances (*cough*9/11*cough*).

Re:Good job Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, cause the US has always stood for majority rule.

obligatory simpsons reference:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once you touched a quarter, the gov't has your DNA"

Here's a link to read.

[khasim]

http://www.truthinjustice.org/inside-labs.htm

Picking up a fingerprint is fairly easy.

DNA samples have to be handled more carefully. That means more money.

If I was cynical, I'd say to follow the money to see which DNA labs out there are supporting this with campaign contributions to which officials.

Re:Here's a link to read.

[Reziac]

DNA-ID testing for dogs is $35 minimum charge, but I understand that includes a hefty markup over the lab charge by the registries that require it. So, for a nice round number, let's peg the charge by the DNA lab at $20 apiece. Multiply that by the number of people arrested every year, and you've got a nice profit. Multiply it by the population of the U.S., and you've got a really tidy sum.

Better than fingerprints!

[wombert]

"Your DNA didn't match, so you're free to go. But before you leave, you might want to meet your real father in cell block D."

Probable cause

[deblau]

if some agent of the federal government were inclined to violate the rules governing the use of the database, what would be stopping him from following you around and collecting a sample of your saliva from a soda can or blood from a bandage?

Absolutely nothing, except that it's not cost-effective. They simply don't have the manpower and other resources to do this, but if they did, you can bet it would be done. Technology is making this easier and easier, so it might be possible in the future.

Society gives each person a reasonable, legitimate, and justifiable expectation of privacy to retain their cells, while still in their body. Anything less, and we've turned into the Borg. To invade that expectation of privacy, there had better be a compelling reason to do so, which is why the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause. I suppose the key to unlocking the puzzle will be whether or not the investigation into the crime of which the suspect is accused would be furthered, in a way deemed legitimate and justifiable in the eyes of society, by the collection of DNA or other bodily samples. If not, then this seizure of cells seems to be plainly unconstitutional. Any other purpose for collecting the DNA not related to the specific crime of which the person is accused, such as for creating a database of criminals, is also plainly unconsitutional.

Once a person has been convicted of a crime, society deems that person to have lost privacy rights to their DNA. This legislation would push that line back, and I think, hope, and pray society isn't willing to go that far.

Petition to have it "Removed"

[Anonymous Coward]

Petitioning to have criminal data removed from a government database might be a bit like having clicking the "remove" link on spam.

I once had a hit on a guy on the NCIC database, when I was a student working for Immigration, who claimed to have had his record expunged after being found not guilty. He thought this meant the record was erased (and I kind of thought the same thing). Nope. His whole arrest record was still there, but with the word "expunged" added to the comments. It'd be something easy to miss if you were skimming or didn't scroll far enough, and cops looking for suspects might not care about that comment. It was a simple immigration thing at the Canadian Border, so it wasn't a big deal, and was sorted out, but I can see this guy getting screwed by this at some point as more and more companies do background checks before hiring.

Not sure if this was an isolated case (as a student, I didn't have direct access to NCIC, so I didn't see people's records that often), but my point is that it might not be that easy to get the government to "forget" about data that's collected.

WRONG, is highly effective

[Anonymous Coward]

The social concept is that all men/women are "equal".

The fact of the matter is we are not, and certain genetic/medical differences in racial populations lean towards a more violent disposition.

For instance someone who genetically suffers from depression might try blowing up a plane. Someone who has abnormally high testosterone levels may react violently to a simple request to fasten seat-belts.

As it is now all jail detainees have their blood taken, as it tells all, I'm sure a portion of this makes it to the Federal DNA database.

I don't this information will be sold/given to medical companies because government needs these agencies to cover their health insurance or the Feds will have to pick up the bill.

Finally

[Chucklz]

Captain: What happen? Detective: Somene set us up the crime. Detective: We get sequence! Captain: What? Detective: Megabace turn on. Captain: It's you! FBI: How are you gentlemen. All your base pair are belong to us. You are on the way to detection. You have no chance to sequence make your time. Captain: Take off every patrol car. For great Justice Dept.!

Not like fingerprints at all

[Anonymous Coward]

People natraully assume that each and every person has a different and unique genetic fingerprint. The truth is that without a large tissure sample (over 50g) you can't identify all the strands definitivly. Now they can make accurate guesses but thats what they are, guesses. So when you see the CSI's picking up a single hair, analizing it, and hten immediatly knowing to whom it belongs is complete garbage. Tests such as those can and often are inaccurate. I dont live in the US but i dont want my tissue sample which happens to be 99.65% the same as the real perpetrator and have me arrested for it merely because im in their database.

what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So even though completely innocent, should the Feds decide to detain you for any reason, your genetic data will grace their database beside that from murders, terrorists, and other miscreants."

What about most Department of Defense employess, armed forces, etc... their DNA is also collected. So are they miscreants also?

Re:what about?

[loraksus]

IIRC DNA collected from the military is only supposed to be used in the identification of bodies. Of course, I'm sure it has been abused.

Duh

[Minwee]

If you know of any other way for the police to know who has the evil gene, I'd like to hear it.

One step closer to the secret agenda

[xiando]

Could it be that the _real_ long-term agenda and question here is not just collecting from those who come in contact with the Police at some point, but to create a database of EVERYONE?

Could this, if it passes, just be another small step towards making a law which requires everyone to have their DNA in a database?

Could it be that EVERY TIME another push in that direction this dream comes one step closer?

Will everyones grandchildren blindly accept that their children DNA is, by pure routine, sampled at the hospital at birth? Since this is normal to them, because we allowed it?

Have you ever heard of a bill or suggestion to give back freedom and privacy to the citizens? I never have. Allow video surveillance of your cities. Allow video surveillance of all public places. Allow everyones DNA to be sampled. Allow a law that requires a video camera which is not allowed to be turned off in every room with four walls. It's all good, for it will prevent terrorism.

Now what kind of society do you have? Well, I'll tell you. At the rate inch by inch of privacy and liberty is taken away, you're one step our society three years from now. Feel free to bookmark this post. I am serious. This vision is much closer than you may think.

How long

[freaktheclown]

So how long until police start arresting people, taking their DNA, and then say "Oops, we made a 'mistake'"?

The republican party has changed

[Rick17JJ]

I am a registered republican who is a fiscal conservative / social liberal but, unfortunately G.W. Bush seems to be a fiscal liberal / social conservative. That is just the opposite of what I am. I really don't care much about all the religious right anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, conservative court nominees stuff one way or the other. For decades, my main concern as a voter has been to control government spending, balance the budget and to have strong states rights and to do as much at the state and local level as possible. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush seems too spend money like a drunken sailor and does not want to raise taxes to pay for anything.

I am old enough to remember when the Republican party was somewhat different. Back in the 1970s and earlier the religious right was not a prominent part of republican party. Republicans were for smaller government, less taxes and stronger states rights. In some ways G.W. Bush does not seem to be for the traditional Republican idea of stronger states rights. One example is how during hurricane Katrina, in some instances FEMA used heavy handed tactics and blocked the rescue efforts by local officals such as by seizing control of some diesel fuel they needed and by seizing control of an antenna tower used by local officals. /P>

I remember attending a speech by Republican Senatory Barry Goldwater back in 1972. He seemed to peak from his heart and was not afraid to say what he really believed and did not care if all voters or the press appoved of what he was saying. During his last term as a senator, when he did not need to be re-elected, he even voted against a defense spending item which was locally made because he felt the need to control unneccesary spending. By contrast G.W.Bush and the current Republics do not hesitate to pile on the pork barrel spending. I gladly voted for Barry Golwater on several occasions over the years but could not bring myself to vote for G.W. Bush during the last election. I am not sure where I stand on the collection of DNA info but, I am mainly trying to say how frustrated I am that we have not had any fiscally conservative candidates lately.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down, sig link is a 5% goat.cx redirect

Simple solution

[sysadmn]

Amend the bill to include "election to public office" to the list of those who have to supply DNA :-)

Paranoid Nation

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or are you all going nuts over absolutley nothing?

    In the UK we've a swab taken from the inside of each cheek if we're arrested for anything. Those samples are kept and entered into a national DNA database whether we're charged with the crime or not. It doesn't affect us in any way.

  And the number of old crimes, where DNA evidence was the only evidence collected(rapes for example), that have been solved years later because the culprit happened to be stopped for drink driving or other small felony would amaze you.

he real question is: What do the majority accept?

[xiando]

ALL. I did a pull on this locally. Not a very big one, it counted less than two hundred, but it still gave a clear and disturbing picture. The majority would accept and allow to have a video camera which they were not allowed to turn off or cover up in every room in their home to prevent crime and terrorism. Finding out this made me sick so I almost puked, but is the sad truth: The majority thinks that is acceptable.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

And I do not want to check if the majority would allow DNA samples to be taken from every child at birth, simply because I already know the answer and just do not want it documented. But I secretly know that too is inevitable.

People will by into any propaganda-hyped threat selected by the government and accept any and all violation of their privacy. It does not matter if the threat is real or not. The war, being against countries, terrorism or anything else which fits the current day and age, is meant to and will continue to exist, because the threat is not meant to be overwinned. The state of fear is meant to be continuous. It does not matter if the threat exists, it does not matter if it is real, the only thing that really matters is that it is ever-present so people continuously fear something so badly that they are willing to accept anything the government proclaims will give them back a notion of security.

Military already submits DNA

[HangingChad]

Anyone in the military already has their DNA on file, this is extending it to anyone suspected of a crime.

And somewhere a police chief is going to get it in his head that everyone in a certain building at a certain time is a suspect, or anyone passing a check point somewhere. You were in the shopping mall last Friday? You're a suspect.

The Republican controlled Congress and White House has done more to undermine human rights and civil rights than any other American leaders in history. Trying to turn this country into a nation of christian hall monitors.

Kids today are growing up being used to having their backpacks and lockers searched, drug tested to play sports or be in band, I don't think they're going to see anything wrong with this. They're used to not having any privacy. It's just like a frog in a pan of water. Turn the heat up gradually and they'll boil alive. Imagine what the next generation will be able to get away with? They've grown up never knowing privacy, so why would they value it?

Not only am I going to keep voting for people of either party with a brain but I'm going to break down and get involved. At least run for something. State, county...something. We have to get our country back from the retards running it now.

Your blind faith in a broken system is sickening.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter whether or not you commit a federal crime. They can get your DNA whenever they want, for any reason at all. They can go on fishing expeditions to collect and catalog DNA if it pleases them, under this law (and history shows that this is EXACTLY what they will do).

The law must be successfully challenged before going to the supreme court. Provisions like those in the Patriot Act can make this very difficult and unlikely. Further, even if the supreme court does put a stop to this practice, the already-cataloged data will still be available for all kinds of abuses of civil liberty.

Remember...having authority does not mean that one can do no wrong.

Re:Good job Republicans

[east coast]

yeah, cause the US has always stood for majority rule.

I would question what you mean but since you're nothing but an AC fucktard this is doubtlessly nothing more than a troll.

Mark of the beast...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

The mark of the beast... is your own DNA pattern. Who would have thunk it?!? The beggining of the end.

DNA evidence != gene profile

[Orgasmatron]

Forensic DNA is chopped into little pieces, and then drawn out into a long strip. The strip is then scanned, and the pattern of dark and light places is unique to your pattern of DNA markers, and can be quickly and easily compared to strips made from other samples. It can also be stored digitally in a few kilobytes or so.

Your gene profile is either terabytes in size, if they just sequence the entire thing, or megabytes in size, if they only record the notable genes.

Insurance companies can no more find a good excuse to deny your coverage based on the light and dark bands of a forensic DNA preperation than they can from the light and dark squiggles of your fingerprint.

At it again, again.

[oliverthered]

Sorry to spoil it for you all, but they've been at it for year, here in the UK, everyone gets DNA'ed and they keep the records on file even if you are proven completely innocent. Ah, such is life with cameras following you everywhere but not noticeable drop in crime since the cameras were installed.

There can only be two dominant parties

[Safety Cap]

The system of "one (wo)man, one vote" leads to exactly two parties, with many fringe third parties. The latter can never garner enough votes to weld serious power, unless one of the dominant parties is on the wane.

If we really wanted freedom of choice, we'd need to change the style of voting to something other than winner take all (for more info, Wikipedia is a good place to start).

Re:There can only be two dominant parties

[hcdejong]

The system of "one (wo)man, one vote" leads to exactly two parties,

Really? Over here (.nl) we've got 3 dominant parties (on average, they'll get something like 25% of the votes each) and a host of smaller ones, at least 5 of which have a realistic chance of being invited into a coalition government. The voting system we use is 'winner take all', the main difference is that we don't use electoral districts. I suspect it's the district system that sets the threshold (% of votes needed for a party to be effective) so high that only 2 parties remain relevant, not the 'winner take all' voting system per se.

Re:There can only be two dominant parties

[orgelspieler]

I'm not sure where you got your information, but the US does not have a "one person, one vote" policy. In presidential elections, the people in less populous states get more electoral votes (per capita) than those in more populous states. Further, due to the "winner take all" practice of most states, the votes of the electoral college rarely has the same ratio as the votes of the populace. There are many theories on how the US got to its current two-party system, but "one person, one vote" is not one of them. Some of the more viable arguments are: voter apathy, the nature of the electoral college, lack of viable alternatives, need for other voting methods (as you pointed out), middle-of-the-road candidates afraid to stand up for real issues, and many others.

To elaborate on your suggested starting place, it is a good idea to lobby your state legislators to support Condorcet voting (or your scheme of choice). It is up to them, not the federal government, to decide how your state's electoral votes are decided. Another way to go would be to directly lobby your state's electors. I don't know if this has ever been successful, but there's no reason to think that a concerted effort could not work.

I bet they misuse this

[harlows_monkeys]

I don't know how they do DNA matching now, but a few years ago, they only matched on a few sites on the DNA.

What this meant was that there could be several people that would match a given DNA sample.

That was no problem when DNA testing was used correctly. For example, suppose you have a rape/murder, and you have a semen sample. If you do a normal investigation, and come up with several suspects, and THEN do a DNA test, and one of them matches the semen, than to a very high degree of certainty he's the criminal.

However, if instead you start with the DNA, and just check your database of all people whose DNA you happen to have on file, and come up with a match, that is NOT a very good indication that the matching person is the criminal. There could be dozens or even hundreds of people who match, and so the chances are actually rather low that someone you pick just on the basis of a match is the right person.

Here's an analogy to make this clearer. Suppose you have a crime scene, and somehow are able to get from something left on the crime scene the last 3 digits of the criminal's social security number. If you investigate, and come up with three suspects, and then check their social security numbers, and find one of them matches and the other two do not, then you can be pretty confident that the one who matches is the criminal.

On the other hand, if you stop random people on the street and check social security numbers until you find someone who matches, and you are in a city with 10 million people with social security numbers, then that match you found only has around a 1 in a 10000 chance of being the criminal.

So, a DNA database frightens me, because I don't think they will use it properly.

(Or has DNA testing advanced to the point where they do test enough to really uniquely identify a person (except for twins)?)

heh,

[Anonymous Coward]

your country sucks.

Wrong, and yet...

[jeffasselin]

I know the current American administration's reasons for doing this are probably wrong, and in their hands it might lead to some SERIOUS issues of racial/medical profiling, privacy issues, totalitarian uses and the usual problems surrounding any such measures.

But it doesn't change the fact that used well, such a measure could be an incredible boon to forensic science and crime solving and deterrence. It could also be used in medical research to better understand and know about the spread of various genetic defects in the population.

I know that people fear eugenics, seeing it as a measure to _remove_ certain people from the gene pool, or to differentiate "better" people and putting them above the regular ones.

Other people, like me, see the use of genetic research in advancing and improving the entire human race. The human race, to the point it has now evolved, is beyond those tools of evolution that would improve and evolve us. Our intelligence, our development of compassion and altruism, as well as our ability to remove almost all barriers to travel and gene dispersal is removing two factors which evolution requires to work (survival/reproduction of the fittest & a closed population). We have in our hands though, the means through which we can advance our knowledge and ability to better ourselves, not only psychologically and ethically, but also biologically. In the current world order, though, such a development would only lead to a eugenic-like situation where only the oligarchy of the ultra-rich could profit from such technology, or use it to increase their control of the general population. But cataloguing of our gene pool will be a necessary measure eventually.

So although I might oppose this kind of measure in the current view of what it might be used for, I cannot completely condemn it.

Gods Damn us all...you're so overreacting

[Snar Bloot]

The bill is supported by the White House as well, but has not yet gone to the floor for a vote.

but has not yet gone to the floor for a vote...??????

I'm sure this has already been beaten to death, but fer gosh sakes. We don't need more nerds crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". Jeez, I know I'll get hammered for this but this is NOT A FLAMEBATE, it's a response to a moronic post that has been vastly, VASTLY overly moderated up.

Mod the parent down, take a chill pill, readjust your tinfoil hat and seriously sit back and look at the situation. Jeez. Hell...people like you should go "ask Jeez". That's really, really a bad post. Really some bad moderations. And if I had a little red flag to throw, the on-screen TV boys would be calling you some, um, er, bad names for making a stupid call.

I'm not calling you those names, I'm just pointing out you got a +5 for being a mouthbreather. I'm not even calling you a mouthbreather. Just saying...hey...you are whacked. Readjust your silver hat.

Let the hammering begin. I could care less when this type of unsubstantiated bull gets that type of moderation. Time for me to meta-moderate, I guess...let the Gods be good to me today and feed me some moron posts.

Re:Good job Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

rofl, what's the matter. feeling persecuted? how predictable.

Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans,

[falconwolf]

This is a cute suggestion, but not very practical

It's "not practical" because people won't. Many many people say they don't like voting for either democrats or republicans but when it's pointed out they have other choises like voting for Libertarians they say the same thing as you. If they, and you, were to make your votes meaningful things would change. And yes I've voted Libertarian, I first voted LP in 1992 for Ron Paul the Libertarian candidate for president. Admittedly I don't always vote for straight party ticket, I've voted for Democrats, Reform, and Republican, instead I vote on the person who comes the closest to being Jeffersonian, for liberty and small government. When a Libertarian is running s/he usually comes the closest, but many tymes one isn't running for a specific office.

Falcon

Re:Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans,

[blincoln]

but when it's pointed out they have other choises like voting for Libertarians

I think the Libertarians would be more successful if they limited their scope to human freedom, as opposed to corporate freedom. I don't vote for them because I don't believe in a free market. Just like the government needs strict limitations on its size and power, I think corporations do too.

Re:Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans,

[falconwolf]

I think the Libertarians would be more successful if they limited their scope to human freedom, as opposed to corporate freedom. I don't vote for them because I don't believe in a free market. Just like the government needs strict limitations on its size and power, I think corporations do too.

I do believe in free markets and the right of each person to benefit from their labor. But corportations don't make the free market, they can be a part of it but they are not the free market. It's said corporations only purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders however originally the charters for corporations specifically stipulated that they had to serve the common good. However the corporate aristocracy has been pretty successful at buying off governments and public officals, politicans. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1814, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Another Thomas, Thomas Paine writer of the book "Common Sense" called corporations evil. In "The Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith father of capitalism, says "In ancient times, too, it was usual to attempt to regulate the profits of merchants and other dealers, by regulating the price of provisions and ether goods. The assize of bread is, so far as I know, the only remnant of this ancient usage. Where there is an exclusive corporation, it may, perhaps, be proper to regulate the price of the first necessary of life; but, where there is none, the competition will regulate it much better than any assize."

Fact is is early supporters including the father of freemarket capitalism and libertarians were wary of corporations and believed they needed to be help accountable and regulated lest they become what they have, wielding real political power, and early laws held to this. Unfortuantely, just as any other economic system suffers from it, capitalism also suffers from greed.

Libertarians, just as other freemarketers, also want government to stop subsidizing businesses. Here's what one libertarian writes on the Libertarian Party website:

"But while individual welfare needs to be gradually phased out, two of the three types of corporate welfare need to be eliminated immediately."

The first is the government payout. Writing huge checks to corporations like McDonald's or ADM has got to end now.

The second is tax breaks: Corporations rarely get breaks based on merit or need. The corporations that get the biggest breaks are those that lobby the best. Yes, I know the Libertarian Party wants to get rid of the IRS, but we have to be realistic. That will never happen until we have a majority in power. Therefore, equality must come before elimination.

The third kind of corporate welfare is the kind I have been talking about in this essay. Since taxpayers are being forced to supplement the income of the minimum wage workers, we are picking up a part of the labor expense paid by big corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, this type of corporate welfare will be a necessity for some time to come.

Then there's stuff like the recent USSC ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case. As with the previous medical marijuana and other rulings that limit or interfer in rights, this ruling has been condemned by libertarians, and should be by freemarketers too.

To say that libertarians care more about corporations that individuals is either a mjor distortion or an out right lie about libertarians.

Falcon

Can we just give Texas Back...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything there that we wouldn't be better without?

Welcome to Amerikkka, neo(nazi)con nation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heil Bush!

You don't understand insurance companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance companies spread risk over time, not people.

"They already do this sort of thing by pooling customers - young, healthy people and older, sick people offset one another, so overall, the risk is lower - everyone get some coverage, with the healthy subsidizing the sick. That's how it's supposed to work."

This is not how it is supposed to work. What is supposed to happen, is insurance companies pool people with similar risk profiles so that no one gets hit with a huge bill all at once, because of an accident, but instead, the cost of accidents is amortized over a large period of time (the entire length of the insurance policy). All the group does is calm down the swings - making the risk lower for the insurance company. However, if you have insurance for 1,000,000 years, you should expect to pay into it what you get out of it, less the insurance company's handling fee.

Simply put, no one in their right mind will stand for the naked transfer of wealth that you are proposing. Either high risk people are segragated into their own risk pool and pay a perportionately high premium, or all the low risk people cancel their policies, and the effect is the same. Of couse, there is a chance that the company won't be able to react fast enough to your socialist policies and will simply go out of business, but well - that's what happens when you try to centrally plan an economy.

scary scenario

[solune]

Okay, now suppose you're detained because you forgot to take that dime out of your pocket before going through the airport screening...

Now, suppose your DNA is taken..

Now, that your DNA is in the database, how hard would it be to switch your code with a real murderer/terrorist/miscreant? So, for example, the next time the murderer leaves some DNA behind YOUR DNA comes up in the database.

Before you answer, recall that .gov databases have been broken into before, for fun and profit. Also note, as we move further into the "information age," the amount of people inside and outside the system willing to do such malicious tinkering will only increase.

Also note that this will undoubtably increase bureaucracy, and with an increase of bureaucracy comes more places for corruption.

And you thought standing in line at the DMV sucked!

Reagan

[falconwolf]

I think youre confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Seems to me that all consevatives in recent memory (except maybe Ragan) have been about restricting rights.

You can very much include Reagan in there. Because of reagan federal government became bigger and more powerful, look at his fake "War on Drugs", or Nancy's "Drug-Free America".

Falcon

Here's my sample

[Anonymous Coward]

The Feds can have a big white creamy load of my genetic material. All they have to do is wrap those big federal lips around my genetic content delivery mechanism.

we are all slaves

[cwells]

resistance is futile!

Re:Good job Republicans

[east coast]

rofl, what's the matter. feeling persecuted? how predictable.

uh, no, I feel that I'm talking to an asshat who doesn't have a real arguement for his "ideals". the fact that you post as an AC substantiates my arguement. How predictable. If anything I know I'm in control of this arguement.

Understand how it will be used

[tyler_larson]

Most of the public probably recognizes that the government ALREADY stores a somewhat reliable form of biometric identification whenever they haul anybody in for any reason--I'm referring, of course, to fingerprinting.

People associated (for whatever reason) with law enforcement probably recognize the concept of having your prints "on file." The same sort of principle would apply with having your DNA "on file." The use of the registry would very likely be all the same stuff. So instead of just trying to look up the bad guy's prints, they'll be able to look up the bad guy's DNA.

And as scary a concept as this is for privacy advocates, it really is a logical (if not inevitable) next step beyond "printing" people taken into custody. The results of such will most likely be largely positive--fewer bad guys go free, fewer good guys get falsely convicted (or even arrested).

The bad news is that abuse of such a registry is also inevitable. Any large registry of data that is (a) widely trusted, and (b) not well understood, is bound to claim its fair share of innocent victims. That's unfortunate. While, for most of us, it makes our lives much better, for an unfortunate few, such a system would unjustly turn society against them.

For example, an innocent bystander could be falsely linked to a crime scene just by brushing up against the perpetrator 3 days earlier in a different city. While that's not a problem as long as the police (and more importantly, a jury) takes that factor into serious consideration; knowing how people work, especially when under pressure, it would be unreasonable to expect people to be so ..um.. reasonable.

The question is, is society as a whole better off or worse? Will the few misuses of the system be so grevious as to offset the benefit? The injustices that happen every day within our society that could be solved by such a system generally rival, if not exceed, the severity and quantity of any forecasted misuses. A lot of really bad things currently happen to good people. At least some of that could be stopped.

So are we looking a a net gain or loss? That's really the question those voting on this should be asking. If a portion of our population is forced to surrender some additional degree of privacy to benefit others, is that acceptable?

Re:Understand how it will be used

[Xepherys2]

I don't see how this would be any more or less abusable than the INTERNATIONAL fingerprint database used by INTERPOL and several major countries across the globe. My prints are on file because I am in the military. If there's any arm of the US Government that's going to use things like that for unusual purposes, it's the DoD. I don't care! I agree that the US PATRIOT act is a ridiculous afront to the very freedom our country stands for. It needs to be abolished. The writers of it should be imprisoned for treason in my book. However, a DNA database could be good on SO many levels, that the very little realistic bad that could come from it is, IMHO, far outweighed.

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns."
"Hah Ha! How does it keep up with the news like that?"

Chimerism Unaccounted For

[Ledgem]

Hopefully, they won't base things too heavily off of this. While DNA testing does work well in most cases, there are two cases where it doesn't. As people have brought up, DNA falsification (someone trailing evidence that would genetically lead to another person), and people with chimerism.

Chimerism, as I understand it, is a condition that forms when two zygotes fuse together in the womb. That is, what would have been two people - twins, perhaps - fuse back together and form a single embryo. What results is a person with two sets of DNA. For example, their skin, hair, and so on may have one DNA line, but their internal organs would have another. It's relatively rare, but just imagine the mixups that would be possible. I believe there have been cases where this came up, actually; where a single person committed a crime, but DNA sequencing led people to believe that two were involved. Quite interesting, really; at the same time, given that it's so rare, few people know about it. And I certainly don't expect the government to have it in mind, either, knowing their record with scientific matters...

DB

[Anonymous Coward]

... talk about a database with a unique key

Detention

[ephedream]

For those who don't know, there are 3 states you can be in with relation to a police officer:
Free to go
Detained
Arrested

Free means if a cop asks you something on the street, you can keep walking and ignore him.

If a cop detains you, you have to stay put until he lets you go. This can be on the street or when you're in your car. When you are pulled over by a cop in your car, you are being detained. The law on this is fairly complex about when they have to let you go and how long they can hold you, but they don't need "probable cause" like in an arrest situationto detain you, "articulable cause" where they can articulate their reasons for suspecting you of a crime (but this can't be merely a "hunch").

Arrest is the next level, and we're all familiar with that.

Basically this article says that if you are detained OR arrested, your DNA can be forcibly collected. That is scary. It doesn't take anything at all to get detained by a police officer. In other words, this bill essentially means "we can take the DNA of anyone we want at any time". So much for DNA warrants. If they want your DNA, they got it.
I know some people are saying "come on guys, we can trust our government--do you really think they'd abuse this wealth of information they're getting?" Well call me paranoid but YES!!! Look at the government's track record. They want Total Information Awareness, in case you haven't been paying attention, and no, it's not just to "catch terrorists".

A DNA print does NOT uniquely identify

[Alain Williams]

Typically, DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva. A DNA "profile" -- or unique numeric signature -- is generated, which can be stored without including private genetic information.

There is a mistaken belief that a DNA test will uniquely identify someone, that is not true. The technology is a sampling one, it does not compare everything in someone's DNA against the test DNA. The main value is in excluding people who cannot match the DNA profile.

The public belief is that these tests are 100% accurate and that when the police scientist says it is a match then it is an absolute match.

Fingerprints have similar problems, see this article.

Extraction method?

[bmajik]

So, can anyone elaborate on how they "extract DNA" from people?

If it involves one of those short-skirted, maximum-visible-cleavage nurses that you see in old Van Halen videos, then I think this is a great idea and look forward to getting detained.. and towards my eventual "release".

They got me and I didn't do anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of States already have DNA collection laws in place. Arizona is definitely one of them. For the time being, the AZ law only applies to those arrested for Felonies. However, just like any other law, the enforcement of the law can vary widely from the specific language of the law and the way that it is employed in real-world cases.

EXAMPLE:

I hated my son's girlfriend. She's a gold digger, a liar, lazy and somewhat of a plaything for many of the guys at her High School. I forbade a relationship with my son and that was a mistake on many levels but specifically in relation to what happened next.

She got pissed off at me and called the cops. She claimed that I came to her house and tried to force my way in, threatening her with a knife.

Of course, I knew nothing about this until the cops came busting through the door, weapons drawn, dragging me out of bed in the middle of the night for a trip to the station for questioning.

As a part of the "Routine" processing, I was required to give a DNA sample.

Two days later, after investigators hired by my attorney showed up at her house to question the family, she got scared and admitted that it was a prank to get revenge becaused she was unhappy with me.

The charges were dropped immediately, however, the DNA sample is still in the Arizona and Federal database for dangerous offenders. Naturally my attorney demanded that the records be purged. Also naturally, the Gov refused, and my genetic records are still among those of rapists, murderers and child molesters.

Nice huh?!

In near future...

[Maljin Jolt]

...black market will rise with illegal bacteria capable to modify genetic profile.

Yesteryear's Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Republicans before the 1960's were northerners, who descended from Federalists; liberals if you will. Democrats before the 1960's were southerners (some still are), who descended from Anti-Federalists; conservatives if you will. Enter the liberal Democrats of the 1960's (ie the Catholic Kennedy's) and Dixicrat fiasco (Protestant conservatives seperating from the party due to liberal Democrats supporting the Civil Rights Movement), and you have yourself conservative Republicans.

So with the "flip-flop"n it's hard to distinguish, and easy to make assumptions. Like Abe Lincoln being the Republican Party's "pride and joy" (maybe to gather Black support?) and Assdrew Jackson being the Democrat's black eye (maybe to gather "educated" Black support for the Grand Ol' Poop).

Also take note of the fact the Libertarians are conservative-like in nature, which if you'll notice, they support the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights," to death. One could conclude that Libertarians are closer to the Anti-Federalists than Yesteryear's Democrats and today's Republicans.

I feel dizzy from all the circles I've done.

Ironically...

[clambake]

The irony is, any reasonable lawyer could have the DNA database thrown out because of unreasonable search and seizure for just about anyone placed in the database this way... So they'll know who did it, but can't convict him!

Re:Yes, quoting holy scriptures helps SO much

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't 15th century. It's 2005 so you better keep your superstitions to yourself.

And just because that particular scripture has saturated your surroundings isn't an excuse to mumble verses from it into every conversation.

Criminals already do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Police say car thieves have taken to dumping cigarette butts from bins in stolen cars before abandoning them." - TV teaching criminals about DNA evidence

I would agree if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every member of the government including the president does so.

Relatives

[Anonymous Coward]

They can use your DNA profile to match relatives too. Over in the UK they take DNA when arrested and keep it forever. There was a case recently where a rapist was caught because a blood relative was on the database. When you are arrested and fingerprints are taken, they only match you. If DNA is taken, your innocent relatives technically end up on the database too.

Re:1ST: "Haven't done anything, nothing to fear" P

[smchris]

Typical liberal. Thinking more than one step beyond the obvious.

Stop that! It isn't seen as patriotic these days.

This time it is Darth Cheney's Office of PreCrime

[Anonymous Coward]

Darth Cheney is "assuming control"... Now, with his new office of "DNA Pre-Crime"...

What's next? Thought police?? Heck, basically, with the "patriot act"?? That's ALREADY in place because you can be 'bugged' & 'tapped' w/ out the previous constraints that were upon any agencies of law-enforcement in order for them to do so.

Think that something of that nature would not get abused? Think again. You know it, & I know it.

Fact is, that I and the entire class I was with, were told by our history prof. 2 decades ago, that if we thought in the United States that a Nazi Germany-like state would or could not ever happen in the U.S.A.? To think again.

He stated that that type of control first starts with little laws... then bigger and bigger ones that begin to affect larger and larger bodies of people as each of them is passed.

Between the "patriot act" and this? It makes you wonder.

Yes, It makes people afraid. I don't know about you, but I do know about me... (Especially if you have nothing to hide, BUT, have everything to lose). You are kept in line via fear.

The ONLY thing that might help the common person is 1 fact: When you scare people to an extreme extent & threaten their families? This is when you create a creature with NO BRAKES & NO FEAR - after all, @ that point? You've got NOTHING TO LOSE!

Why did I say "kept in fear"? WELL, because most likely, in conditions like today, it's not even fear for yourself, but if you have kids mostly imo & why would I say that?

Well, because those children NEED you initially & for a long period thereafter... After all, to keep them alive primarily & shielded from the "uglies" of life first off, & then later to help them onto the right path in life & set them onto the 'right' road via your guidance & financial help.

Without YOU around? They're extremely vulnerable. Thus, you have to keep your mouth shut TOTALLY... & herein lies the problem & imo, the ONLY reason that Darth Bush & Darth Cheney are STILL IN OFFICE!

Above all, imo, is that the problem with things created by men is that because we are men and imperfect, that most anything we make will be imperfect and subject to corruption.

Personally? I don't trust it.

Why?? Because it is YET another limitation on your personal liberties & "inalienable rights".

Yea, so much for those, under the rule of "darth cheney". It's not Bush running things in this country. Let's face facts there on that note.

Oh, & by the way?

The military's been doing this for a long time already/anyhow, swabbing of the interior of various soldiers cheeks for DNA, especially those that 'ace' their physical endurance tests.

(Gee, I wonder why THAT is? Probably, and not a joke, to create genetically engineered clones, "perfect storm-troopers" imo, if not today? Someday in the future... why else do it then?)

APK

P.S.=> Sometimes, I wonder what is becoming of our nation here in the U.S.A., I truly do... I have been on this planet for 40 years now, & what do I see in this nation: Changes. Negative, blatantly radical ones, that undermine the sheer genius of the men that set this country up...

Again, I do NOT know about yourselves, but it spooks myself to no end...

Sometimes, messing with the foundations of the past (be they moral, legal, or otherwise) is BAD BUSINESS, & not for those setting up the rules of the game, but for those who have to live under said rules!

When a known drug user, a consistent failure in business, & one who went AWOL during his military stint spearheads a nation as its figurehead leader, & our elections proved to have way, WAY too much 'controversy' in each of the last 2?

Well... you think about it!

The maniac @ the helm of our country just does as he pleases, which is forcing his "views of freedom" onto other nations with impunity and outright lies (there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor was it

Re:I'm inclined ot believe

[indifferent children]

Correction: they are real Republicans; they are not real Conservatives. The Republican party has sold out the conservatives, and turned neo-con (big debt, big government, big business, big religion, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom).

Re:just one more reason to be glad i'm not america

[demigod]

3. you RE ELECTED BUSH

Give us a little credit will ya? If we had fair elections he would have lost both times.

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

George Orwell was too optimistic and lacked imagination.

With apologies to Pastor Niemoller

[Anonymous Coward]

When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can only be quiet.

Re:At it again...share croppers

[Anonymous Coward]

actually they did survive...they exist today...The economic difference between having slaves and having freemen work the land was about %3. The share cropper system started immediately after the war.

If I spit in their face, is that voluntary DNA?

[Kodack]

They can collect my DNA off their face. This law is too loosly worded and gives much to much leeway in applying it. This gives the government a thumbs up to illegaly detain and collect DNA from any person they want.

I'm not interested in meat eaters and church goers

[RomulusNR]

...I just want to ride in the black helicopters, because that would be fucking leet.

Oh, and I hear the sunglasses are very chic.

</bierce>

I think it's great that we have paranoid conservatives who fear being rounded up for meat-eating and church-going, considering vegetarians can't eat more than bread and salad at 80% of restaurants, and a vocal athiest has no hope of winning public office -- in fact, they already officially can't do so in Texas; hell they can't even be Boy Scouts. I fully believe that being an athiest is currently on the list of DOHS "red flags".

But, whatever, some people want to hate and fear social minorities. Hey man, whatever you gotta tell yourself in order to justify stockpiling machine guns. Just remember to keep hiding in the cabin, watch out for the helicopters, pat down the tinfoil, and you'll be sufficiently far enough away from me.

dna database

[falconwolf]

All it takes is one person with access to the dna database who's willing to give or greedy enough to sale said data to insurance companies.

What would be the point of the company stealing the information from the government when they could just require you to give it to them freely?

If the information is already in a database it can save them money from collecting dna from those seeking medical coverage. Also if they did try to get people's dna there could very well be an outcry.

Falcon

Re:dna database

[anthony_dipierro]

If the information is already in a database it can save them money from collecting dna from those seeking medical coverage.

I don't see how. The government is not exactly known for being the most efficient at these things.

But even if it is cheaper for the insurance companies to do it this way, isn't that a good thing, because it means lower rates for everyone?

Also if they did try to get people's dna there could very well be an outcry.

But no outcry if the government gets everyone's DNA, sells it to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies start dropping people?

Re:dna database

[falconwolf]

If the information is already in a database it can save them money from collecting dna from those seeking medical coverage.

I don't see how. The government is not exactly known for being the most efficient at these things.

Which is more inefficient, "reusing" data or duplicating efforts?

But even if it is cheaper for the insurance companies to do it this way, isn't that a good thing, because it means lower rates for everyone?

No it's only good for those who have a "perfect" makeup. One reason for dna testing by insurance companies is to identify those who present greater risks to profits, for instance someone who'd identified as having a greater chance of having cancer X, that person can then either be made to pay more for coverage, can be denied coverage, or shades in between. I don't mind if the person will need to pay more but only if they can afford to pay. Uninsured people raise the prices for everyone. The only other way out is with "Soylent Green".

But no outcry if the government gets everyone's DNA, sells it to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies start dropping people?

But there will be an outcry from some quarters, sectors of society, the ACLU for instance is already questioning if putting the dna of those that haven't been convicted of any crime into a government databse would be unconstitutional. As Jim Harper a specialist of privacy issues at CATO says, "it's a classic mission-creep situation".

This is what Timothy Lynch said, on 21 August 2000 in "The USA Today":

"The federal government is constantly trying to expand its purview over every aspect of American life. And wherever the feds go -- whether it be health care or education -- they inevitably demand information about people. Sooner than you think, the feds will want your DNA to be stored in an FBI database."

Congress unleashed a runaway train in 1994 when it established a program called Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). The CODIS program offered state officials federal funds if they assisted the FBI with DNA-sample collection. By 1998, all 50 states had passed laws requiring local police departments to collect DNA samples. At first, the demand for DNA collection seemed innocuous and uncontroversial. Only convicted sex offenders would be required to give DNA samples. Such a database would enable the authorities to track down serial rapists. Who could oppose that?

Once the DNA database was established, however, the police quickly realized that they could increase their chances of catching criminals by expanding it. We've been sliding down the slippery slope ever since.

The second stage was to get a sample from all convicted felons, not just sex offenders. In New York, Gov. George Pataki is pushing to require anyone convicted of a misdemeanor to submit to DNA profiling. The former police commissioner of New York City, Howard Safir, goes even further. He says that any person arrested should be included in the database. According to Safir, "The only ones who have anything to worry about from DNA testing are criminals." Then why stop with arrestees? Why not obtain samples from every single American?

There is, of course, cause for concern. Federal officials have abused their powers in the past, such as by throwing Japanese-Americans into detention camps, by conducting barbaric experiments on black men in Tuskegee, Ala., and by deliberately exposing GIs to atomic blasts, to name just a few.

If we believe that tomorrow's political leaders will somehow be incapable of abusing their power over a fully centralized DNA database, the next generation will never forgive us -- and rightly so.

This article originally appeared in The USA Today on August 21, 2000.

The more power government gets the more power it wants.

Falcon

Re:dna database

[anthony_dipierro]

Which is more inefficient, "reusing" data or duplicating efforts?

Do you think the data obtained by the government is going to be directly useful to the insurance companies? I seriously doubt it.

But even if it is cheaper for the insurance companies to do it this way, isn't that a good thing, because it means lower rates for everyone?

No it's only good for those who have a "perfect" makeup.

No, you're missing the point which is that the insurance companies that are going to use this information are going to use it whether it's obtained by the government or whether it's obtained by them themselves.

I don't mind if the person will need to pay more but only if they can afford to pay. Uninsured people raise the prices for everyone.

Then it sounds like what you want is either universal health care, run by the government, or highly regulated private health care, where no one is allowed to get turned down. Because as long as you have a private system, it's not going to ignore any genetic information it can get. Either way, I don't see how it makes the difference if the government has the information, because it's just as easy for the insurance company to drop anyone who doesn't provide their DNA as it is for them to buy the DNA results from the government.

The more power government gets the more power it wants.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying I don't really see the potential harm. I thought a bit about this before giving my fingerprints to the IRS. And I think I'd come to the same conclusion if they required me to give them my DNA. It's just not that big of a deal.

Re:dna database

[falconwolf]

Do you think the data obtained by the government is going to be directly useful to the insurance companies? I seriously doubt it.

It's the same data, DNA. DNA doesn't change with different people taking a sample. I don't know why it was needed, other than for testing, but I once applied for health insurance and when I did they scheduled an appointment to have someone, probably a nurse, to come to where I lived to collect a blood sample. There were expenses incurred, now if the feds had had a database of my blood it may of been cheaper for insurance to get the blood from there than having to pay someone to get it from me. BTW I was denied insurance.

I don't mind if the person will need to pay more but only if they can afford to pay. Uninsured people raise the prices for everyone.

Then it sounds like what you want is either universal health care, run by the government, or highly regulated private health care, where no one is allowed to get turned down.

I want neither univesal coverage run by the feds or a highly regulated private healthcare system. Universal coverage raises the cost of healthcare and leads to rationing. High regulatory bars raise cost as well. If states want to have a basic level of coverage for the state then they can but not the feds. If prevention were stressed and complementary or "alternative" healthcare were allowed and other healthcare regulations were abolished healthcare costs may be lower. For instance the FDA shouldn't be requiring perscriptions for drugs, Measured in dollars or lives, excessive regulations cost too much. Actually as far as I'm concerned the FDA should be abolished, I don't see anything in the USA Constitution authorizing the FDA. With lower costs of general healthcare people would then be able to pay out of pocket for minor treatments, and because people would be paying out of pocket for these they would be able to afford insurance which would then cover major expenses.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying I don't really see the potential harm. I thought a bit about this before giving my fingerprints to the IRS. And I think I'd come to the same conclusion if they required me to give them my DNA. It's just not that big of a deal.

Go ahead and give the IRS your DNA, it's your choice but I see no need or any reason the IRS should have it what so ever, their job is to collect and process taxes and not healthcare.

Falcon

Re:dna database

[anthony_dipierro]

It's the same data, DNA.

So you think the government is going to store the entire genome of every single person? No way. They're going to store select portions, a fingerprint, which would be useless for other purposes.

There were expenses incurred, now if the feds had had a database of my blood it may of been cheaper for insurance to get the blood from there than having to pay someone to get it from me.

I doubt the government is going to take blood in the first place. And surely the insurance company is going to have to do some testing themselves. To add drawing blood while you're already there for your physical anyway is not a very big cost. And the government most likely isn't going to give up that information anyway.

I want neither univesal coverage run by the feds or a highly regulated private healthcare system.

Fine, then expect insurance companies to run tests, including genetic tests. The only way you're going to stop them is by making it illegal for them to do it.

Universal coverage raises the cost of healthcare and leads to rationing.

So when the companies drop people with genetic problems it lowers the cost of healthcare and eliminates rationing.

Re:dna database

[falconwolf]

I doubt the government is going to take blood in the first place. And surely the insurance company is going to have to do some testing themselves. To add drawing blood while you're already there for your physical anyway is not a very big cost. And the government most likely isn't going to give up that information anyway.

No, you're right they won't take blood, but the article does say "DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva". But I didn't say physical while "there" whereever there is. When I applied for health insurance they sent someone to where I lived. Also I didn't say the government would give it out what I said was that insurance could induce someone with access to the database to give it to them.

So you think the government is going to store the entire genome of every single person? No way. They're going to store select portions, a fingerprint, which would be useless for other purposes.

I didn't recall the article saying the feds would only keep a subset of the DNA so I went back and reread it and it doesn't say anything about how much would be kept. But it does have a quote on what I was saying from Jesselyn McCurdy of the ACLU saying "DNA is not like fingerprinting. It contains genetic information and information about diseases." She added another thing I said before, that they question whether it's even constitutional for the government to put the data from those who haven't been convicted in a database of conficted criminals. It also says those who have had their dna collected but were never conficted would have to petition to have it removed, that it wasn't done automatically.

So when the companies drop people with genetic problems it lowers the cost of healthcare and eliminates rationing.

No it doesn't lower costs by dropping those who may present a problem. As it is now hospital can't turn people away even if they can't pay and because those who don't have coverage won't see a doc when something can be easily treated they may end up in the emergency room where the cost are a lot higher. And because the hostipal and docs won't get paid by the person being treated or their insurance they have to raise the prices of those who can pay, they're not charities. Now if they are able to refuse to treat someone then think of humanity would miss from someone like Steven Hawkins not living. And what that say of humanity when profits are put before lives?

Falcon

beautiful

[crabpeople]

"Unitl I am actually deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, how are my rights being violated exactly?"

first they came for the jews, but i was not a jew, so i did nothing.

"So, you set up the laws such that information is available, may be used for analysis, but if it is used against you, you have a solid legal foundation for a lawsuit, with HUGE fines for violators."

enron, worldcom, m$, diebold (2008). see most people who have had to deal with "the system" do not trust it. if the only arguments you can provide are:
a) these people are a bunch of chicken little crazies, it will never get that bad.
and
b) if it did get that bad, someone would react properly

then i would say you are overlooking the entire history of the world. it does get that bad, and people like you are the ones who make others complacent.

Re:I'm inclined ot believe

[symbolic]

Point taken. The party itself is made up of several factions, and the neo-cons are currently at the helm.

Fingerprints

[nurb432]

Yes, i know they are, and its still wrong.

Even the local police do it. Still doesnt make it right.

People should be outraged. But most people are sheep.

Re:Fingerprints

[glitch23]

Mine are on file(I'm not saying for what, criminal or civil). I could care less that the gov't has them. It isn't affecting me until I do something wrong and then the police already know that I'm in the system so even then it doesn't do too much more in my opinion.

Re:Fingerprints

[nurb432]

The reason its wrong is its *none* of their business.

The fact you are complacent worries me. There are too many like you out there, which is why we are losing our rights right and left.

Where is your line? Police siting on your street corner watching everyone? On your lawn? How about in your house.. Its for your safety remember.

Re:Fingerprints

[glitch23]

What's the difference between the police sitting on my street corner watching everyone and, police sitting on any other road watching people? What do you think they do when they are on patrol or in a speed trap waiting for people to speed by? They can watch whoever they want wherever they want as long as it is on public property. Where is YOUR line? You act like they aren't sitting on the corner now and that's exactly what they do now as part of their job and if they don't they have nothing that says they can't. Nothing stops an ordinary Joe (as far as I know) either from sitting on your street corner and watching you.

Voting for the lesser of two evils

[falconwolf]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is 'doing something'. And if more Naderites had understood that in either of the last two elections, our country would be a loss less broke and a lot less screwed-up right now. Throwing-away your vote on some who has zero change of winning, that's not 'doing something'.

I "voted for the lesser of two 'bads'" in 2000 and threw away my vote. I had wanted to vote for Harry Brown the Libertarian candidate, but instead of voting for him I specifically voted against Bush. I vowed never to do that again, so in 2004 I voted for Michael Badnarik who's now running for congress in Texas.

Falcon

My line

[nurb432]

My line is where it crosses over from public to private. This violating my privacy.

Citing your example: Sitting on the street corner, looking down the STREET is ok. Looking in my windows, is not.

Re:My line

[glitch23]

So someone sitting outside in their car on your street and looking at your house and able to see you walk back and forth between rooms, without binoculars, is violating your privacy? Shut your curtains if you are paranoid or have something to hide. Nothing is private about your fingerprints. You leave them everywhere and do you bother to wipe them off of everything you touch? What prevents the waiter at your local restaurant from taking your prints and giving them to his friend to put them into the "system"? You may draw a line between public and private but some of the things you consider private are still public whether you like it or not and it is only after you work at preventing that from happening that they really are private (wiping your prints off of everything you touch, picking up all your hairs you lose all day, closing your curtains). At a certain point that can turn into paranoia as well.

Re:My line

[nurb432]

Sitting on the street in their car and looking IN my windows is a crime in my town. ( looking *at* my house would of course not be ). Its an invasion, rude, and around here would get you more then you bargin for. )

Fingerprints, in my case i often wear driving gloves in public so no, i dont 'just leave them laying around'. Furthermore, collecting the prints by a private company with out permission would also be a crime.

I also pay with cash, before you head down the 'they can track your credit card' path.

Wow, you are an obsessive loser

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange that you all are posting from such an awfully similar IP address then. Furthermore, you seem to know enough about the identities of the other four posters to say they are all different. Did you hire a bunch of "friends" to come and post the exact same message? On the same computer? One of which was within nine minutes of one of your other posts? On a nearly week old story that isn't recieving much attention any more (three other messages in the previous 24 hours)? Nice egg on your face you are wearing there though.