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."
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.
Wasn't this a storyarc on the Uncanny X-Men comics back in the 80s? All we need now are mutants.
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...
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
... 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.
Seriously, in the past decade or so I've been seeing less and less difference between the two parties. Oh sure
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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?
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
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.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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?
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".
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*).
"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.
http://xkcd.com/386/
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.
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.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
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.
This is my sig.
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.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
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.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people