Slashdot Mirror
New York State Passes DNA Requirement For Almost All Convicted Criminals
New submitter greatgreygreengreasy writes "According to NPR, 'Lawmakers in New York approved a bill that will make the state the first to require DNA samples from almost all convicted criminals. Most states, including New York, already collect DNA samples from felons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. What's remarkable about the New York bill is that it would expand the state's database to include DNA from people convicted of almost any crime, even misdemeanors as minor as jumping over a subway turnstile.' Gattaca seems closer than we may have thought. Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
Who is making money from this?
1. Pay to have your DNA sequenced.
2. Copyright your DNA sequence.
3. Get arrested, convicted and have your DNA taken.
4. Sue like your the MPAA.
5. Profit?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Is this for white collar criminals too? Oh wait, the rich don't go to jail, they just make settlements.
I just don't get the fearmongering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I refuse to believe this is is constitutional. A policing body taking my genetic code and doing god know what with it if I jay walk or look at a cop wrong? Lets see how this silly piece of paper hold up in court.
Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.
So this applies to basically every person who voted for the law...
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed a crime?
As usual for an invasion of privacy or violation of fundamental rights, the UK got there first. In England, you get your DNA taken and stored simply if you get arrested - you don't even need to be charged, let alone convicted.
Most violent criminals have their beginnings as a crying baby. Ergo, we should collect DNA from all crying babies. This will allow our helpful government to keep us safe. I'm way more concerned about turnstile jumpers than our government collecting a little DNA.
DNA fingerprinting techniques 'can sometimes give the wrong results'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1302156/DNA-fingerprinting-wrong-results.html#ixzz1pINb0FPk
DNA's dirty little secret: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html
Typically, law enforcement and prosecutors rely on FBI estimates for the rarity of a given DNA profile—a figure can be as remote as one in many trillions when investigators have all thirteen markers to work with. In Puckett’s case, where there were only five and a half markers available, the San Francisco crime lab put the figure at one in 1.1 million—still remote enough to erase any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The problem is that, according to most scientists, this statistic is only relevant when DNA material is used to link a crime directly to a suspect identified through eyewitness testimony or other evidence. In cases where a suspect is found by searching through large databases, the chances of accidentally hitting on the wrong person are orders of magnitude higher.
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
I'm curious how many people who are generally considered to be law-abiding citizens have a misdemeanor at some point in their past which did not lead to later felonies. I'd really like to see that number, becaue I bet it would dwarf the amount of people who escalated their criminal activity to felonies later in life. How many criminals do you have to apprehend using these new samples to justify getting samples for all of those law-abiding folks?
'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.' Did anybody ever look at all then nonviolent "criminals" (people who jaywalk, ride the subway without paying etc...) DON'T become violent? I think they would find out it is the great majority.
There's nothing unreliable about DNA testing. They even employ controls to rule out laboratory contamination.
A pseudoscientific method is not more reliable. They don't employ any controls in fingerprint analysis at all. No one who knows anything about this thinks fingerprints are more reliable in DNA. The difference is that with DNA they've taken steps to determine how reliable it is. With fingerprints, they haven't.
When you take away everything, you have nothing to lose! And someone with nothing to lose is the most dangerous thing in the world!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
We also know that violent criminals very often start their lives as children. The earlier we get every child's DNA into a data bank the higher our chances of living in a crime free paradise.
A study I completed recently found that a staggering 100% of criminals start out as non-criminals. If we can get non-criminal's DNA in the data bank, our chances of apprehending criminals will rise dramatically.
Death penalty for parking tickets!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Why are you thinking about being a Criminal inside the United States? If so you can stay in Canada we don't want you.
Sarcasm aside...
Having your DNA on record isn't much different then getting your fingerprints taken, which will happen if you get arrested too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"as non-violent criminals"
So that anti-piracy ad is correct? If I download a movie or buy bootleg DVDs from China, I'll eventually turn to hard drugs and killing? Wow. (That was sarcasm; the NY guy's statement is bull and backed-up with no facts.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
They should put the DNA of all politicians, lobbyists, and investment bankers into the database first.
One thing I'm worried about is the moment when the owner of these DNA databases figures out that they can start selling the information to stakeholders like drug companies. What rights do even felons have to ensure this sort of thing never happens?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You swab your mouth. It gets shipped to a Lab. They put the swab in a machine that records key DNA records and saves it on a hard drive... This isn't a full GNOME match this only gets a few key elements enough to identify you. Compared to trying to solve a crime, you find DNA evidence then you need to use other means to track down the criminal to get their DNA so you can match them up. Taking Teams of people doing investigation to track down the person. Vs. getting the evidence sent that to the lab... You find a match and go and knock on the persons door with a warrant.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
What's going to happen is a near-future supervillan will gain access to all criminal DNA and clone a new race of super criminals. And I, for one, welcome our new DNA cloned, super felon overlords.
DNA testing has been shown to be basically unreliable. Fingerprints are actually *more* reliable. Sounds great, huh.
I think you need a citation from a credible source on that one? Are you perhaps thinking of the fact that there are different types of DNA tests with different levels of specificity? The less accurate tests are used more commonly for a first round of testing, not unlike blood types, to exclude a suspect. When trying to uniquely identify an individual the more accurate, and more expensive, tests are used.
I find it funny that New York State on the one hand says it is ok for them to keep your genomic information and yet don't trust you to get your own sequenced. From Wikipedia:
In April 2008, New York State's Department of Health sent warning letters to six online genetic testing companies, including 23andMe, notifying them that they cannot offer New York state residents genetic tests without a permit nor can they offer them without authorization from a physician.
I think the NYSDOH should Cease and Desist their own government, I always love seeing bureaucrats at each other, distracts them from messing things up.
Do you really need to ask why people are opposed to further increases in police power?
Palm trees and 8
Fingerprinting has never been subject to a peer reviewed study for accuracy. It is just accepted that they are close enough to unique to work. In general, "forensic science" isn't science.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So if my DNA is better than others, does that mean I'm worth more? Do I get better luck with the ladies?
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Can't wait till the Anon script-kiddies do an SQL-injection on THAT gov database and they post all our DNA's to the twitters. Crap.
Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
So when some senator discovers that youth who question authority are more likely to be delinquent, what then? Cotton swab for every child that talks back in class? Hair sample from any child that throws a tantrum at daycare.
It's an undeniable fact that a comprensive DNA database of the citizenship would help police do their job. Obviously that's not the only consideration; if it were, why not give the cops unlimited power?
The powers we give the police, like the power we give to anybody, should be meted out carefully with an eye to balancing the pros and cons. We should be asking ourselves: why are we considering more power for police? Crime has been trending down for decades. If anything, striking a better balance now would mean revoking powers, not adding to them.
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
We also know that nonviolent criminals begin their careers as noncriminals. Why not just require DNA samples from everyone?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
When police finally had a lead on the BTK serial killer they obtained a sample of a relative's DNA because they didn't have enough evidence to get sample of his. I assume that will become one of the primary uses of New York's database.
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
One of the little factoids that many people don't know--over 90% of all first-time criminals have never committed a crime before. That's why we need to get all the innocent people's DNA into a data bank--so we can increase the chances of apprehending the right person.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
And there are no cases where people have been innocent but still convicted just because there where a very strong suspicion that the person did it...
Or how about that there are lots of people accepting rulings without a jury because they cannot afford a lawyer and accepting a 2 year probation sentence instead of risking going to jail and loosing everything they have.. Just getting arrested for something can cause havoc on people's lives, even if they are cleared of all wrong-doing..
I could agree to something like this IF you could have something like "We suspect person X, is this person X DNA?" Yes/No... With this you could get the benefits of checking a group of 10 people quite fast, but it would not be allowed to search the entire database when this is known to cause false-positives.. But even if it started this way the politicians would screw it up too.
The quote "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" seems fitting here..
Don't worry. If you break US law, I'm sure Canada will be happy to extradite you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I refuse to believe this is is constitutional. A policing body taking my genetic code and doing god know what with it if I jay walk or look at a cop wrong? Lets see how this silly piece of paper hold up in court.
Criminal convictions are all about reducing your rights, and your anonymity, from that point in time forward. If they can retain info like photos of your face, tattoos, scars and other distinguishing physical features; biological information like height, weight, fingerprints, blood type, medical conditions, etc ... then how is retaining info on your DNA something new and unprecedented? I'm a bit fuzzy on what is unconstitutional. Creepy yes, unconstitutional probably not.
I'd collect a lot of random DNA beforehand and contaminate the crime scene.
There's nothing wrong with collecting data on convicted felons and convicted criminals.
There are thousands of laws that do worse things to completely innocent people.
So let's suppose you have a family with a checkered past. You have never been convicted of anything. However one day a partial match comes through and lo and behold, your father's DNA doesn't quite match, but they suspect a family member. Can they compel you to submit to a DNA test?
Hasn't your father 's DNA just convicted you?
In other words, old DNA evidence might be used on a fishing expedition to convict family members as well. Is that reasonable? I'm not so sure about that.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Someday, the system may have the power to force absolute conformity upon all its people. Of course, this results in civil harmony but ends innovation and adaptation, which exhausts civilization, which ends humanity. Earth returns to its 'natural' state until the sun goes supernova and incinerates the planet. And now for the bad news . . .
From the point of view of the rich and powerful:
Convicted criminals have few rights before or after they're imprisoned. In particular felons lose the right to vote.
We won't be convicted of felonies. Our political donations, private police, security guards, well-paid lawyers and contacts prevent it.
The more people we can define as felons the fewer voters we need to worry about and the more power we have. case in point: the marijuana lobby that never was.
The more power the police have the better off we are.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
There's nothing unreliable about DNA testing. They even employ controls to rule out laboratory contamination.
Of course, these controls are perfect:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17324912
Note that while this guy was not convicted:
a/ His life was seriously fucked up
b/ The police only queried the test when he repeatedly insisted he had never been to Manchester, where the crime was committed. If he *had* been (innocently) to Manchester at around the 'right' time this would not have occurred.
c/ The lab initially denied there were any issues and insisted the match was correct, and the police proceeded to charge him based on this denial.
d/ the lab *later* confessed to the contamination
If it was not for d/, he would probably be banged up now, because the Jury know that "DNA is 100% reliable".
He was *incredibly* lucky that the lab confessed - they could easily have covered this up, and I believe most organizations would do just that and see an innocent man jailed rather than risk losing lucrative police work.
Also note they are now investigating to see if the same thing has already happened in previous cases and led to false convictions.
ALL DNA testing laws should at the very least require that the crime scene DNA is tested at a seperate lab to the samples taken from possible perpetrators. But that won't happen because it costs money, which outweighs justice any day (certainly in the UK at present).
I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill that expands the requirements to every state employee who has to get the standard DOJ/FBI background security check that requires fingerprints.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to direct the very same concerns that concluded with this bill at the security screening process for state government employees as part of an enhanced standard background check. Do that, and it would go a long way toward addressing my concerns with this bill.
Privacy issues notwithstanding, I happen to agree that there are mainly legitimate, beneficial uses for tracking DNA just as we do fingerprints. Once the governor, AG, cops, etc are all in the system, I believe they will have a much more of a vested interest in those very same privacy concerns.
If you do not commit a crime, you should not get arrested and DNA profiled...
Sarcasm, right?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
One of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent noncriminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent noncriminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'
How is the government knowing your DNA sequencing a violation of privacy? Can it be used to get into you bank account? How about tracking your current location or what you might do with your free time? As far as I can figure the only thing any government can do with your DNA sequence is use it to compare against other DNA sequences. I would appreciate it if someone could give me an example of how DNA could be used for violating privacy.
If there is no God then free will is an illusion.
Anything against people from Quebec? You know, it's not because some separatists hate the US and all the English speaking people that we are all like that.
Step out of line with the powers that be? Well, look at that! Your DNA just showed up at the scene of an unspeakable crime! What are the odds?
You're supposed to warn us with "Spoiler Alert'!
Here, through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here, here and here.
By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".
Dilbert RSS feed
Fingerprints can identify you.
DNA can identify you, your parents, your children and other family members.
DNA can show your genetic odds for diseases like diabetes or alcoholism.
Once your DNA is in the public record:
- Your health insurance rates might go way up because you have good odds of diabetes.
- Your car insurance rates might go up because you fit the DNA profile of a drunk, even if you don't drink.
And what do you do if you happen to be an identical twin, triplet, etc, whose sibling committed the crime?
Even if your DNA was never taken, it may suddenly be difficult to get certain jobs because now employer background checks might run a DNA scan on public databases and find out you have a relative convicted of fraud. (I might feel better about this if DNA-based background checks were required to be a candidate in an election.)
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals.
Violent criminals also very often begin life as babies. Therefore babies should be treated as criminals because - the earlier you get them into the database the "safer" we all are.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
>>And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
And the earlier we get every newborn's DNS into the data bank, the higher you chances of apprehending the right person.
In 20 years or so (if I'm that lucky) I'll be off this planet and done with this shit.
"We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.' Holy crap? That's the logic behind this? Well i have lots of data that non-violent criminals "very often" begin their careers as non-criminals. So I guess we should friggin DNA everyone.
'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
We also know that almost all, if not all, violent criminals begin their life as babies. So the earlier you can get a baby's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
This is more like the sci-fi/fantasy series CSI where they have almost everyone's DNA profile stored, and enough excess processing power, energy and bandwidth to display live data on each person as the search is running. Also they have the magical ability to infinitely zoom up and "enhance" even the graniest images, that's the fantasy part.
However they're quite inept with computers in this world. In one episode they took a laptop from a defense contractor, and instead of storing it in a faraday bag and then imaging the hard drive with a data diode adapter in a shielded room, they just booted it up with free network access, and then acted surprised - REALLY surprised, they were freaking out - when it remote wiped itself. It was quite funny.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The question here, of course, is whether or not a human being owns their own body.
The answer to which is (equally as obvious): No.
You do not own your body, the State does. And it can do whatever it damned-well pleases with it, when it pleases, and how. Should you fail to recognize this in the course of your dealings with the State, I'm sure they can show you just how incredibly wrong you are.
Examples? See the whole of the internet.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
It was the usual mission creep. Initially they stressed that the DNA database was only for serious offences such as rape. Yet within a few years they were keeping the DNA of arrested protesters even if no charges were brought. This is why you have to defend against the initial small moves that encroach upon your freedoms. If you don't make a stand initially, mission creep will get you.
If you want to convince the average person to take privacy serious, NEVER use an example where you are worried a guilty person might be convicted for a crime he did in fact commit Only utter nutters think that law and order is some kind of game, that must be played "fair" with the odds in favor of the criminal. The rest of us think that guilty people should be punished. So, try again, what does an INNOCENT person have to worry about all this? He very well might, but it is the innocent person carry about. Not your guilty ass.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Richard Aborn is such a wimp. The answer is staring him in the face and he just doesn't get it. Point is, there is one and only one source of all known criminals, and that's the only people that need to have their DNA collected. Duh! Get those samples right away and problem solved. The one and only source of all known criminals is all the non-criminals. Known criminals we can keep an eye on, but all those others, they are the ones who are scary, because you never know....
We can start with Aborn, with the only hiccup we probably face, as I read his character, is that he already is a criminal and so we better first check if he is already on file, so as not to waste taxpayer's money.
Nothing?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20
http://www.darwinawards.com/science/forensic_analysis.html
that didn't take me long to find.
And the most damning, from a university:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/labs/gel/forensics/
Law and order isn't a game, but it is stacked in favor of the accused. Hence the phrases "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". It damn well better be substantially harder to convict someone than for them to show a reasonable doubt about it, because otherwise you create a society in which people can just be thrown in prison. That's getting increasingly easy to do, but in most cases there's still a court involved, and they do still care about things like evidence procedures and presumption of innocence.
I don't care that the guy gets off, if the police were sloppy. Even if he's a murderer and everybody knows it. The police need to do their job right, because if they're allowed to get away with illegal searches and still get the conviction, we're all at risk.
I'm not even some paranoid libertarian, but this is pretty basic justice.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
This is nonsense. There is no piece of evidence that should be sufficient to convict someone on its own. That doesn't make such evidence "unreliable."
There is no kind of evidence which infallible. But the way DNA evidence is analyzed makes it more reliable than other kinds. The reason you can find stories like that are the scientific controls used. The reason that it doesn't come up for fringerprints or other types of evidence is they lack controls entirely.
the tooth-fairy has your DNA, -: it's not original, but I enjoyed the concept. (Terry Pratchett?)
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I get the creepiness factor, DNA is an unimaginably detailed description of a person. However I don't really see any *new* legal issues that have not already been addressed by the courts. I'm sure the collection and retention of fingerprints generated a bunch of lawsuits back in the day. How is the current legislation authorizing the collection and retention of DNA at conviction any different than the old legislation that authorized the collection of fingerprints at the time of arrest and the retention of fingerprints at the time of conviction?
Fingerprints of the convicted, maybe even those of the merely arrested, are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes. Fingerprints are searched by computer, a search done on all fingerprints on file. Fingerprints don't seem to raise self incrimination issues.
The only new issue that I can think of is that law enforcement databases with DNA information may need to be Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant with respect to securing and restricting access to DNA information. Personally I hope this is a non-issue, that law enforcement databases are already at least as secure as those belonging to those involving health care.
People become these hard core criminals because of the states obsession with turning every tiny little crime into big one (you make a couple mistakes your labelled a crim, it's harder to get jobs, and the cops are even more interested in you). Back off the teenagers smoking a bit pot or jumping over a railway station gate, get the cops to treat them with a little respect, and i'm pretty sure your problem will go away. Wise up your not solving anything, your only making it worse.
Rocket Surgeon.
I might feel that way if I believed that I could absolutely trust every police officer. While I have not had any run-ins personally I know that it would be all too easy for a policeman to "find" some drugs in my car or on my body and completely fuck up my life. As such I'm not convinced they need any more power.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
We also know that non-violent criminals all start out as non-criminals. Next step, NY takes DNA samples of everyone.
The problem is that it's presented to juries as if it were sufficient to convict someone on its own.
So which would it be ....would you grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license to copy your DNA? What about derivitive works .... do you get any royalties from that?
Then don't pay your taxes.
An over simplification for certain. Impossible to actually work unless there is a large proportion of the populace willing to go along with the plan. I do see another way out.
I've long held the belief that we will have many of our rights restored only when the government bankrupts itself, or becomes dangerously close to doing so. Governments cannot create wealth, only consume it. For a government to oppress the people there must be a large number of people that are on the payroll of the government. A government can only grow to a size that the economy will sustain. A collapse of the economy means a collapse of income from taxes, no income from taxes means the government cannot pay their employees.
We've seen governments attempt to keep paying employees by printing more fiat currency. That only works for so long as inflation of prices will soon make the currency worthless. Government employees will not remain government employees if they are not paid enough money to feed themselves. Their loyalties will shift. This means leaving government employment, or turning to corruption.
Unlike other nations the people of the USA still enjoy public trials by a jury. Americans still have elections every two years. Americans are also the most well armed people on this planet.
The governments in America will shrink. I see this happening in one of three ways. First, near complete collapse of the economy. Government employees will leave their jobs en masse to turn to more profitable pursuits. Those that remain will have to fight desperately to keep law and order. Order will return but only after large portions of the government disappear.
Second, armed revolt. People will tire of the tax burden they will have to bear and the increasing limits on their freedoms. I see this happening only if there is some unbearable act by the government. Think of the riots after the Rodney King trials only on a national scale. An example going farther back in history would be the shot heard around the world.
The third possible way I see the shrinking of the governments in the USA is by voting the tyrants out of office. This is obviously the preferred method but it is also the least "complete" means to remove government excess. The government will shrink if the people make it known that they will no longer tolerate tyrants in government office. Why I say this is a less "complete" solution is that the government will only shrink to a level that people will again tolerate, as opposed to a rebuilding of the government from the other options.
Only after typing the above did I realize I essentially made a restatement of the four boxes of liberty.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
Where's the probable cause? Oh, hell, let's just forget that whole 4th Amendment thing. It's inconvenient.
Lots of people start out using fake ID to enter a bar and later escalate to becoming a college graduate, a parent, and a productive member of society.
(Yes, you can be all three!)
In other news, we need DNA from all politicians. 100% of all public corruption cases -- a serious crime that strikes at the heart of democracy -- involve them. And the earlier you can get a political criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person. Violent politicians very often begin their careers as nonviolent politicians. Don't let them exempt themselves like they did with the Do-Not-Call list!
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
DNA samples should be required of all children born in the USA, period. It would help in the identification of accident victims as well as aid in the catching of criminals. The only possible privacy issue would be the one where a criminal could avoid identification. The hell with those assholes. If you are not committing a crime, you have nothing to fear.
Pigskin-Referee
Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow