Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Wants DNA From All Arrestees
An anonymous reader writes in to say that "Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting would have to give a DNA sample before they are even charged with a crime if a controversial proposal is approved by the Legislature. "It is good technology. It solves crimes," claims Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned. Others believe that this is just another step in the process to build a national DNA database with everyone in it."
"Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned."
This is not what happens in the UK.
So far it takes a lot of pressure to get entries deleted once you are on there, and you don't even need to be arrested to be on there.
The European Courts have said that this is not right and that they should remove entries that don't pertain to criminals, but I don't think there is any rush.
Too much "think of the children" and "think of the raped woman" going on for privacy and human rights to get a look in.
Even if they did, we all know these databases are hives of incorrect data anyway.
State hits crime lab on DNA cache, Some files improperly kept, IG says
The State Police crime laboratory is storing the DNA profiles of hundreds of people whose crimes do not warrant it, according to an investigation of the historically troubled lab, raising the specter of what one civil libertarian called a "shadow DNA database."
- SR
Now they even keep the DNA samples of people arrested by mistake. Fight against it. Don't give them an inch or they will take a mile. Any gains in crime fighting are dwarfed by the enormous potential for abuse. It's really paving the way for future tyranny.
At first I thought "No way am I going to let them take blood from me if I'm arrested!", but after reading the article all they do is swab the inside of your cheek. It really is less invasive than fingerprinting.
I've been fingerprinted twice, once after being arrested and once after applying for a federal job. The first time was the worst, the machine couldn't read my print AT ALL, so the officer tried pressing harder. That registered a faint image of a finger print. So they gave me some gel to clean my fingers, that did nothing to help so the officer continued to press harder and harder. We finally got one print to show up after a few minutes when the officer forced all of his body weight onto my finger. ONE PRINT, then it was on to the next 9 fingers...
Second time didn't require as much force, but we had other issues, my finger wasn't rolling right. The person operating the machine had to do each finger 5+ times to get the machine to actually accept the print.
I know they're not going to do away with fingerprinting and replace it with DNA samples (DNA isn't a unique identifier), but they already take fingerprints and mugshots before you're found guilty. So what's the problem with taking a little bit of spit?
We forget that minors and students are still people with the same constitutional rights as adults. Just because we force them to go to school, doesn't mean their other rights are negated at the door.
Umm. No. While maybe you think that children should have the same rights under the constitution as adults they actually do not have the same rights as an adult.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You get finger/foot printed at birth. The FBI recommends it. Not sure if it is mandated by law, but it could be on a state/local level - if not on a fed level. Great if your kid gets kidnapped.
As long as the police are not giving this to my insurance company so they can deny me insurance then I am down for it. I don't break the law.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.
Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".
Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.
Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.
Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.
Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.
Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.
More true than you think. The Inglewood, CA police department did a check once and discovered at least 3 of their dispatchers had outstanding warrants. (No, they did not admit this publicly, I knew somebody that worked there.) Of course, all those with access to the database can just make those records go away, can't they?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Coincidentally in the NY Times today there is an article on how bad forensics labs really are . A good read.
I posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge here (not enough slashdotters with kids):
Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.
See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org]
Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Its supposed to be used solely for death or injury ID and destroyed after separation from the Service.