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.
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.
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.
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?
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.