Slashdot Mirror
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."
Republicans at it again, always touting "smaller government" while doing the exact opposite...
pathetic...
Cheers,
J
...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.
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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.
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 ?
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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
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 ?
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.
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.
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...
s.clementmonkey@sympatico.ca, remove the 'monkey'.
"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?
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'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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."
/rant tag here]
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
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.
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.
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.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
That's a good point, and will probably lead to stuff like, "Who cleaned my hairbrush? Where did I leave my toothbrush?"
... thus reducing the risk that the cops will keep looking and find the real perp.
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
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
See that "Preview" button?
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).
Yeah, right.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
> 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.