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
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
...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.
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.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
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 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.
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.
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..
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
If 1,000,000 different agencies each want a 100 mg sample from me, what does that leave me with?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
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?
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.
I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
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'.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
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?
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 ----
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
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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.
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*).
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.
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
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?
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...
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.