SCOTUS Says DNA Collection Permissible After Arrest

schwit1 writes in with news about a ruling on the legality of the police collecting your DNA after an arrest. "A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting. 'Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority. But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers. 'Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,' conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom. Details of ruling available here.

Comments

I knew it would be 5-4

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I was shocked to see Scalia was in the dissenting group.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[AuMatar]

Interesting breakdown. Scalia joined 3 of the 4 liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan. Breyer broke with the liberals and voted in favor of the opinion. It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Hatta]

Blind squirrel, broken clock, pick your cliche.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Rob the Bold]

Interesting breakdown. Scalia joined 3 of the 4 liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan. Breyer broke with the liberals and voted in favor of the opinion. It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.

I'm more surprised that the Scalito brothers didn't vote together.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[schwit1]

Why? Scalia voted against the police scanning houses with IR devices to find growers and against drug sniffing dogs on your property.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I was shocked to see Scalia was in the dissenting group.

Why the surprise? Scalia is a textualist/originalist. If a particular method of search or seizure would have been viewed as unreasonable in 1791, then that is exactly what the Fourth Amendment prohibits.

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Jones holding that warrentless attachement of a GPS to track a suspect's car was a trespass, and that the information collected was an unreasonable search.

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Florida v. Jardines holding that police can't enter the curtilage (closely surrounding area) of a home with the intent to collect evidence (in this case, via a drug sniffing dog). Scalia called this an unreasonable search.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[LoyalOpposition]

It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.

For the October 2010 to June 2011 term the Justices most often agreeing in whole or part were Roberts and Alito at 96%. In second place were Sotomayor and Kagan at 94%. In third and fourth place were Scalia and Roberts, and Kennedy and Roberts at 90%. In fifth and sixth place were Roberts and Thomas, and Thomas and Alito at 89%. In seventh place was Kennedy and Alito at 88%. In eighth and ninth places were Breyer and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan at 87%. In tenth, eleventh and twelfth places were Scalia and Thomas, Scalia and Alito, and Kennedy and Thomas.

So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?

~Loyal
 

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[AuMatar]

Interesting numbers. Do you have a source, and anything over a longer time period?

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[coinreturn]

It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.

For the October 2010 to June 2011 term the Justices most often agreeing in whole or part were Roberts and Alito at 96%. In second place were Sotomayor and Kagan at 94%. In third and fourth place were Scalia and Roberts, and Kennedy and Roberts at 90%. In fifth and sixth place were Roberts and Thomas, and Thomas and Alito at 89%. In seventh place was Kennedy and Alito at 88%. In eighth and ninth places were Breyer and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan at 87%. In tenth, eleventh and twelfth places were Scalia and Thomas, Scalia and Alito, and Kennedy and Thomas.

So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?

~Loyal

Since you quote 2nd place instead of first, your attempt to turn this into a left/right thing is obvious. Your numbers may be the case for the current term. Thomas and Scalia have way more years of history of lockstep. The fact that Thomas never says anything is what adds to this "lockstep" idea. Here is some history from wikipedia:

Voting alignment

On average, from 1994 to 2004, Scalia and Thomas had an 86.7% voting alignment, the highest on the Court, followed by Ginsburg and Souter (85.6%).[100] Scalia and Thomas's agreement rate peaked in 1996, at 97.7%.[100] By 2004, however, other pairs of justices were observed to be more closely aligned than Scalia and Thomas.[101]

The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia's is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice John Paul Stevens the least, 36% of the time.[102] Jan Crawford Greenburg asserts that to some extent, this is true in the other direction as well, that Scalia often joins Thomas instead of Thomas joining Scalia.[103] Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[104] Goldstein's statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a 74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[105]

Legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote in her book on the Supreme Court that Thomas's forceful views moved "moderates like [Sandra Day O'Connor] further to the left",[106] but frequently attracted votes from Rehnquist and Scalia.[107] Mark Tushnet and Jeffrey Toobin both observe that Rehnquist rarely assigned important majority opinions to Thomas, because the latter's views made it difficult for him to persuade a majority of justices to join him.[108]

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[bws111]

Do you know how to read? The first sentence you quoted is 'first place'. The second sentence is 'second place'. How, exactly, is that 'quoting 2nd place instead of first'?

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you quote 2nd place instead of first, your attempt to turn this into a left/right thing is obvious.

Actually, it was AuMatar who was making this a political left/right thing by mentioning only the right leaning justices. That you failed to see or recognize that shows your own bias.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?

~Loyal

Well they claimed that Kagan was gay, but I never heard that about Sotomayer.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[MightyMartian]

All your base pairs are us!

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[tbannist]

He was refering to the final line "So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?".

The point was that the choice of Sotomayor and Kagan over Roberts and Alito who voted together 96% of the time was a blantant attempt to make to turn this into a right-left issue.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Obfuscant]

The point was that the choice of Sotomayor and Kagan over Roberts and Alito who voted together 96% of the time was a blantant attempt to make to turn this into a right-left issue.

No, I think that line was crossed by the grandparent who was trying to make a political statement about Thomas and Scalia being "in lockstep", but who ignored the other side of the political coin who do it more often.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[TechyImmigrant]

>Nope, easier just to pigeonhole someone as "100% evil"
I'm under no illusions. Scalia is 80% evil.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[GodfatherofSoul]

It's a philosophy that I also can't stand. Laws are pedantic. Justices only have the option of interpreting what's written and not divining unrecorded meanings. When justices start digging around for other writings or papers and what laws were in place in some forefather's home town in 1800, you're moving into the territory of divining meaning where there is no law.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Jane Q. Public]

"Interesting breakdown. Scalia joined 3 of the 4 liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan. Breyer broke with the liberals and voted in favor of the opinion. It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia."

What amazes me is that the majority only considered whether the physical search is "intrusive", but not whether the results (being in a database) would be intrusive. As such, they left out at least half of the real 4th Amendment issue, which is great opportunity for this to be re-visited later.

If there were ever a SCOTUS decision that deserved to be reversed, this is definitely one of them.

There is no doubt that the Government has "an interest" in collecting the DNA for identification. At the same time, the potential for abuse is ENORMOUS. Much higher than with just about anything else. And not just abuse, but mistakes of epic proportions.

This was a BAD DECISION. Period. One of the giant elephants in the room of the Supreme Court's recent history of bad decisions.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[tbannist]

I was explaining to BWS what the other poster was unclearly saying. Frankly, I do not have enough interest or patience to play childish "who politicised it first" games.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[reve_etrange]

The left / right political split is most common, but sometimes we see their authoritarian / liberal split as well.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[reve_etrange]

Why? Alito is a totally authoritarian political conservative, Scalia is a much less authoritarian political conservative.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Obfuscant]

Frankly, I do not have enough interest or patience to play childish "who politicised it first" games.

No, you have no patience with people who point out that you played the game and lost. You did, indeed, play that game by claiming that LoyalOpposition's data was:

... a blantant attempt to make to turn this into a right-left issue.

That's your claim that LO was first at politicizing the data, a game that you now claim you aren't interested in playing. The fact that you ignored what AuMatar was "unclearly saying" was part of the game, too. So, if you had no interest in that game, why did you try playing it to start with?

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[paraax]

But the amendments to the consitution are not black and white. Whether you can stand it or not, a word like "unreasonable" is a variable word and a metaphorical yardstick must be used to figure out where unreasonable starts. Its hard to argue for any specific measure... current feelings, original intent, administrative whim? Centuries or jurisprudence has resulted in a system that I feel has missed the mark on many important issues, so I can't even put my faith in stare decisis as being a good basis for decisions.

At least original intent attempts to avoid some of the political pressures, poor reasoning, and quirks that have accumulated.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[GodfatherofSoul]

What I'm saying is that the word "unreasonable" means that the amendment is setting a standard that we can use to interpret the constitution. And, that definition is free to change with culture and the times. The stockades were reasonable 300 years ago, but unreasonable today. My problem with originalists is they say that whatever was OK in 1789 is OK today even if the wording of the Constitution states something different.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[westlake]

If a particular method of search or seizure would have been viewed as unreasonable in 1791, then that is exactly what the Fourth Amendment prohibits.

How can you know possibly what would seem "unreasonable" to someone born in 1761?

How they would perceive the modern world and technologies which evolved over two hundred years after they were born?

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Darinbob]

Why shocking? People like to rigidly put people into conservative vs liberal camps, but those divisions are too simplistic for the complexities of actual cases and political thinking. When you get down to basics of what many conservatives profess as part of their ideologies, you might naturally expect more of them to be opposed to the DNA sample collecting since it can be seen as an expansion of government power.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Darinbob]

Speaking as a devout "decline to state", I see equal numbers of knee jerking idiots on both sides of the issues.

The reaon problem is that we're taking a highly complex system of political thinking and reducing it to a simplistic two dimensional scale. As soon as the word "liberal" or "conservative" gets used then you know all nuances have been disposed of.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[tbannist]

Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim and that B) it wasn't about the data but about the leading question at the end and C) that I was explaining it. I happen to agree that LoyalOpposition did try to turn it into a right-left argument, but I don't particularly care that he did.

The fact that you ignored what AuMatar was "unclearly saying" was part of the game, too.

If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often. However, it is a rather mild criticism, and not terribly political. If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry? I certainly wouldn't be.

It takes more than a criticism of someone "on your team" to create a right-left argument. If that's all it took, then you could never criticise anyone without starting a political fight. That hardly seems like an ideal situation.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Darinbob]

Or the "don't change the status quo too much" versus "we are free to re-interpret as needed" split.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[geminidomino]

What the...?

It's exactly the Court's purpose (or was, when the concept was conceived) to restrict the ability of the Executive AND the Legislature to do things that are abusive under the constitution.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Jane Q. Public]

It *IS* the Court's job to block actions by the Executive that are unconstitutional. This is a 4th Amendment issue.

It is very clear -- and the Court has itself ruled in the past -- that it is not just the search itself that must be considered in deciding whether it is intrusive. It also must consider the consequences of that search.

Thus, searching through your papers willy-nilly, while it may not be physically intrusive in many or even most cases, is a 4th Amendment violation: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

But note that it is not just papers that must be secure, but "their persons" as well. While the act of collecting DNA may not be physically intrusive (see the example I just gave), the consequences of that act may indeed be -- in this case would almost certainly be -- highly intrusive.

That same Court has ruled that while it is not explicit in the Constitution, we have a Constitutional right to privacy, because without it our other rights would be impossible.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[LateArthurDent]

It is not the Court's purpose to restrict the ability of the Executive (i.e., FBI, CIA, etc.) to do things that are potentially abusive. That's the Legislature's job. If you do not like how the current law reads, petition your representative to change it.

That's backwards.

The executive doesn't have the right to do anything they haven't been allowed to by the legislature. If there's no law that specifically says they can take the DNA, the courts should ask where they got that authority and block them. It's the judicial branch's job to interpret the law and determine if it does indeed allow for the action the executive is taking. In this case, the dissenting justices interpreted the 4th amendment of the constitution as specifically denying the executive the ability to collect the DNA from anyone they arrest. I honestly don't see how the other justices don't agree, but them's the breaks.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[ganjadude]

he is starting to apear to be more libertarian than conservitive.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you know possibly what would seem "unreasonable" to someone born in 1761?

How they would perceive the modern world and technologies which evolved over two hundred years after they were born?

Read the dissent. Scalia's argument begins with the American disdain for the "general warrants" of the British at the time of the founding. The first Virginia constitution called these general warrants "grievous and oppressive". During ratification debates, the initial lack of prohibition against general warrants drew criticism, leading Madison to draft the 4th amendment. Given the motivation for the 4th amendment, "reasonableness" turns on having "individualized suspicion". Scalia concludes from this that "suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crime-solving." Given that the fingerprinting system is sufficient for identification purposes, the DNA collection system must have purposes above and beyond simple identification of the person in custody. It is being collected for crime-solving. That requires a warrant.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[ClioCJS]

close your parens

compilation error

)))))))))))))

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Obfuscant]

Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim

As did you. I quoted your words. And at the time, you apparently felt interested enough to play, but now you really don't care.

If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often.

Yes, other than using derogatory language about two conservatives, AuMatar is completely innocent of trying to make this a left/right issue. Yep. You win. If you ignore what he said, he didn't say it. If we ignore what you said, then coinreturn was the only one saying it. Yep again. You win. What a good game player you are for someone who isn't playing. Care to play a nice game of chess?

If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry?

Yes, if you get caught failing at the politics game, project your own feelings onto others and try to deflect the blame. What "angry"? I'm not angry. Why would I be? Your failure to succeed at the game of politicizing SCOTUS doesn't make me angry, just amused. Your abdication of the game after you lose is, well, still not anger-inducing. Amusing, perhaps.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[fafalone]

Originalist only where he deems fit. This is the same guy who voted that a plant grown in your own home, consumed only by you, entirely within a single state, where no state law had been broken, was something you are rightly arrested and incarcerated for under federal commerce clause powers (Gonzalez v. Raich). Consistent with his praise of Wickard v. Filburn. You can't possibly think they would have found that acceptable in 1791.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[reve_etrange]

That's definitely an important one.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[SLi]

This seems to me to be a result of the society as a whole putting way too much emphasis on the Constitution, and believing that it necessarily must equal all the basic rights.

The protection for privacy in the Constitution is notably rather weak, even more so when compared to many other modern democracies. I cannot say that this is a fault in the Constitution per se: The issues today simply are not the same as those in 1787.

The reasonable way forward would be to recognize that, while the drafters of the Constitution certainly possessed exceptional insight, they were not the gods they all too often are elevated in American political discussions and that the Constitution is no scripture that could definitively prescribe the important rights for all times. At some point, a mature society needs to recognize that it needs to make its own decisions and enact laws (or even change the Constitution) to, for example, protect privacy instead of trying to read something into a 200-year-old document that to an honest mind simply is not there.

If collecting DNA this way is wrong, it's not wrong because it's against the Constitution; that's backwards. Rather, the Constitution should prohibit it because it is wrong. If it does not clearly prohibit it (and it does not), you should change it. And if you cannot change it because of the political landscape, it's still not honest to try to pretend it speaks any more about privacy than it really does.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[tbannist]

AuMatar is completely innocent of trying to make this a left/right issue. Yep. You win.

I'm glad we agree.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Jane Q. Public]

"If collecting DNA this way is wrong, it's not wrong because it's against the Constitution; that's backwards. Rather, the Constitution should prohibit it because it is wrong."

Of course. But the Constitution does prohibit it, because it is wrong. It is very obviously an egregious -- I would go so far to say outrageous and criminal -- intrusion into the rights and privacy of the "person" of the individual. But people must be secure in their persons, according to the 4th Amendment.

I want to emphasize this again: it is not the "search" itself that is terribly intrusive, but the consequences of that search. This is the very same reasoning behind why it also says people must be secure in their "papers". Searching one's papers may not be terribly intrusive in many cases, but the consequences of such a search could be devastating. Well, so could the consequences of the government having your DNA in its database.

The Constitution does prohibit it, and it does so because it is wrong. What more is there to say?

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[laughingcoyote]

Much of the Constitution was deliberately written in broad terms, for reasons of futureproofing.

Certainly, not even the smartest attendee of the Constitutional Convention could have ever foreseen DNA tests or GPS tracking or electronic snooping. It wasn't even something they could have conceivably imagined at the time. But the Fourth Amendment is clear on the matter nonetheless:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

(emphasis added)

DNA is, perhaps, one of the most comprehensive pieces of information contained in one's body, one's "person". It can reveal everything from family lineage (ancestry, siblings, and descendants), to congenital diseases or conditions, to the color of one's eyes. It is not equivalent to a fingerprint, which in itself tells you next to nothing about the owner of that finger other than as an identification. The Fourth Amendment is clearly intended to restrict violations of one's person in that way without justifiable cause, even if the particular method of violation is one the Founders would never have conceived of.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[Zeio]

In Police State USA, 2013, logic and reason have been abandoned for the lust for power, and that power is bought by the banking cabal, the oligarchical collectivist megacorps, the military and medical industrial complexes and the self-serving minions of the police state.

We the People have no voice. Now wage slave away, plebeians.

Re:I knew it would be 5-4

[redlemming]

This seems to me to be a result of the society as a whole putting way too much emphasis on the Constitution, and believing that it necessarily must equal all the basic rights.

The protection for privacy in the Constitution is notably rather weak, even more so when compared to many other modern democracies. I cannot say that this is a fault in the Constitution per se: The issues today simply are not the same as those in 1787.

Actually, it's quite the contrary: it's not that society is expecting the written and explicit material of the earlier portions of the Constitution, materially that is admittedly pretty thin, to explicitly deal with these issues, rather it is that society expects the government to acknowledge a whole host of rights that can reasonably be asserted under later portions of the "Constitution" (known as the Bill of Rights).

The Bill of Rights was written to deal with two Anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution that would have almost certainly been FATAL, namely 1) it had no Bill of Rights, and 2) any Bill of Rights would necessarily be incomplete. Two states, after all, refused to ratify the earlier document without a Bill of Rights, and in other states promises were made by men of honor (whose integrity was trusted) that an acceptable Bill of Rights would be added. It was clear to all concerned, of course, that if the people of these latter states were to be disappointed in their expectations with respect to a Bill of Rights, then they could simply leave the Union, something that at that point in history it was neither militarily nor politically feasible for other states to prevent.

To address these objections, James Madison deliberately set out to make a Bill of Rights that would limit the authority of government (and in so doing, potentially supersede anything found in the earlier parts of the Constitution), and that would be open-ended. This is why the 9th Amendment provides for unspecified rights "retained by the people" and the 10th Amendment provides for unspecified rights "reserved to the people".

Such unspecified rights form the basis of several books, and a number of high court decisions, of which Roe vs. Wade is perhaps the best known. Arguments made with respect to a Constitutional "right to privacy" are actually referring to a right arising under the open-ended aspect of the Bill of Rights, as a right "retained by" or "reserved to" the people. The people, in effect, are asserting that "privacy" is a right retained by them, and therefore superseding the authority of government at any level.

Unfortunately, government at various levels in the US has a long history of finding the existence of such rights inconvenient. Arguably, the legal profession -- as a class in society -- also tends to find these rights inconvenient, which further complicates matters, given how many members of government are legal professionals and how much influence the legal profession has on setting policy. For both groups, the fact that the government has been forced from time to time to acknowledge the existence of such rights clearly demonstrates how weak their position is, but logic seems to have little to do either with decision making by politicians or with the inability of the legal profession to acknowledge problems in their accustomed manner of doing business.

Unfortunately, judging from history, it takes serious and extended public pressure on the Supreme Court to force it to acknowledge the existence of rights "retained by the people" or "reserved to the people". Consider, for example, how long it took to undo the discrimination against African-Americans ("separate but not actually equal"), or to legalize any form of abortion for any reason (even saving the life of the mother).

There are likely ethical conflicts of interest that come into play with respect to the difficulty of getting the Supreme Court to acknowledge its responsibilities with respect to rights "retained by" or "reserved to" the people, since it doesn't seem possible to come up with any other explanation for this particular problem. After all, the Supreme Court justices have all sworn oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights (which REQUIRES them to acknowledge the open-ended aspect of that document).

I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

I don't see the difference between this and finger printing. If you are going to do either and the person is not found guilty that stuff should all be tossed out.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Zeromous]

The difference is, a finger print does not contain medically private data.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Except your DNA contains about 700 MB of personal information...

Re:I dont see the difference

[kilfarsnar]

I don't see the difference between this and finger printing. If you are going to do either and the person is not found guilty that stuff should all be tossed out.

Yeah, but is it? I don't think it is, though I haven't looked it up.

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

I would think a strip search might show much of that. Heck, to survive a few days in jail I would have to divulge a bunch just to get my meds.

I would hope they are not allowed to share that data with private companies. I am sure insurers are now trying to figure out how to get it.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Zeromous]

It's what is visually apparent to a layman, but to be able to run computer simulation on a perps genome seems a bit far.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the difference between being asked for your ID or a copy of your laptop's unencrypted hard drive.

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

I am sure it is not, but that does not mean it should be that way.

That is a separate problem all together.

Re:I dont see the difference

[TitusGroan8856]

fingerprints != DNA as they could not conceivably be used to (rightly or wrongly) indicate a "criminal gene" or a predisposition to a disease. At the moment only certain markers are stored in police/federal databases but as gene sequencing becomes quicker and cheaper then whose to say that they won't store the whole lot. The risk of wrongful arrest and my DNA being taken are too high, I do not want the US authorities to "know" something about me medically that I do not know myself, so I will not enter the US until this idiotic ruling is overturned.

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

My medical condition is not visually apparent, but once you see my list of medicine you would know what it was

Re:I dont see the difference

[pixelpusher220]

Actually I'd bet good money your DNA *is* on the original fingerprint card. Sure it's mixed up and thoroughly hard to get, but it's going to be there on the original card.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Seumas]

You can't put someone on a watchlist, because their fingerprints suggest they are predisposed to commiting future crimes or crimes of a certain sort or because it suggests they have a gene that tends to exist in people diagnosed by the DSM V as having "oppositional defiance syndrome" (meaning you don't like to do what people in authority tell you to do).

Of course, this is all irrelevant, because it's another decade before you don't even have to be arrested to hand over this data as it will be gathered as part of admission to kindergarten.

Re:I dont see the difference

[c0lo]

Would the police be violating copyright? LOL

Given that DNA is a form of expression, the answer is positive.

Re:I dont see the difference

[pixelpusher220]

My one time experiencing this (20 years ago in NY) was that once the charges were dropped I was called to come get my fingerprint cards. I.e. they don't keep them.

Of course the new mantra "But Terrorism!" may have changed that...

Re:I dont see the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike fingerprinting, DNA provides family history (i.e. you could screen for biological relatives and then the police could go arrest them if their whereabouts are known) and it provides details of your medical status, at least with regards to the genetically inheritable stuff. It's a much deeper and more personal bit of identifying information that has implications beyond merely the person that was arrested. That's why it's dangerous to give the police rights to that information merely upon arrest rather than conviction or at least being charged with a more serious crime than, say, jaywalking or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting arrested while innocent. It's a lot more invasive of someone's privacy than a fingerprint or photograph, and reveals things about other people that weren't even arrested (e.g., the genetics of your biological parents).

Re:I dont see the difference

[ebno-10db]

to be able to run computer simulation on a perps genome seems a bit far

True ... for now.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

Unless something's changed in the past year, forensics does not retain medically-sensitive genetic information. They pick up on random, fast-changing mutations called SNPs which are specifically chosen so that they don't reveal medical information. There was a kerfuffle when it was discovered that one of them might be linked to schizophrenia. The data retention policies are stupidly thuggish, like every other component of US law enforcement, but your medical insurance is not in danger.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Zeromous]

One could guess, but not know for sure unless you saw my doctor's records.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Lumpio-]

A cheek swap does not equate to GATTACA.

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

That seems like a totally reasonable thing to do. Assuming they did not make copies.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Zeromous]

Indeed, just looking at future implications.

The point is police can speak to a doctor about my medical HISTORY, not my medical FUTURE.
They cannot read my medical records, nor should they able to sequence my genome and find potential for FUTURE MEDICAL, or if we're looking into future here, risk of FUTURE CRIME (ie propensity for crime, certain damaged genes/code, high likelihood of quantifiable low intelligence.).

The point is you can tell a lot of about a person which is "none of your damn business" so to apeak from their genome, which you cannot tell from a finger print of iris scan.

Fingerprints and irises are non-invasive and reasonably reliable compared to Genome testing for identification of perps. When it comes to privacy I prefer to err on the side of caution and 4 well informed SCOTUS judges.

Re:I dont see the difference

[CanHasDIY]

A cheek swap does not equate to GATTACA.

Yet.

But you have to admit, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

Mine you would know for sure. It only has this one purpose. This is for two separate conditions. The third medicine you would figure out based on the first.

Re:I dont see the difference

[gstoddart]

A cheek swap does not equate to GATTACA.

Not yet at least.

How long before school boards decide to start swabbing all children "for their own safety"?

Since this will invariably be done by a for-profit company, that data becomes something forever on file.

I think taking DNA from anybody and everybody is going to cause all sorts of problems down the road.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Zeromous]

Agreed, that's what makes this decision SO interesting.

I happen to feel it is unnecessary to identify a perp, so we need to have clear legal guidelines how far a genome can be used in court.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Sarten-X]

Neither does DNA.

DNA contains many minor (and a few strong) indications of how a particular person's body behaves, but the DNA sequence itself does not account for the person's environmental situation, and it has no notion whatsoever of what the individual considers "private". On the other hand, DNA is left with every fingerprint, so it could be said that a fingerprint does contain that medical data...

The notion that everything medical must somehow be sacredly private is absurd. Security through obscurity hasn't ever worked before, so why should it be our favorite strategy for personally avoiding societal problems? If you have a medical issue that you don't want people to know about, fight for its acceptance in society, rather than fight the myriad ways that people can find out about it.

Re:I dont see the difference

[twimmel]

For identification purposes law enforcement labs only analyze at a dozen or so short segments of the DNA. That's why they can do the test so quickly. For example it was technically possible that Bin Laden could have been positively id'd within hours of his capture. Short tandem repeats give very little data, and not enough to characterizes anyone's medical condition. As the ruling says, "Those loci came from noncoding DNA parts that do not reveal an arrestee’s genetic traits and are unlikely to reveal any private medical information."

Re:I dont see the difference

[c0lo]

The difference is, a finger print does not contain medically private data.

Neither does DNA fingerprinting - a lot different from genome sequencing

Re:I dont see the difference

[Wrath0fb0b]

The difference is, a finger print does not contain medically private data.

Neither does CODIS, which is a loci of STRs that are not medically relevant. It might be different if the police were actually sequencing the entire genome, but they are specifically looking for irrelevant areas because those necessary have the most variance between people and hence the most specificity.

To put it another way, heritable traits are much less likely to be different between potential matches and so are a bad choice for genetic fingerprinting.

Re:I dont see the difference

[sherrane]

The difference is that a finger print may not point the cops in the direction of a relative the way DNA could.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

The law on genetic discrimination by companies is extremely aggressive in the US. You can read all about it here. Opposing it or circumventing it would be political suicide, akin to racial or sex discrimination. You forget that the kind of crap actually pulled by the police and intelligence sectors in the US remains in the iffy grey zone; the information this article is talking about isn't even (very) medically sensitive, just a sorta-unique-ish identifier, like fingerprints. Medical information is not being exchanged.

The world is not actually quite as horrible as you're gloomily projecting.

Re:I dont see the difference

[sl4shd0rk]

that stuff should all be tossed out.

"Should" does not exist in situations where the law feels they are above the law. If you are foolish enough to trust unregulated authority with limitless power how about going to live under Taliban rule for a year? You will be told how to live, how to dress, how to think and what your religion is. It's an awesome system for those with all the power, guns, money and drugs.

[*] - http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police

Re:I dont see the difference

[gstoddart]

The world is not actually quite as horrible as you're gloomily projecting.

The world steadily gets more horrible, and things intended for one thing invariably go through some scope creep.

I have very little faith that in even 5-10 years they couldn't find some way to get around these laws, they always do. If corporate profits are seen to be suffering, many lawmakers will give them anything they want, and won't give us a second thought.

I don't need to worry what happens to information they don't collect. But as soon as they do start collecting it, that's when stuff starts to go awry.

You may trust the government to not eventually be assholes and douchebags, but I don't.

If you can be stopped for a 'border check' within 100 miles or so of the border, I wouldn't exactly keep counting on them not to do whatever they please. Once the courts validate the ridiculous positions government puts forth, there's no going back.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Wrath0fb0b]

The point is police can speak to a doctor about my medical HISTORY, not my medical FUTURE.
They cannot read my medical records, nor should they able to sequence my genome and find potential for FUTURE MEDICAL, or if we're looking into future here, risk of FUTURE CRIME (ie propensity for crime, certain damaged genes/code, high likelihood of quantifiable low intelligence.).

The point is you can tell a lot of about a person which is "none of your damn business" so to apeak from their genome, which you cannot tell from a finger print of iris scan.

It's a good thing then that the decision is predicated on the finding that CODIS scans for 13 non-coding segments of DNA that are not medically relevant.

If you were doing a full genome sequencing of the arrestee's DNA (which would definitely fall into the "none of your business" category), this decision would no longer apply.

Re:I dont see the difference

[sexconker]

Except your DNA contains about 700 MB of personal information...

It better be exactly 700 MB. The last spindle of CD-Rs I bought wouldn't even overburn to 702 MB reliably.

Re:I dont see the difference

[danceswithtrees]

The difference is that a finger print DOES not point the cops in the direction of a relative the way DNA could.

This is not a hypothetical. A quick search for "rapist found dna son" comes up with several different cases were rapists were identified when the DNA of a close relative/son was entered into the database. I am all for rapists and violent criminals being taken off the streets but feel torn about how it is being done. The SCOTUS is also clearly torn considering the Republican/Democratic split in the vote. (Yes, I used Republican/Democratic rather than conservative/liberal because I think it more fitting in the vast majority of cases).

Re:I dont see the difference

[Archangel Michael]

They aren't sequencing the entire genome... yet. That only requires advancement in technology. Given enough advancement in technology, a DNA sequencer might be in every Patrol Vehicle in a few years, or at least, every police substation/precinct. Given enough sequencing capability, and many, if not most genomes having been sequenced, it does present a situation like GATTACA.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Calsar]

They aren't putting your entire genome into the database. They only collect 13 specific markers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CODIS). The possibility that one of these markers is tied to a genetic disease is possible as referenced in Wikipedia. What you can determine from the DNA doesn't appear to be any greater than the information available in a photograph. DNA reveals non visible information, but a lot more information can be gleaned from a photograph.

Re:I dont see the difference

[bill_mcgonigle]

A great number of genetically-linked diseases are expected to be measurable in SNP's. Many haven't yet been identified. It's nearly a given that some of the currently collected DNA SNP's will be linked to diseases in the future.

Somehow I doubt HIPAA PHI rules violation consequences will be imposed on Barney Fife.

BTW, this argument about fingerprinting is being made in reverse on this thread - the DNA situation highlights why the fingerprints decision was wrong, however long ago that was made. Let's try to be logically consistent here.

This argument is of course, only in theory. In reality, the masters will do whatever they want to their slaves.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Mr. Slippery]

I don't see the difference between this and finger printing.

The state has no right to force me to subject my body to any medical procedure, however trivial, and no right to any part of my living flesh. None. At all. Not a microgram.

If they have actual probable cause to believe I may be involved in the commission of a specific crime for which they have DNA evidence, they can (with a warrant) search my home for hair and skin flakes. Or if they have enough evidence for an arrest they can lock me up in a clean room for the night and take my sheddings. So it's not even the case that this gives them critical evidence they can't get any other way -- it's all about the convenience of the police and the assertion of state authority over the bodies of citizens.

I'm not a Christian, but I always liked Jesus's line "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." My living flesh -- that matter whose dance is *I* -- is not Caesar's. It is the most divine thing I know, and I will not surrender it to the state willingly. Should the matter ever arise, they will have to take it from me by violence. I reserve the right to defend myself against such an assault, though I also reserve the right to decide that resistance is tactically unwise.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

You misundertand: those two things are miles apart in the eyes of lawmakers. Border stops are justifiable in their eyes because of security paranoia and constituents who want to be safe. Genetic screening gets accusations of racism, fascism, and eugenics. It's absolutely reprehensible and an extremely easy target for their opponents. No one endorses that.

Moreover, genetic screening by companies of employees has little or no chance to improve profits: as a personality test, it would undermine the cult of the job interview (as well as being scientifically bogus), and as a medical test, it violates the ADA. No one in Washington has the guts to sneak around anti-discrimination legislation because it's too obviously an attack on core American values. Only a crisis can enable that; otherwise they lose face in the legislature and the support of their constituents—in this case, from the right because they value personal freedom, and from the left because they value inclusiveness.

Try not to be so cynical that you can't even detect blatant self interest.

Re:I dont see the difference

[7-Vodka]

The purpose of gathering this information is to investigate and determine innocence or guilt only for the crime in question. Once innocence or guilt has been determined, you still need to keep the data for appeals. Once the appeals are over, should all of the evidence become public record (assuming it was introduced into evidence in court)?

What's objectionable to me is that the police gathers your biometric data for the purpose of investigating one crime and then says fuck it we're going to use it however we damn well want. Even if you were innocent, even if it was never introduced into evidence, even if the evidence was exculpatory.

That's like going to work for a company and receiving trade secrets, then when the job is over you tell them: 'fuck you I'll use these trade secrets however I want now'.

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

That would give you one of them, yeah.
Assuming I was not lying at the time.

Re:I dont see the difference

[thoromyr]

that is the theory, too bad it isn't fact. What is considering non-coding DNA gets smaller every year. All it means is that it has no *currently*known* coding.

Which not only goes against the idea that there is zero medical information, but also calls into question the very use of DNA testing as the premise is that the parts being matched are "random junk".

Re:I dont see the difference

[AmiMoJo]

DNA can be used to identify close relations members as well as the individual who it belongs to. For example a sample from one person can be partially matched to their sibling who might already be on file. Even if that person has never been involved with the police in any way their DNA is essentially on file because their sibling was once arrested.

Re:I dont see the difference

[xevioso]

"The state has no right to force me to subject my body to any medical procedure, however trivial, and no right to any part of my living flesh. None. At all. Not a microgram. "

Clearly, you are incorrect. You may disagree, but the courts disagree with you, as of today. Now feel free to move somewhere else.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

Woah, woah, hold up. First of all, there is absolutely no way that all SNPs can contribute to diseases. The average difference between two people is something like 3 million SNPs; that is, at 3 million out of 3.1 billion positions in a human genome, two people of the same sex will have different values. Most of those differences are insignificant because the genome is built to be resilient to changes: (a) several amino acids have multiple representations that prevent some of the most common mutations from affecting their sequence, (b) the exact value of many amino acids is insignificant because they merely provide structural filler, making some codon missense mutations irrelevant, (c) many RNA elements have similar nonspecificity, (d) variation in function of either DNA, RNA, or protein elements may not amount to a detectable difference, (e) despite the recent discovery by the ENCODE project that as much as 80% of the genome may have some function, much of that appears to be extremely non-sequence-specific anyway; a significant chunk of the genome just provides scaffolding so that more important parts are easily accessible for transcription.

Second, it only takes a handful of rapidly-changing features to uniquely identify people. Seven billion people require just over 32 bits of information to specify; accounting for redundancy you can get a very small error rate with about half that. Given that we know of millions upon millions of SNPs, the probability of selecting 32 SNPs that are linked to actual disease is infinitesimal.

Third, I got it wrong; CODIS uses a different genetic marker called a short tandem repeat, which is a form of mutation that flips particularly frequently because the DNA replication machinery finds it very repetitive and has a high chance of slipping forward or backward while duplicating it. These regions are even less likely to be of medical importance because of their common variability. As it stands, the likelihood of a wrongful CODIS identification is non-zero, even between two families, because they only use 13 markers consistently. The one known case where one marker was linked to a disease was, quite simply, very unlikely. As an example, the VWA marker exists in a gene associated with a rare disease but has nothing to do with it.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, just looking at future implications.

The point is police can speak to a doctor about my medical HISTORY, not my medical FUTURE.
They cannot read my medical records, nor should they able to sequence my genome and find potential for FUTURE MEDICAL, or if we're looking into future here, risk of FUTURE CRIME (ie propensity for crime, certain damaged genes/code, high likelihood of quantifiable low intelligence.).

The point is you can tell a lot of about a person which is "none of your damn business" so to apeak from their genome, which you cannot tell from a finger print of iris scan.

Fingerprints and irises are non-invasive and reasonably reliable compared to Genome testing for identification of perps. When it comes to privacy I prefer to err on the side of caution and 4 well informed SCOTUS judges.

The government may consider it their business when they are the entity primarily responsible for a majority of the country's health care.

Re:I dont see the difference

[whoever57]

Neither does DNA fingerprinting - a lot different from genome sequencing

But once the police have a sample of your DNA, what's to stop them doing the sequencing? Only cost and time and those are reducing dramatically as the technology progresses.

Re:I dont see the difference

[interkin3tic]

Unless something's changed in the past year, forensics does not retain medically-sensitive genetic information.

Given the rapidly decreasing costs of sequencing, we shouldn't expect this to be true for very long. At some point, I'm guessing it will be cheaper to just get full genomic sequences. Full sequencing would also probably hold up in court better, for very stupid reasons.

Defense attorneys: "Is it true that you DIDN'T do the full sequencing, only small SINGLE nucleotide polymorphisms, AN OBSOLETE TECHNIQUE! Isn't it true that DNA fingerprinting has a higher false positive rate than a full sequence would!?!"

Forensic tech: "Well yes, but we're talking one in a billion to one in a trillion, I don't-"

Defense attorney: "OBSOLETE AND LESS CERTAIN! Members of the court, CLEARLY we can't accept the DNA evidence! They don't have my client's full sequence! No genome, my client GOES HOME!"

Jurors: "Oooohhh!"

If not that, I'm sure biotech companies will be interested in getting law enforcement to sign more lucrative contracts doing full sequencing rather than just SNPs. And this ruling will stand despite those changes.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Wrath0fb0b]

Actually the world steadily gets much better every century and even every decade (well, decade is a bit short because of natural variation, but it's the overall trend line).

Re:I dont see the difference

[cayenne8]

I don't see the difference between this and finger printing. If you are going to do either and the person is not found guilty that stuff should all be tossed out.

They don't throw out fingerprints...why do you think they'd throw out DNA?

Re:I dont see the difference

[kannibal_klown]

Unfortunately, now they tend to go directly into the system. I've seen a lot of places where either they directly scan your fingers/palm electronically, or they put the cards into the system immediately.

In which case... from their point of view they might as well leave them in. They're not taking up any space and they have them "just in case"

Re:I dont see the difference

[cayenne8]

Border stops are justifiable in their eyes because of security paranoia and constituents who want to be safe.

Border stops at 100 miles within the border are the problem. At that point, you're just using it as excuse to stop and harass citizens for the most part....a fishing expedition at that point.

Re:I dont see the difference

[pixelpusher220]

'might as well' isn't a valid legal argument. I'm quite sure people have argued to have theirs removed.

I'd be highly interested if it can be proven they are keeping records after acquittals/charges dropped; if so I'd also be surprised nobody like the ACLU had fought that and won.

Re:I dont see the difference

[ultranova]

A cheek swap does not equate to GATTACA.

But it does get us one step closer. It's one more prerequisite that no longer stands in the way. It's one less hurdle for anyone who wants to abuse a nationwise genetic database - such as the insurance companies, eugenists and the police.

Today it's swaps, tomorrow it's full genetic sequencing to get a better match and the day after that it's your genetic tendency towards addiction being used as a reasonable cause to search your house whenever the police wish. Which is perfectly rational because, after all, those tendencies are real and only a bleeding heart liberal would be soft on potential criminals. And the day after that they'll skip that step and just send you to a jail pre-emptively; it's unfortunate, but you will become a druggie anyway, it is your destiny.

But hey, maybe if you agree to pay for your own monitoring outside the prison... you understand, we can't burden genetically decent taxpayers with being soft on potential potheads.

Re:I dont see the difference

[bill_mcgonigle]

CODIS uses a different genetic marker called a short tandem repeat ... they only use 13 markers consistently.

Ah, well that is very different then - thanks for the update. It would be nice to see a validation protocol that ensures that labs dispose of all the rest of the markers, and that they're audited to ensure that's happening.

Re:I dont see the difference

[tompaulco]

I don't see the difference between this and finger printing. If you are going to do either and the person is not found guilty that stuff should all be tossed out.

I don't either. And since collecting DNA is a serious misappropriation, so then also is collecting fingerprints.

Re:I dont see the difference

[tompaulco]

How long before school boards decide to start swabbing all children "for their own safety"?
Last week, wasn't it? Oh, no wait, that was scanning irises.

Re:I dont see the difference

[lionchild]

But, it doesn't get tossed out...ever, even if you're wrongly accused/arrested, or even if you're found innocent or the charges are dropped. It's now forever part of the local, state and national databases, accessible to anyone who is approved to use these databases, even things like schools, who are required to do background checks, will have access to this information.

So, if a police detective thinks you -might- be suspect in a crime, he simply has to arrest you on an unrelated charge, have you processed, then drop the charges and voila, they have your DNA for cross referencing.

Alternatively, police could arrest you for a traffic violation or j-walking, etc..they don't have to ticket you. Once you're processed, they have your DNA on file. Imagine a sobriety check point, where they require every driver to submit to a breath test. It will be much easier to say they're keeping the tube you blew into and process it for DNA because it's just part of their legitimate process and procedures.

Re:I dont see the difference

[ai4px]

I can't wait for them to run the perp's genome and then prove in court without a doubt that he is big and fat... and a liar.

Re:I dont see the difference

[chihowa]

They still retain a portion of the original sample, though. Right? What's to stop them from sequencing it in its entirety in the future when sequencing becomes more affordable?

I've successfully used plasmids that were stored on Whatman paper for over a decade. DNA, especially if kept with care (but even if not), will keep a long long time.

Re:I dont see the difference

[reve_etrange]

It's a good thing then that the decision is predicated on the finding that CODIS scans for 13 non-coding segments of DNA that are not medically relevant.

Citation needed. At least the THO1 marker is associated with a disease [1, 2].

Re:I dont see the difference

[whoever57]

It's a good thing then that the decision is predicated on the finding that CODIS scans for 13 non-coding segments of DNA that are not medically relevant.

The problem is that this SCOTUS has already allowed the use of information gained in what may people (but not SCOTUS) would consider to be a violation of the 4th amendment (for example if a warrant was obtained through lying), so once the police have samples, one has to assume that, at some time in the future, they will be sequenced and used. SCOTUS will say "the police were naughty, but there will be no penalty and the police can still use the information gained".

Re:I dont see the difference

[reve_etrange]

Not to mention that the THO1 marker used by CODIS is associated with schizophrenia.

Re:I dont see the difference

[mattack2]

The difference is, a finger print does not contain medically private data.

It doesn't? I wouldn't doubt that there are diseases that cause deformed/extremely unusual fingerprints.

I think this is a good decision. I suspect that the crime solving rate will go way up in the future.

I had to sign up for selective service (draft), why shouldn't everyone have to give their DNA samples? Let's say, to accrue/collect Social Security benefits, you have to submit your DNA. (Yes, I actually think that we should get rid of Social Security altogether, it's just a good example to use, and unfortunately will likely never be eliminated.)

Re:I dont see the difference

[The Grim Reefer]

I can't wait for them to run the perp's genome and then prove in court without a doubt that he is big and fat... and a liar.

At least they won't be able to use the perps genome to prove that their pants are on fire. That will require a swab from somewhere other than a cheek.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Tharkkun]

The difference is, a finger print does not contain medically private data.

Medically private? Shoot me now.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Obfuscant]

Moreover, genetic screening by companies of employees has little or no chance to improve profits: as a personality test, it would undermine the cult of the job interview (as well as being scientifically bogus), and as a medical test, it violates the ADA.

The fact that it violates the ADA doesn't mean it wouldn't improve profits, you know. It certainly would be a profit center (or a cost reduction center) if a large company could negotiate with an insurance company a special rate because 98% of the employees test negative for predispositions to a large number of genetic diseases. Both the insurance company and the employer stand to increase profits from this.

The ADA is a law that says they can't do it, not a reason why being able to do it wouldn't be profitable.

No one in Washington has the guts to sneak around anti-discrimination legislation because it's too obviously an attack on core American values.

Really? Right now my insurance company demands to know things about me that it uses to determine rates for insurance, and my employer is playing along to help keep their costs down. We're well down that slippery slope. Of course, since not all diseases are disabilities, the ADA doesn't really protect anyone from this.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Tharkkun]

My medical condition is not visually apparent, but once you see my list of medicine you would know what it was

Is your medical condition visible in your DNA? I doubt it. They aren't taking a blood and drug test but swabbing your DNA in case it matches a future crime.

Re:I dont see the difference

[triffid_98]

What he said. OK *maybe* borders where THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES. MAYBE...but when the border you're describing is the pukking ocean...WTF

Re:I dont see the difference

[Bacon Bits]

And now we know the cause of cancer....

Re:I dont see the difference

[Tharkkun]

They aren't sequencing the entire genome... yet. That only requires advancement in technology. Given enough advancement in technology, a DNA sequencer might be in every Patrol Vehicle in a few years, or at least, every police substation/precinct. Given enough sequencing capability, and many, if not most genomes having been sequenced, it does present a situation like GATTACA.

Are you really afraid of that? The misuse of information by the government? I would bet the lives that have been saved by using DNA including the previously convicted freed is far greater than people who have been falsely accused using DNA.

Re:I dont see the difference

[h4rr4r]

One of them most likely is. I have not had it tested, but I would imagine it is based on the condition.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Tharkkun]

"The state has no right to force me to subject my body to any medical procedure, however trivial, and no right to any part of my living flesh. None. At all. Not a microgram. "

Clearly, you are incorrect. You may disagree, but the courts disagree with you, as of today. Now feel free to move somewhere else.

He better be careful. All that skin he sheds while walking is living evidence that he exists.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Gr8Apes]

Genetic screening gets accusations of racism, fascism, and eugenics. It's absolutely reprehensible and an extremely easy target for their opponents. No one endorses that.

You might want to go back and visit the McCarthy era and a few other events (Tuskegeeonly being one instance) to see how recently those three actions were not only tolerated, but actively pursued. Then realize that some of those involved in those activities are still living, and that our current state of enlightenment is not as deep as you may think, especially given some of the divisive rhetoric currently surrounding topics like immigration, drugs, abortion, guns, etc and how that compares to the not so distant past.

Personally, I feel if they take your fingerprints during an arrest, and then don't charge you or you're found innocent, all records relating to that arrest must be expunged, such as photos, fingerprints, etc. Does it harm future police work? Yes. But so does not fingerprinting, photographing, and DNA sequencing everyone in the population. Just think how much easier police work would be if we could just feed a spec of dust or a photo to the computer and get the guilty party out the other end. After all, if you have nothing to hide....

Re:I dont see the difference

[Aryden]

But there you hit the nail on the head. You would willingly divulge this information rather than them forcing you to give it up under penalty of law. Major difference between giving something away and having it take from you.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Wrath0fb0b]

But once the police have a sample of your DNA, what's to stop them doing the sequencing? Only cost and time and those are reducing dramatically as the technology progresses.

Legally speaking, what stopped them from doing it last year?

There are no court decisions (on any level) that says "It (is/isn't) a Fourth Amendment violation to do a full sequencing of DNA from an arrestee". That was true last year and that is true again now -- the decision in this case only covered the specific facts present in this case -- and the Court explicitly cited the non-coding nature of the CODIS loci as being a factual premise underlying their decision (it's even in the holding section).

So if some future agency performs such a search, it will not fall under this decision (in either direction -- this decision will neither automatically allow or forbid it) but will have to be taken as a novel case.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Aryden]

Not many places still use fingerprint cards. Most of the up to date police stations used a scanner to scan in your fingerprints. The scanning glass is cleaned prior to and after the prints are taken.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Aryden]

So, when the police come knocking on your door to take you to jail for a rape that you didn't commit, 4 states away, because your markers were "close enough" or they fucked up the evidence/results (which happens all the goddamn time), you're going to be okay with that? How about when they decide to start selling your information off to private companies for whatever use they deem fitting.

Re:I dont see the difference

[oreiasecaman]

It's one less hurdle for anyone who wants to abuse a nationwise genetic database - such as the insurance companies, eugenists and the police.

Nationwide? I thought this decision applied only to people going under arrest

Re:I dont see the difference

[pixelpusher220]

eh, a fair point :)

Re:I dont see the difference

[tragedy]

I'm just curious, in your scenario, does the defense attorney go back to his office afterward, close the door, then laugh maniacally for a few minutes?

Re:I dont see the difference

[gstoddart]

Border stops are justifiable in their eyes because of security paranoia and constituents who want to be safe.

And, quite frankly, as soon as they can convince the populace collecting genetic samples from everyone will make them safe, people will go along with it.

No one in Washington has the guts to sneak around anti-discrimination legislation because it's too obviously an attack on core American values.

Again, I say 'not yet'. Really, Americans have already demonstrated a willingness to enact discriminatory legislation if it suits them, more than once in history, so you'll excuse me if I don't take that as assurance. The screeching mob can vote for all sorts of things.

Try not to be so cynical that you can't even detect blatant self interest.

I've found cynicism is very beneficial to my blatant self interest.

I've also come to assume that both corporations and governments act so cynically and in their own blatant self interest, that I don't trust any of them to not turn this against us after we've become used to it. I've also come to assume they'll work together to achieve that end.

Which is why I'm against them doing it in the first place -- because then I'm just a paranoid curmudgeon, instead of being paranoid and right about what they'll do if left to their own devices. Unfortunately, they keep doing these things.

I like your vision of the future. I don't believe it, but I do like it.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Wrath0fb0b]

They aren't sequencing the entire genome... yet. That only requires advancement in technology. Given enough advancement in technology, a DNA sequencer might be in every Patrol Vehicle in a few years, or at least, every police substation/precinct. Given enough sequencing capability, and many, if not most genomes having been sequenced, it does present a situation like GATTACA.

And if they do, you can bring a case against it that will be totally novel. We don't know how a future court will resolve that case but this could in this case only approved the seizure of DNA to be used for CODIS matching.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

Oh, don't fret; I work with the cutting edge stuff in the same area every day. Legislative forces keep that particular privacy invasion at bay.

Re:I dont see the difference

[chrismcb]

How long before school boards decide to start swabbing all children "for their own safety"?

They would probably do iris scans first...

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

The intelligence community does not have a recent track record of data breaches or partnerships with the healthcare industry. What lobbied-for rights violations are you thinking of in particular? The PATRIOT Act and all of the subsequent security measures were driven by deep paranoia that engulfed the entire government, not lobbying.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

McCarthy was such a disastrously horrible chapter in history that, if anything, the people who remember it are your best defence against it happening again.

Divisive rhetoric doesn't cause rights violations: unifying rhetoric does. The PATRIOT Act was passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. That's when the nightmare started. These are politicians too young to remember or be affected by McCarthyism (average age around or below 60), but who grew up during the Cold War and were subject to plenty of the same paranoid propaganda—just without a cautionary tale about holding back.

About data retention: I think either corruption and abuses of power should be fought until collecting a complete database does not automatically entail a risk of privacy violation, or the data should be destroyed after the crime has been laid to rest, regardless of whether or not there was a conviction. It has been demonstrated that convicts who are treated more like people have a lower rate of continued law-breaking; (and to trot out this statistic yet again) the reoffending rate in Norway is only 30% (for violent crimes, I think.) The criminal justice system should (and could) produce people who can be given that benefit of the doubt.

Re:I dont see the difference

[interkin3tic]

I imagine he walks over to the bar, has ridiculously overpriced cocktails, then drives drunk and speeds in his corvette home.

Re:I dont see the difference

[marka63]

Finger printing identifies a individual. DNA identifies a family members as well as individuals.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Gr8Apes]

McCarthy was such a disastrously horrible chapter in history that, if anything, the people who remember it are your best defence against it happening again.

I'm not sure that's true. There's a group of people who apparently think such things are good. Witness the PATRIOT act:

Divisive rhetoric doesn't cause rights violations: unifying rhetoric does. The PATRIOT Act was passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. That's when the nightmare started. These are politicians too young to remember or be affected by McCarthyism (average age around or below 60), but who grew up during the Cold War and were subject to plenty of the same paranoid propaganda—just without a cautionary tale about holding back.

There's a significant number of senators above the age of 70 today (22, and 41 representatives who should be old enough to remember McCarthyism, and I'm sure the number that were old enough 12 years ago would be significantly higher, much higher than those who voted against the act. Divisive rhetoric certainly can cause rights violations, especially if defying that rhetoric is seen as... unpatriotic. I would say McCarthyism certainly wasn't unifying, it was more a self-preservation mode, as to stand against the flow at that time immediately made you a target, quite literally.

About data retention: I think either corruption and abuses of power should be fought until collecting a complete database does not automatically entail a risk of privacy violation, or the data should be destroyed after the crime has been laid to rest, regardless of whether or not there was a conviction. It has been demonstrated that convicts who are treated more like people have a lower rate of continued law-breaking; (and to trot out this statistic yet again) the reoffending rate in Norway is only 30% (for violent crimes, I think.) The criminal justice system should (and could) produce people who can be given that benefit of the doubt.

I'd wholly disagree with this. Once convicted of a certain level of crime, a felony, you lose rights. Like the right to vote. You've been deemed something less than a full citizen due to your own actions, and those are bad enough to stick to you for life. Having these people's info on file only makes sense. There's a group of people that no matter what you do, short of forcibly changing their mental state, will continue to violate again. Norway in particular is a good example, as that is a relatively low stress low crime country with an entirely different attitude towards its people. Yet they still have roughly 57% of their violent crimes committed by released convicts. Recidivism appears to be too difficult a set of numbers to retrieve quickly this morning, and percentages do not equate to recidivism rates. Let's use your 30% rate - that means for every 3 murderers we release, 1 will kill again. It doesn't mean they'll only kill one person, but kill in general. Maybe that will be Brevik. After all - 21 years for 77 murders, maybe he'll get more in 21 years or less. But, Norway is an entirely different lifestyle and populace, which would be more comparable to say, Maine or Montana, than New York City or Los Angeles. That's not to say we don't have some challenges with regards to crime and what we label as such. We probably should also review exactly what it means to 'grade' an act to a certain level. A kid with a couple of potted plant certainly isn't in the same league of danger to society as a Ted Bundy, but is pretty much treated the same way legally.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

That depends on them not being caught, y'know? As long as GINA's on the books the chances of making a profit are slim to none, since it's hard for most employers to collect a blood or saliva sample systematically without someone noticing.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

In 1954, when McCarthy held his hearings, Senator Feinstein was completing her BA in History. Congressman Ralph Hall was a county judge, Mr. Conyers was in the US Army, Mrs. Slaughter was a market researcher for a chemicals company and part-time environmental activist, Mr. Rangel was studying for a BS, Col. Johnson was in the Air Force, Mr. Young was in the National Guard, Mr. Coble was in the Coast Guard, Mr. Levin was completing his Masters degree in international relations and moving on to law school...

I think that, out of all the people old enough to have been grown up enough to realise that McCarthyism was happening at all, only Mr. Dingell had any associations with the Federal Government at the time, and that was as a part-time research assistant. I would expect that the people actually old enough to have learned anything from McCarthyism would most likely have retired in the 80s. The people around today were busy with other things—and were so young anyway that they might readily discount the beliefs they held in their youth. (But, more important, is the seemingly sub-sentient consensus-forming caused by weak-willed egos not wanting to stand up against their peers.)

(Here is the oft-repeated source for the Norway figures, by the way. Let me know what you think after reading it, if you haven't already.)

Re:I dont see the difference

[Archangel Michael]

My point is, it is much BETTER get an understanding of the potential technology and its outcomes BEFORE we get there. than take a short sighted look now and decide something we cannot easily undo later.

Re:I dont see the difference

[tragedy]

Ok, I definitely have to grant you that, although the car might be some other expensive manufacture.

Re:I dont see the difference

[whoever57]

The SCOTUS appears to have premised the decision on the idea that the CODIS loci only provide identification, but in fact they provide more: identification of familial relationships.

The existance of an unacknowleged child for example, could be revealed by this testing. From this, a secret sexual relationship could be discovered.

It might allow for identification of biological parents where a warrant would be required to access such record.

And who knows what information may be extracted from the CODIS loci in another decade.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Wrath0fb0b]

Those two statements are contradictory. If we start deciding on the impact of potential technology before they exist in a real case, we will be deciding now something that cannot be undone later -- and furthermore without the full benefit of the empirical evidence in the meantime.

What the court did was not decide on anything that was not present in the current record -- and so there's nothing that we can't undo later if the facts change. What they decided is only applicable to the factual situation that is currently at hand -- it prejudges nothing about future (different) factual situations that might be different, which, at any rate, is a matter for a later day. So there's nothing to "undo" later if a court says that full-genome sequencing is an unreasonable search because that decision is perfectly consistent with a decision that says a CODIS profile is a reasonable search.

IOW, the fact-specificity of the decision-making process (and the refusal to speculate about hypothetical situations that did not materialize yet) is exactly the sort of long-sighted process that decides only what is needed today and does not create facts that might be hard to undo later.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Gr8Apes]

Interestingly enough, that I can't find a ready list of ages of senators and representatives back in 2001. That would have been more telling.

Yep, read that one quite a while ago. Then I consider Brevik. 77 dead. He'll be out in 21 years or less, most likely. It'll be interesting to see how long he lives when he is set free. That's the problem when there's a sense of lack of justice. Even Norwegians think his sentence is far too light. 77*21 years might be more fitting, served consecutively.

Re:I dont see the difference

[Samantha Wright]

Admittedly reform is unlikely in this case, and no doubt he will either be killed in retribution shortly after serving his sentence, choose to remain in custody for his own safety, or (as it is feared) do something to justify another prolonged sentence.

However, what you suggest is revenge and is immoral. You have no way of knowing whether or not someone can be reformed without knowing his or her full psychology. If a prisoner does get cured or reforms, which people do sometimes succeed at (like this guy) then the default assumption of an aggressive response has caused damage; the experience of prison and the permanent branding of criminality (hiring discrimination, not being allowed to vote, et cetera) creates an impossible gulf to escape. Society has destroyed the potential for a healthy, productive person to ever exist again, and perhaps worse, is actively repressing it by legal enforcement of stigmas.

An ideal punitive system solves the reason the person committed the crime and then puts the criminal back into society whenever possible. Punishment only creates fresh incentives to commit wrongdoing. This is what the Norwegian system is working towards, however unpopular it may be amongst the people for any reason. It will never be popular because justice is a social construct built around anger, which will not go away any time soon, but it is the right thing to do.

Should be noted

[Sparticus789]

"Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. "

On no other issue will Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan all agree with each other.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

What is even stranger is that I find myself in agreement with Ginsbury, Sotomayor and Kagan. Amazing.

Re:Should be noted

[Sparticus789]

I had that revelation this morning as well. I took an extra shower, because I felt kinda dirty. But the shock has finally worn off.

Re:Should be noted

[njnnja]

Digging through the Supreme Court Database, this happened exactly once before (Scalia, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg all agreeing in dissent). It happened in Williams v. Illinois, which was interestingly also a DNA testing case. The question at the time was "Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause." The majority held that it did not violate the confrontation clause, with these four justices in dissent.

Re:Should be noted

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Kennedy probably did this out of some residual founding father/libertarian impulse. The three ohers out of a liberal freedom impulse.

If the issue had been different, say, 20 years from now the government wants to force you to give it your DNA for medical analysis to cut government singlr-payer medical costs, anyone wanna bet on their, or their descendants', relative positions?

This stuff matters, people.

Re:Should be noted

[Leafheart]

Not only that, Scalia read the dissent on the bench, which is unusual, and there was much angry and sarcasm. An excerpt:

"I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection."

Re:Should be noted

[Sparticus789]

I missed that, but that is an amazing quote. Think it is going in my signature block.

Re:Should be noted

[xevioso]

A pithy quote, to be sure, but our forefathers, as far as I know, had not been arrested for rape, murder, robbery, assault, etc, which are, according to this court, a prerequisite for having a DNA swab taken.

Re:Should be noted

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I meant Scalia, duh.

Re:Should be noted

[osgeek]

Yeah, but that's like me and my religious mother-in-law agreeing that Super Bowl Sunday is a great day to not spend any time working.

Sure, we'd agree on the day of the week - but not at all for the same reasons.

Re:Should be noted

[Holi]

No, but they were all traitors to England at the time. Which would most likely have been a prerequisite for DNA testing either before or after their hanging.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

Actually Liberals support personal freedom for people they agree with. They are fully content to step on the rights of the people they disagree with as, unfortunately many from the right do as well. Actually there is a big difference in many cases between a Liberal and a Democrat. Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat whereas Ralph Nader as one example, is a Liberal. I respect Ralph Nader even though I reject many of his viewpoints because he is an honest and driven individual. I loathe Nancy Pelosi as she is a dishonest and slimy toad. The difference is glaringly obvious even though they both hold many of the same positions. I hear someone like Newt Gingrich espouse his viewpoints and so many of them are mine but I loathe the man nearly as much as I do Pelosi.

Re:Should be noted

[Leafheart]

Indeed. But they were traitors. Not only that, the SCOTUS rulling is broad and doesn't define which crimes allow for the DNA swab, leaving that to the state law. Which opens the precendence for it to be anycrime, including minor traffic offenses. Which Scalia also pointed on his dissent.

Re:Should be noted

[GoogleShill]

Actually Liberals support personal freedom for people they agree with.

I'd like to hear how you back that statement up, because it is patently false. Left-wing = personal freedom, right-wing = corporate freedom. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Here's a list of some personal freedoms that are constantly attacked by the right-wing:

Gay rights
Abortion
Non-preferential tax treatment for all religions
The ability to build a church on a certain block
The ability to walk down the street without having to worry about a jack-booted thug removing ALL of you personal freedoms on a whim
Personal drug use
Reasonable sentences for small crimes

The only freedom I can think of that Liberals attack is the ability for /everyone/ to own military weapons.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

Well we could go down this list....

Gay Rights. I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. They have all the rights I have. I don't care what the hell they do and neither do most people.

Abortion. Well that depends on whose rights you're talking about doesn't it. The rights of the mother or the unborn child? You picked one and I pick the other. It's got a simple solution though. People could start being responsible and not get pregnant with a child they don't want.

I don't have the first idea what you're talking about with the church on the block.

I'm with you on the jack booted thugs. I don't know anybody who likes them all that much except politicians. I notice the Democrat politicians seem to like jack booted thugs a lot too.

Personal drug use. I guess you're talking about illegal drugs. I'm conflicted here. I have no problem with people drugging themselves however they like on the condition they assume ALL responsibility for what they do to themselves. I tire of people who destroy themselves with drugs then demand help.

Reasonable sentences for minor stuff. I like it. Of course reasonable is relative but I think sending people off to jail for stupid crap like drug possession is good for no one. Murder, rape, child molesters just throw away the key.

See, we can agree on a lot. Not everything of course but I bet if we sat down and rapped about it awhile we could agree on a middle ground somewhere.

Re:Should be noted

[GoogleShill]

Banning gay marriage outright is pretty high up on the right-wing bucket list, so no, they do not have all the rights you have. Most people shouldn't care, but they do and you get shit like CA prop 8, and no equal rights at the federal level.

The church on the block was referring to the attempt to build a Mosque a few blocks away from the 9/11 site.

As for crime, the conservative stance is always "tough on crime" which ends up being jack-booted thugs and crazy prison sentences for minor offenses. Unfortunately, anyone who tries to change that, whether it be a more moderate conservative or a liberal, gets labeled as being on the side of the criminals. The ultra-conservatives keep pushing a line that line farther, and any attempt to pull it back is political suicide.

As for drug use, helping addicts instead of putting them in jail is far cheaper and less of a burden on society. I don't understand why conservatives are more than happy to blow 2-3x the tax dollars on a jail cell rather than give some one a "hand out" of social support and let them continue to contribute to the economy.

Reasonable sentences for minor stuff. Of course reasonable is relative but I think sending people off to jail for stupid crap like drug possession is good for no one.

That's a very liberal stance you have there.

See, we can agree on a lot. Not everything of course but I bet if we sat down and rapped about it awhile we could agree on a middle ground somewhere.

Sure we can, but I think you've picked the wrong team based on your ideals, which was my original point. Liberals, in general, stand up for personal freedoms far more than conservatives.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

I can't understand the gay marriage thing at all. What's the point? I don't really care if they get married but in my mind two guys or two girls aren't a married couple no matter what anyone says. Even so, the government has no business being involved in marriage. It's become a joke anyway because people actually marrying for life is a small portion of society anyway. If two people want to call themselves married I really could care less. Let's just do away with marriage as a government recognized status. Insurance companies can do the "partner" thing and then some guy can insure his butt buddy and another guy his shack-up girl of the month. Reality is reality and might as well be accepted. My viewpoints are conservative but I don't insist that others follow my choices. Actually my views are closer to anarchy. I think that the minimum amount of government neccessary should be the way we go. All these "czars" and "bureaus" and such to micro manage our lives just drag the entire country down. The Feds should handle the army, mint money, foreign relations, such infrastructure neccessary to conduct business such as ports, airports, major interstate roadways and rail. All the other crap they have taken on causes more problems than they solve. Liberals love that shit though. They want to micro-manage my life for me. No 32oz sodas? Really? It's none of their fucking business. Leave people the fuck alone for gods sake. If I don't care who's dick you suck why do you care how big my cup of soda is? Let's all just mind our own business. That's goes back to my point that Republicans aren't really conservatives. They just try to control my life too.

Re:Should be noted

[GoogleShill]

Ok, so you don't care if you deprive the gays the tax benefits of marriage as long as you can have your 2^24oz soda and become a fat fuck that the rest of the US has to pay for. That's really cool of you. The underlying homophobia in your post really took the cake too.

You came out with the bold statement about conservatives protecting personal freedoms more than liberals. I've sufficiently provided numerous examples on the contrary, and all you could muster up was a single example of large soda bans along with lots of misinformation and name-calling. Good for you.

Go back to your brainwashing cable news telling you how left-wing everyone is so they can push for a religious dictatorship.... Better yet, move to a more conservative country. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.

Re:Should be noted

[msk]

How I back it up is that Sotomayor and Kagan lied outright to Congress about their stances on Second Amendment rights.

Re:Should be noted

[GoogleShill]

Quote please, I'm not aware of any lies. You must realize that there are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Someone making a statement of their opinion when it differs from yours does not make it a lie.

Since you didn't disagree with anything in my post, I'll assume you agree that when it comes to protecting personal freedoms, conservatives are not on our side.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

You don't listen. All you heard is the dislike for queers. Yeah, I don't like them. So what? I don't care what they do either! It's not MY business. That was the whole point. Just because I don't like what others do it doesn't give me the right to tell them what they can and can not do. But NO! You think that I should stay out of other peoples business but it's okay for the Libs to tell ME how to live. That was the entire point I was making. Leave me the fuck alone and I'll leave you alone. The libs though, they have all the answers. They know what is good for me and feel that they need the government to enforce what they feel is good for me. Yeah I used Soda because that was one of the more obvious (and stupid) expamples. I don't get your obsession with religious dictatorship at all. Where did you get that fantasy? This country has become less and less religious by the year for decades. Just because you occasionally hear someone yelling about God's wrath coming for all the unbelievers doesn't mean it's a religious country. 3 or 4 decades ago stores didn't open on Sunday, now they never close. Alcohol sales were banned on Sunday if the county wasn't dry. Now that is rare and getting rarer, people can get sloshed anytime they want. Where in hell do you get religious dictatorship? You are delusional. Iran conservative? Hah! You don't understand conservative, you've confused it with something else. The Republican party hasn't been conservative since just after Reagan. Less government? Those assholes have grown it nearly as damn much as the Democrats. They give conservatism a bad name.

Re:Should be noted

[GoogleShill]

My god, can I at one point in my life talk to an intelligent, informed conservative? You keep spewing nonsense and misinformation.

Iran, led by Ahmadinejad, political party: Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, Ideology: Conservatism, Political position: right-wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Builders_of_Islamic_Iran

You still only mentioned one thing soda... Big fucking deal. You still vote for conservatives that undermine peoples freedoms far worse than liberals, which was my point, and I've proven that very well now since you haven't come up with 2 examples.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

You just keep spouting the same lie. You equate current day Republicans with conservatism. Conservatism is individual liberty and personal responsibility. Modern day Republicans are not conservatives they are Corporate Whores as are most Democrats. They vote how they are told to vote. Religious conservatism is not political conservatism. This is where you are confused I think. Or maybe you're just a shill. I'll give you a couple more examples of Liberal attempts to control peoples lives. Obama care, misnamed because it's really Pelosi and Reed care. Forcing people to buy insurance. That should be a matter of individual choice but Liberals have decided they know what's good for the rest of us and we can't be trusted to make our own decisions on the matter.

Another? The constant attempt to control gun ownership. Bad behavior should be punished but liberals want to punish those who have done nothing wrong. It's okay to take away a right you don't agree with. Liberals don't like guns so all guns should be taken away from everyone because of course Liberals know what is good for us. Better to be safe than free!

I could go on and on but this has taken up enough of my time. As I say, I respect your right to disagree with me but I don't respect your right to fuck with me. I don't want anything much but to be left alone to mind my own business. You can have your gay marriage, your dope (do all you want) and really, even though I think abortion is evil, there is no way I can stop women from slaughtering their own children. Nowadays they are still in great danger even after they escape the womb. But if you have any pull with your supposedly liberal friends in Washington, could you please ask them to quit helping the Republicans pass those damn wiretapping bills? Maybe they could repeal the Patriot act too? No? They don't believe in individual liberty either? President Obama, the great Liberal messiah didn't stop all that bad stuff? I guess he's too busy pushing for more taxes.

Re:Should be noted

[GoogleShill]

I didn't lie, I proved you wrong on every one of your accounts. Republicans AND conservatives are more likely to infringe on personal freedoms than any liberal.

You probably still believe that Iran is not conservative.

I'm done here.

Re:Should be noted

[amiga3D]

Have a nice day. :)

New opportunity

[stewsters]

Can they then sell these public records to a middle man who can extract the relative information and sell it to insurance companies? Because I may have a business proposition for some biology undergrads.

Re:New opportunity

[avandesande]

There is a big difference between a DNA sample that could be used to match a crime scene and sequenced DNA . Just a hunch but I doubt the local police would be interested in the headache involved of storing HIPAA data.

Re:New opportunity

[FreeUser]

I'm sure they will just add a loophole after the first person files a law suit. It will be assumed to be secure once its shipped to a huge government data warehouse built for storing personally identifiable information. Then only the NSA, FBI, Chinese, and Russians will have it.

And Humana, who will no doubt only use it for the good of their insured (or applying to be insured) patients.

Re:New opportunity

[Common Joe]

There's a very good reason to store data. Local police will probably give it to the state or federal (FBI) police. I'm sure they can find ways around the HIPAA thing. It's a potential gold mine.

UK Leads here

[Alain Williams]

For once the UK leads the USA in the long, slow slide to a police state. They take them from kids a lot

Re:UK Leads here

[h4rr4r]

Kids who are suspects in a crime. Not everyone under 18 is some angel.

Re:UK Leads here

[Anonymous Coward]

As Scalia noted in the dissent, more than one third of Americans are arrested at some point before the age of 23.

MORE THAN ONE THIRD.

Re:UK Leads here

[h4rr4r]

That is a different problem, that should be solved.

Odds are we are arresting folks for stuff they are going to be released on their own recognizance the next morning. Instead we should just give them a ticket to appear before the court in the morning if the crime is that minor.

Re:UK Leads here

[pixelpusher220]

For once? I guess maybe they started farther ahead of us. i.e. no 5th. I seem to recall a case where they asked an entire town to provide DNA samples to catch a crook. Most complied. The quote that sticks in my memory was from an officer "No they don't have to, but we'd be quite interested in anybody who declines for obvious reasons."

Re:UK Leads here

[Anonymous Coward]

They're pushing for the same DNA collection upon arrest in Canada. The police are making the usual vague promises about "violent crimes only" and "destruction if innocent" and sadly none of the journalists have pointed out that such a law will give incentive for the cops to "suspect" and arrest all ethnic minorities as soon as a violent crime is committed. And now I'm afraid they'll say "well USA's doing it so we it must be a Good Thing."

Funny enough the police can collect DNA samples already by obtaining a search warrant, a practice that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and is fair enough, but apparently these thugs, I mean cops, don't like the idea of being overseen by judges.

If you're in Canada, please make some noise about this and point out unwarranted DNA collection is just as bad as embryonic stem cell research because it provides the wrong incentives for arrests.

Re:UK Leads here

[phantomfive]

Don't you have a ton of CC cameras over there?

Re:UK Leads here

[ebno-10db]

For once the UK leads the USA in the long, slow slide to a police state.

IIRC in the UK there have also been questions about when the samples/information could be kept, at first for those who were acquitted or had charges dropped, and later for those who weren't even arrested but submitted DNA (as "requested" by the police) to exonerate themselves of any suspicion. The latter is sometimes done in blanket sweeps (we have reason to believe the perpetrator is a male living in Greater London is but a bit of an exaggeration).

Re:UK Leads here

[KGIII]

For once?

Re:UK Leads here

[h4rr4r]

Why are children even being asked?
They are not capable of consent for sex, so this should be a decision their parents make. I would think children should technically be a special kind of property like livestock. They can make no legal decisions or consent, but they are protected from abuse by the law.

Re:UK Leads here

[Shimbo]

IIRC in the UK there have also been questions about when the samples/information could be kept, at first for those who were acquitted or had charges dropped, and later for those who weren't even arrested but submitted DNA (as "requested" by the police) to exonerate themselves of any suspicion.

It went to the European Court of Human Rights and the UK lost; since then the retention periods have been reduced.

Re:UK Leads here

[icebike]

For once the UK leads the USA in the long, slow slide to a police state. They take them from kids a lot

For once?
The UK leads the way in the slide to Police State in almost every way, and has for a long time.

Re:UK Leads here

[ildon]

"For once"? The UK has always been way ahead of the US in police state tactics.

Re:UK Leads here

[Richy_T]

+1. It's one reason I'll never move back. I can at least get a few years of reprieve from complete totalitarianism in the US.

Re:UK Leads here

[ebno-10db]

Good to know. Unfortunately the European Court of Human Rights has no jurisdiction in the US.

Whatever happened to the days when the US and the UK could rightfully pride themselves on having stronger individual rights than those closet non-constitutional monarchies on the continent?

Re:UK Leads here

[xevioso]

And what is the ratio of those arrestees who were arrested for a SERIOUS offense? Thankfully, probably very low. And according to SOTUS, as of today, it has to be a serious offense before your DNA swab gets taken.

Re:UK Leads here

[s.petry]

I think the immediate concern is that there is no way to define "Serious" offense, and no definition has been provided. In this case, it's a horrible ruling because of the open interpretations that will be used to claim an offense is "Serious".

Would it have been wise to claim "Rape" is a serious crime, and "petty larceny" is not? Absolutely, but that's not what was done.

Re:UK Leads here

[Holi]

For once? I thought the installation of the CCTV's in the UK was when they forged far ahead of the US in their not so slow slide to a police state.

Re:UK Leads here

[tompaulco]

none of the journalists have pointed out that such a law will give incentive for the cops to "suspect" and arrest all ethnic minorities as soon as a violent crime is committed.
Maybe the journalists weren't able to see your logic for the same reason that I am not. Why would a law allowing DNA collection single out ethnic minorities over any other class of people?

Re:UK Leads here

[Aryden]

Because, as a point of fact, ethnic minorities are always targeted first by police. "He's , so he's going to commit a crime at some point. Let's go ahead and book him for something so we can get him on file"

Re:UK Leads here

[ClioCJS]

For once? Ha

Re:UK Leads here

[FrankDrebin]

That's what happens when Orwell's works are taken as an instruction manuals.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Kenja]

Same restitution you get for having your finger prints & mug shot taken against your will.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[myth24601]

Doesn't matter. This gives police license to run dragnets for DNA.

They can't solve a case but have DNA and a vague description, they will simply "arrest" anyone and everyone who is a close match to the description on trumped up charges that will be dropped after they get their DNA.

I didn't expect that of Scalia

[JDG1980]

Scalia is mostly just a conservative hack these days, but sometimes he remembers that he used to have actual principles. Good for him – on this issue, he's absolutely right on the merits.

The majority decision is terrible because it means that if the authorities want your DNA for whatever reason, all they have to do is come up with some excuse to arrest you. They don't have to make the arrest stick, just get you into the system.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[pixelpusher220]

I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[CanHasDIY]

I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?

Fingerprints can't be used to deny me medical insurance, have me institutionalized against my will, create designer illnesses that only target me personally, etc. etc.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[moeinvt]

What decisions make you think Scalia is a "conservative hack"?

I was disappointed in him on Raich v. Gonzales (medical marijuana), but otherwise, he's been pretty good on issues of civil liberties. e.g. Kelo v. New London, Citizens United v. FEC, MacDonald v. Chicago, Florida v. Jardines, etc.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[sandytaru]

Yeah, right. Our government is so incompetent that even if your DNA is archived, it's going to sit in a database for 40 years untouched because none of the different records departments know how to talk to each other. That's the one good thing about data silos.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[dkleinsc]

What decisions make you think Scalia is a "conservative hack"?

- Bush v Gore, in which he stated in his opinion that Americans don't have the right to vote for president and included a bit about how this opinion, unlike every other opinion issued by the Supreme Court, was not to be cited as precedent in case law. For what it's worth, this was also the decision that convinced David Souter to retire from the court as soon as a Democrat took office - from that decision he concluded that Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist were basically partisan hacks with no regard for legal argument.

- Hamdan v Rumsfeld, where he filed a dissent that stated if Congress says Gitmo prisoners can't file for habeus corpus, the courts don't have the power to say otherwise (even though constitutional law supercedes anything Congress says). Also the similar case Rumsfeld v Padilla, where he sided with the majority that threw out a habeus corpus petition filed by a US citizen on a technicality after the citizen in question had been held in a military brig for over 2 years without charges.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[femtobyte]

What decisions make you think Scalia is a "conservative hack"? ... he's been pretty good on issues of civil liberties.

Well, he's often on the extreme cruel side of "law and order" thuggery. For example, when interviewed about whether the US use of torture conflicted with constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, Scalia justified torture by saying it's not protected against because it's not punishment:

"When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you."

In other words, "cruel and unusual" is perfectly OK so long as the government doesn't officially declare it as "punishment." This is the sort of sick and twisted "hackery" I've come to expect from Scalia --- fabricating weaselly "strict constructionist" arguments to perfectly match whatever conclusions an extreme right authoritarian wants. A civil liberties decision that actually protects the rights of generally poor and disenfranchised citizens rather than the wealthy and megacorporations is a welcome action.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[pixelpusher220]

You're DNA is available to anybody willing to do the most minimal of research. I.e. you drop it everywhere every day.

I understand your point. It's valid, but it's a different issue than whether governments should be able to collect data on people they arrest.

Society is going to have to deal with the issues DNA raises, such as medical history, tendencies, etc. This is just another area it will need addressing. But the Gov should be able to check arrested people against other crimes and do currently.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[dissy]

I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?

Fingerprint matching is much more reliable than DNA matching.

DNA matches are based on usually 7-8 markers total, meaning by pure chance a couple million other people on the planet match you exactly.

DNA matching is also so misunderstood by the public at large, that this fact is used in court to the governments advantage on purpose.

A prosecutor claiming "We have a 100% DNA match between pixelpusher220 and the person who murdered this child" basically means you and a couple million other people have the same 8 markers in your DNA, it does not mean you did the crime or were involved in any way.
But a jury hearing "100% DNA match" is trained to think that means YOU are the only one that could possibly match the DNA sample, when in fact you could very easily match by pure chance.

Fingerprint matching on the other hand is actually pretty reliable and accurate.
For whatever reason, it appears the general public is willing to at least entertain the statistics behind fingerprint matching, and require some other form of evidence to go along with it.

Until these facts change regarding DNA, it really should be banned as valid evidence.
Being guilty by pure chance was supposed to go out of style with the witch trials.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[TubeSteak]

"In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry to tell you that."

That is Scalia interpreting the Constitution to suit his partisan beliefs.
He's recently lost his mind over immigration, healthcare, and gay rights.
(Arizona v. United States, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Lawrence v. Texas respectively)

Piers Morgan asks his guest to recount his most-contentious case:

"Well, I guess the one that created the most waves of disagreement was Bush v. Gore," says Scalia, referring to the famed United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. "That comes up all the time, and my usual response is 'get over it.'"

"No regrets at all especially since it's clear the thing would have ended up the same way anyway. The press did extensive research into what would have happened if it what al gore wanted done had been done county by county and he would have lost anyway."

Scalia agreed in the majority opinion that the 14th Amendment had been violated, but he didn't agree to the recount.
He isn't nearly as strict of a Constitutionalist as he likes to pretend.
It's not like any of this is a secret.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[Lord Kano]

That tells us far more about you than Justice Scalia.

He's an originalist, a strict constructionist.

You are an uninformed asshole who has a need to label and pigeonhole based on your myopic world view.

LK

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[pixelpusher220]

And defense lawyers apparently don't know this? If it was that scatter shot of a match, the science wouldn't hold up.

Any sources to back up your claims? And bonus points for why defenses aren't apparently using said sources?

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[osgeek]

Well, by "conservative hack", JDG1980 means that Scalia decides issues based upon the agreed-upon principles and rules laid out in the Constitution rather than fabricating new legislation willy nilly to meet the demands of progressivism like Sotamayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Re:I didn't expect that of Scalia

[tjhart85]

My fingerprints also can't be used to kick start an investigation into my father, mother, brother or sister without some other evidence about them specifically.

Before blaming the evil right for this ruling...

[PeeAitchPee]

...let's not forget that it is deep blue Maryland and Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, widely considered to be eyeing a run at the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2016, who took this to the Supreme Court over their own MD Court of Appeals, and who is the one shitting all over the 4th Amendment here. The MD DNA Database has been one of O'Malley's pet projects for years, and he's advocated its expansion and use for this type of thing since he was Mayor of Baltimore.

Facebookification

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The problem here isn't so much with the collection of DNA, but the retention. That seems to be a common theme here at the start of the 21st century - data collected for one purpose is then reused for other purposes.

I think it is reasonable for the police to check if someone they've arrested is a convicted felon. But once they've looked you up in their database of convicts, the collected data should be destroyed, be it DNA, fingerprints or even a mugshot. If you are subsequently convicted, they can go and re-collect the data for the purposes of making a permanent entry into the database of convicts.

Re:Facebookification

[pixelpusher220]

Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for them to match your prints against unknown prints found at other crime scenes. I suppose I could see waiting until you're 'convicted' before checking you against unsolved crimes, but realistically I'm pretty sure it's done upon arrest and collection of the prints (and now DNA).

Re:Facebookification

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for them to match your prints against unknown prints found at other crime scenes.

I totally agree, I realized I left that part out only after I hit submit. But it doesn't make a significant difference to my point, you can run them against a list of open cases but once they results come back negative, the police should be required to delete what was collected at the point of arrest.

Oh, and no funny business like having some database searches never complete so as to never have to delete the biometrics. Put a time limit, like 2 weeks, on it.

Re:Facebookification

[StormReaver]

I disagree with you on almost every point (except for your statement of the common theme).

The bar for becoming a convicted felon has been rapidly lowering over the years. The more police powers we grant, the less Free we become. This decision has just provided an incentive for our lawmakers to make many more of us convicted felons for ever increasingly flimsy "offenses."

Re:Facebookification

[ebno-10db]

The problem here isn't so much with the collection of DNA, but the retention.

Agreed, but note how that isn't addressed by the court, the press or the laws. As noted by posters above, even fingerprints are not usually deleted even if charges are dropped because a school bus full on nuns says "we saw the whole thing and he didn't do it". The best approach would be not only to delete the info for anyone who has charges dropped or is acquitted, but to change who analyzes the DNA. Because there have been cases of incompetent or corrupt police crime labs ("we know he's guilty so just say it matches"), the Innocence Project has suggested that DNA matching be done by N independent and accredited labs, with which lab a sample is sent to chosen at random. The samples should also be submitted and tracked in such a way that it doesn't indicate who or where the sample is from. Lastly, the labs should undergo random checks by having already known samples sent to them in exactly the same way as "real" samples are.

What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[BinBoy]

If search warrants are handed out like toilet paper and your DNA isn't protected, what's left?

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[Sparticus789]

The hidden bomb shelter 10 feet underground which has a 90-day food supply, 10,000 rounds of ammo, and an independent power/water supply. That's protected by secrecy.

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[JeanCroix]

The hidden bomb shelter 10 feet underground which has a 90-day food supply, 10,000 rounds of ammo, and an independent power/water supply. That's protected by secrecy.

Not anymore! [Posting from inside your formerly-secret shelter, munching on your power bars...]

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[ebno-10db]

The hidden bomb shelter 10 feet underground ... That's protected by secrecy.

Security through obscurity is no security at all (especially if it's only 10 feet down - I know people with basements deeper than that.

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[KGIII]

We're just gonna gas your air supply vent and blow the doors off after a few days.

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[JeanCroix]

Surely Sparticus789 would never have constructed such an obviously-flawed shelter.

...would he?

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[KGIII]

They ALL need air at some point. LOL It's the fatal flaw in all of the designs I've seen so far. We've got cameras that can see heat differences, we'll find their air vent. The gas masks all take cartridges and those run out fairly quickly actually. So... Yeah...

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[JeanCroix]

The Dirty Dozen called it, then.

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[KGIII]

I'd not know. I've, strangely, never seen it. I'm guessing that you're talking about the movie? I don't know if there was a book either. *shrugs*

"I'm just going to go stay in my bunker and wait you out!"
"Okay, I'm just going to go plug your air supply and wait outside the door with a sandwich."

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[JeanCroix]

The movie, at least. From the wikipedia synopsis: "As the officers and their companions retreat to an underground bomb shelter, a general firefight ensues between the Dozen and the German troops. After Wladislaw and Reisman lock the Germans in the bomb shelter, the Dozen pry open the ventilation ducts to the shelter and drop unprimed grenades down, then pour gasoline inside. Jefferson throws a primed grenade down each shaft and sprints for their vehicle, but is shot down as the grenades explode."

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[KGIII]

Ah, thanks. Maybe I should watch the movie? I am sure it is online somewhere. Netflix or Hulu most likely have it. I'd probably avoid the whole blowing it up bit though, I'm more of a minimal amount of damage person. They may have food stores or other wealth in there that can be taken. I'm not sure which is worse, that we're having this conversation or that I've given it this much thought. I'm not even a doomsday prepper! I don't even think I'll ever be attacked by zombies.

And, now I feel dirty. I added "prepper" to Firefox's dictionary so that it wouldn't flag it as a spelling error.

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[JeanCroix]

Went tangential quickly, didn't we.

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[gmhowell]

10,000 rounds? Amateur...

Re:What good is the Fourth Amendment?

[KGIII]

Meh... It happens. It seems to happen a lot to me but, then again, I enjoy a good online conversation. I prefer them over the real things actually.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

They already have license to run said 'dragnet' with your fingerprints. I'm as liberal as they come...and I really don't see the issue here. Now, like fingerprints, once charges are dropped, all such collected evidence should be destroyed.

Basic point, treat it like the other identifiable information they already collect on you. Is this really that hard?

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[LVSlushdat]

If I ever committed a felony in the United States, once I got out of jail I would leave the country one way or another. You become a noncitzen after your conviction. What ever happened to rehabilitation?

The chances are VERY VERY good that you *already* have committed a felony.. With all of the laws that keep appearing from this "government", its getting every harder to *not* become a felon, and I suspect soon it will become totally impossible to avoid.. The "leaving the country" is a good idea, however, *where* would you go? All of the "first-choice" English-speaking countries, England/Canada/Australia are as far down the road to a police state as the US, so going there is a non-starter.. I'm not trolling.. I'd REALLY like to know where one could go to escape the police state taking over America...

California has done this for a almost a decade

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, california has been doing this for years.. If you are arrested (for anything-- political protest, for example), they will collect your DNA. This information remain in the state database, whether you are convicted or not-- even if you are not even charged. I'm trying to figure out if there's a consistent procedure to get your DNA removed if you're wrongly arrested, but can't find anything from a quick google. I only see a discussion of how it should work (A judge gets to decide) not how it's worked in practice.

FWIW, the CA public VOTED for this in 2004. 62% to 38%.

Re:California has done this for a almost a decade

[stanlyb]

WOW, amazing. Just checked the site. Just....amazing.
Since 2004, about 2 million probes taken.
Based on DNA test, about 28000 were convicted.
Translated, about 1% positive hit.
Money collected for this purpose: 280 million dollars.
No comment....

Re:California has done this for a almost a decade

[tolydude]

WOW, amazing. Just checked the site. Just....amazing. Since 2004, about 2 million probes taken. Based on DNA test, about 28000 were convicted. Translated, about 1% positive hit. Money collected for this purpose: 280 million dollars. No comment....

So about $10K per conviction. Not a bad rate.

Re:California has done this for a almost a decade

[SleazyRidr]

I would much prefer a 1% positive hit, rather than an unreasonably large number. Does it say anything about people who were ruled out from the DNA test?
$280 million for 28k convictions seems like a pretty good deal to me, $1,000 doesn't buy you a whole load of police time to gather evidence in more 'traditional' ways.

Re:California has done this for a almost a decade

[stanlyb]

What about 99% false hit? You need translation? 99% innocent people are now in the police database....nice done man.
I just wonder what happened with the "....I prefer to let 99 people go than to convict 1 wrongly...", but silly me, who am i to agree with these great men, who made this country a land of free....

Re:California has done this for a almost a decade

[stanlyb]

Try to repeat your sentence, once your DNA is in the database, and you cannot land ANY job, because of that.....

Re:California has done this for a almost a decade

[gmhowell]

FWIW, the CA public VOTED for this in 2004. 62% to 38%.

They voted for Reagan more than any other group in the US. Four times, IIRC....

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[h4rr4r]

There is no such thing in the USA. Our justice system does not make any such attempt at it. People would oppose that as being soft on crime.

Does this make familial DNA testing legal?

[schwit1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Familial_DNA_searching

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Using this sort of logic is not getting you any converts.

Very few liberals believe that and you know it. Such arguments are just driving people away from every agreeing with you.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Synerg1y]

what if the DNA is a false positive match?

DNA is too much information

[sargon666777]

I disagree with the likening of DNA to having a mug shot taken or a fingerprint.. Simply because DNA can be used for purposes well beyond what you can use for a mug shot or a fingerprint.. Consider for a moment this currently fictional example... We have a nationalized health care system. Using the same DNA collected we tax an individual based on the likeliness of that individual to contract a certain condition (e.g. diabetes).. -or- We use that same DNA to establish life insurance rates along the same logic.. The problem here is it allows a very large amount of information to be garnered about a persons potential medical conditions without their consent.

Re:DNA is too much information

[Tony Isaac]

They aren't storing the entire DNA sequence. Just 13 data markers. Those 13 data markers are not able to identify probability of conditions, or life expectancy, or do anything else, except to positively identify you. It really can't serve any other use than as a more accurate fingerprint.

Free country?

[stanlyb]

Not anymore. You are all slaves now, with a tag attached.

Re:Free country?

[amiga3D]

Jeeez! Don't go crazy. It's just one more paving stone for the road to hell, we've still got a few more to be laid.

Re:Free country?

[stanlyb]

It is just too late for turning back. One or two more into the death spiral, what's the difference?

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[Samantha Wright]

You're asking why a country polarized in every conceivable way over every conceivable issue can't spare sympathy for those it has already declared evil. It's just not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the UK has almost eliminated women's prison due to low volume and Norway's rehabilitation program is so good that their reoffending rate is below 30%.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[ShanghaiBill]

Now, like fingerprints, once charges are dropped, all such collected evidence should be destroyed.

That is NOT what happens with fingerprints. They are kept as permanent records. In some states, you may petition the court to have them expunged after an acquittal, but very few people do that, and it certainly isn't the default.

Big, big tinfoil hat here

[wbr1]

It may not be immediate, or even soon, but how long until genotyping is cheap enough, and this is applied to the stored DNA? Then studies are done saying people with xyz expressed genes are n times more likely to offend/rape/be violent, whatever.

After that, how long until pre-screening of fetuses, infants, children is done. Do we then start eugenics programs to get rid of it? Treat the difference medically? Change the environment of these individuals before offense? Lock them away preemptively?

It -could- happen.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the rub: All arrest info is made public, mug shots, fingerprints, names, info, and I would not be surprised that DNA info is free to the asking, or perhaps if there is a contract out for it.

Here in the US, get arrested for any reason, and kiss your career goodbye. Every place past McDonalds checks NCIC listings, and if someone has an -arrest- (not convictions, as supposedly, acquittals can be bought), they are branded as criminals for life.

That arrest at 18 due to MIP? 20 years later, it will deny people work.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[amiga3D]

When did you start thinking that fingerprints were destroyed? That stuff is in a database forever, regardless of any outcome.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case you missed it, the dissenting judges were Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Three of those are "liberals". By that metric, it's obviously the conservatives that believe in a police state so that they can oppress blah blah blah. Really the lesson to take away from where the justices fell on the issue is that it wasn't along traditional ideological lines. It's almost as if boiling a complex system of political beliefs down into a single axis of liberal versus conservative is stupid.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[ebno-10db]

Because Liberals, like O'Malley, believe in a police state.

Obviously no Conservatives (note capital 'C') would push us in that direction, which explains the ruling of the Conservatives (note capital 'C') on the court, save Scalia.

GATTACA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You are now being slotted.

Re:GATTACA

[CyberBill]

Being detained is not the same as being arrested.

Re:GATTACA

[Golddess]

IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?

Re:GATTACA

[XxtraLarGe]

IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?

"Arrest this man, he's resisting arrest!"

Re:GATTACA

[Zlotnick]

The police have 48 hours to charge you with a crime after your arrest.

You can be charged with resisting arrest, but you can't be arrested for resisting arrest (you're already under arrest).

Besides, arresting officers don't make the charges -- especially before/during arrest. They need to poke around in your stuff to find (or plant) drugs or something else that will stick, or hang you with your own words in the interrogation.

Re:GATTACA

[Jane Q. Public]

"IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?"

No. There is (usually) a legal difference between being detained and being arrested. Of course, if you are arrested, by definition you have been detained. But you can be detained without being arrested. In this context "detained" usually means just detained, not detained and arrested.

Re:GATTACA

[ImprovOmega]

Laws vary across jurisdictions, but detention is usually a safety first kind of thing designed to be temporary while the officers defuse a situation and assess whether there is cause to charge you with something or if you might reasonably be a suspect in whatever they detained you for in the first place, or possibly even to take your statement if you were a witness.

Being detained does not (generally) allow the officer to transport you against your will, doesn't go on your record, doesn't require you to be charged with anything and doesn't last very long (exact amount of time depends on jurisdiction).

Now, if an officer is detaining you and you leave without him telling you that you are free to go, then they can *easily* arrest you for disobeying a lawful order (or similar statute, again depending on jurisdiction) so don't be stupid if you are being detained, and make sure that you are told that you are free to go before making any move to leave.

Re:GATTACA

[Jane Q. Public]

"The police have 48 hours to charge you with a crime after your arrest."

This is not universal. I believe it is state-specific.

"You can be charged with resisting arrest, but you can't be arrested for resisting arrest (you're already under arrest)."

Yes, you can. If you successfully resist arrest (i.e., you escape), you can be arrested later for resisting arrest.

Re:GATTACA

[Anonymous Coward]

Being detained is not the same as being arrested.

I promise you that people will be subjected to DNA swabs in either case. Watch and see.

This is one of the most fucked-up rulings ever by SCOTUS. Don't bullshit here with legal doublespeak.

You'll likely commit a crime trying to fend off the uneducated asshat trying to collect a DNA sample based on a mere accusation anyway as you try and stand on what is left of your Constitutional rights..

Re:GATTACA

[Hatta]

Yes it is. "Being detained" is something they made up to get around your rights*. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest.

Just look at the definition. In a non legal sense, arrest means "1. To stop" That's exactly what detain(1. To keep from proceeding) means. Same thing.

In a legal sense, arrest means "2. To seize and hold under the authority of law." If a police officer has told you that you are not free to go, then he has siezed you under the authority of law.

Detention is arrest. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar who is trying to trick you out of your rights. That includes members of the SCOTUS.

*They do this trick a lot. You have legal rights granted under civil and criminal law... but they made up "administrative" law where you have no such protections. There are legal rights granted to civilians and to soldiers... but they made up "enemy combatants" who have no such protections. It's the oldest trick in the book, don't fall for it.

Re:GATTACA

[AK Marc]

It is when the cop wants it to be. You are under "arrest" in that you are not free to go, and they can search you for their safety (and "you" includes your car you are not anywhere near, if you could return to it if released). The courts invented a non-arrest detainment so that none of the protections of arrest apply (miranda, etc.), but that most of the powers of arrest are in full force (not complying can result in a "resisting arrest" charge, even if you aren't under arrest, etc.)

The historical meaning of arrest included any time you were stopped and not free to go. That includes traffic stops. But it was legally "tweaked" in the US to mean only when you are being held indefinitely pending some further legal action (a hearing or trial), because protections apply to "arrest" so "arrest" was redefined.

Re:GATTACA

[Anonymous Coward]

The dissenting opinion doesn't find it different enough that it would affect the precedent set by this case. Quoting:

"When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, “We can find no significant difference between this case and King.” Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason."

Re:GATTACA

[Aryden]

No, you are then arrested for felony evasion. Very different than just resisting arrest.

Re:GATTACA

[Aryden]

No, an officer detaining someone merely means that they are keeping them present while questioning, witness statements are and evidence is gathered. Technically, when you are pulled over, you are being detained but not arrested.

Re:GATTACA

[Anonymous Coward]

The number one bullshit charge will be disorderly conduct (DO), which will usually be dropped. It is very easy to make an arrest on a DO because the statute is vague. You video the police, DO. You flip them the finger, DO. They don't like you walking in the neighborhood, DO. You don't show them your ID when you are sitting in a parked car in a shopping mall, DO. Now it will be easy to get DNA from anybody. All they need to do is detain and hassle you a bit, a classic set-up for a DO arrest.

Re:GATTACA

[Jane Q. Public]

Felony evasion *IS* resisting arrest. Just a higher form of it.

And again, that is state-specific. Those aren't "national" laws.

Re:GATTACA

[stenvar]

so this ruling basically can add everybody who drives to your national DNA tracking database

Don't kid your self, most developed countries have one (US, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK, etc.), and in many of them, you can be added without being a convicted criminal.

Re:GATTACA

[datavirtue]

You can be detained for a very short period of time without being charged. For instance, they can detain you for questioning as a witness or to analyze you as a possible suspect.

Re:GATTACA

[Aryden]

Most stated actually have separate definitions for evasion vs resisting.

Re:GATTACA

[Aighearach]

In Oregon Disorderly Conduct is frequently charged and usually found guilty.

Re:GATTACA

[Aighearach]

If they didn't have the right to detain you, there would be no reason to have our most basic right, the right of habeas corpus. To go before a Judge to determine if your detention is lawful, and if it may continue. It balances the need of the Authorities to detain people temporarily while they figure out what happened after a crime.

Without the temporary right to detain prior to charge, you'd never need a detention hearing. You could go straight to the arraignment every time.

Re:GATTACA

[GoogleShill]

Your answer doesn't really address Golddess' question.

The answer is "yes", and it is supported by supreme court. A Texas woman was arrested for not wearing her seat belt.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Justices-OK-jail-for-minor-infractions-Woman-2927870.php

Re:GATTACA

[Hatta]

The *dictionary* definitions of the terms (legal or otherwise) are totally irrelevant.

Whoever told you that is one of the liars to whom I referred. These are the games lawyers play to screw the rest of us. Just use a different name for the same thing and you don't have to apply all the rights we've managed to protect.

For example, when arrested you get to be advised of your right to a lawyer, your right not to incriminate yourself, etc. If a detention isn't an arrest, you don't get mirandized. And if you're not free to leave, and the officer is questioning you, and you dont know your rights, what do you expect to happen?

To be on topic, detention is not enough to take a DNA sample (or fingerprints, etc). So I think they pretty damn well proves "detention" and "arrest" are not colloquially or legally the same.

Not at all. Not everyone who is arrested is booked.

Re:GATTACA

[Hatta]

Replace the word 'detain' with the word 'arrest' in your post and it's exactly the same. Detention and arrest are identical.

Re:GATTACA

[hairyfeet]

I don't know why you got informative because whomever gave you that obviously hadn't been to the USA, where we have so many bullshit laws on the books that they CAN arrest anybody pretty much for shits and giggles.

There is one that is basically "Defying authority" (sorry if i don't know the exact term for a bullshit law) where the cop gets to decide what that is and we have seen in the past simply asking why you are being detained can be enough to get that bullshit thrown at you, there is the always popular "resisting arrest", that one is used a lot in the south for those that were driving while black, and of course you have the classic but still used often "disturbing the peace" which again you simply breathing can be enough to get that since again its entirely up to the cop as to what counts as a disturbance.

Since we saw here that it was the LEFT voting for the jack boots this time can we please quit with the whole "The right is jack boots, the left is for freedom" bullshit now? BOTH sides want more power, BOTH sides want bigger government, the only real difference between the two is whose boots would be at your throat, with the left wanting an all powerful big bro that controls everything while the right would prefer corporate feudalism with a government that yields to the corporate masters.

At the end of the day this is what happens when you only have two parties, they become too entrenched, too extreme, and ultimately worthless and dangerous to democracy. Its time to face the fact the entire system is broken and needs a major overhaul, starting with the fact that there is only two parties which always ends up being coke in a can versus coke in a bottle. If you are for individual rights, freedom, and the right to choose how you live? Then you don't have any party, you are disenfranchised my friends, you are quickly becoming a non entity in the ever more fascist USSA.

Re:GATTACA

[Rob the Bold]

The number one bullshit charge will be disorderly conduct (DO), . . . You flip them the finger, DO . . .

Flipping off the pigs can be fun and profitable. TL;DR? If you're charged with Disorderly Conduct for flipping off the local constabulary, call the ACLU, get found not guilty by The First Amendment, win several thousand dollars and cops get to take anger management course. (Which probably won't help with the 'roid rage, but will annoy them.)

Re:GATTACA

[Stormthirst]

When I went to university, my Student Union did a very good job of explaining this process to us. Their advice was to tell any copper who asked you come to the station to very very politely decline, unless they were placing me under arrest. Once under arrest, refuse to speak to any copper except to confirm your personal details and to call your lawyer. The student union had pet lawyers you could call on and the coppers knew it, being a university town.

Re:GATTACA

[myowntrueself]

In the UK they do even better; obviously someone planning a terrorist attack would benefit from knowing their rights. In the UK its illegal to possess ANY INFORMATION which could be useful to someone planning a terrorist attack. Therefore anyone interacting with the police in the UK who shows that they know their rights can be detained on terrorism charges.

Re:GATTACA

[Aighearach]

You make an assertion, but you don't support it, don't make any analysis based on it, and don't make any clear claim that your comment makes a difference.

To the extent that you define them as the same thing, you lose the capability to differentiate between them. To whatever extent they are the same, it reduces any complaint with the current system. So is pointless. You don't claim any effect, though, so who knows. But the most obvious reason to complain is if you don't think the current balance is correct. But conflating arrest and detention broadly, you lash the least justified detention to the most justified arrest, and so it becomes difficult even to formulate a complaint or disagreement.

Re:GATTACA

[Jane Q. Public]

I meant as a practical matter. Still, legally, I think you are correct.

Re:GATTACA

[Jane Q. Public]

I answered it in the context of the comment it was in reply to.

And in that context, the answer is: no. Being detained is NOT the same as being arrested, and a detainment cannot be "turned into" an arrest. There are completely different legal standards for detainment and arrest. At least, in most states.

While you CAN be detained and then arrested, you can't "turn one into the other". Example: a person might be detained, and then arrested based on evidence gathered during the detainment.

Maybe being detained and then arrested is what Golddess meant, but that's not what she said. So I could have misunderstood.

In the example you gave, the woman was likely just "detained", from a legal standpoint. While I disagree with the practice, some states have held that even cuffing and taking to the station does not constitute an actual arrest.

Re:GATTACA

[GoogleShill]

"IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?"

Maybe being detained and then arrested is what Golddess meant, but that's not what she said. So I could have misunderstood.

You did.

The question was in the context of being pulled over for violating a traffic law, which is normally a brief detainment and a ticket, and having the officer subsequently (turn it into an) arrest and take you to jail. The fact is, if you are charged with not wearing a seat belt, the officer can arrest you, take you to jail and collect your DNA.

In the example you gave, the woman was likely just "detained", from a legal standpoint.

If you would have read the first sentence of my link, you would know that the lady was arrested and that SCOTUS case specifically revolved around arresting and jailing someone for a minor offense. Here's some more detail.

Re:GATTACA

[WOOFYGOOFY]

No you're wrong. Being detained is NOT the same as being under arrest. You can be detained on a suspicion. You have to have broken the law - and be charged with a crime- to be arrested. You can be detained briefly but not *forever* or even a long time. You can consider yourself detained if a cop comes up to you and starts talking about anything other than the weather.

If you're walking around thinking detained = arrested then you already have a chip on your shoulder since the circumstances that lead to being detained are intuitively NOT sufficient to warrant being arrested and you therefore feel like you're being unlawfully arrested every time you're being lawfully detained. That can't lead to anything good for you since you're already interpreting the cop as a bad apple when in fact, he's not. He's just doing his job.

If you're careful and have done nothing wrong,. being detained won't lead to being arrested. A lot depends on your attitude. If you're defiant, then it becomes way more likely in the cops mind that you also have an illegal weapon or narcotics on your person or in your car. Ever watch COPS? See how criminals act? Try not to act like that, even a little.

But the reality is that anyone can be arrested for anything. Someone broke into a house somewhere near where you are? And you were *around* at the time *active furtively*? Done.

Helpful Hints-

don't ever stop doing whatever it was you were doing when you notice you're being watched by the police. That's a red flag to them.

Be very polite and cooperative if stopped. The cop may decide to probe you for everything from attitude, to drunkeness, to excessive nervousness, to whatever it was he was looking for when he detained you. By way of this, he may speak in a way so as to provoke anger in you because he's trying to see if you're a hot head. Don't reply by being defiant or even sarcastic if he does this. Continue to cooperate. Be polite. Be serious.

Don't lie about anything , even something small. Of course don't be breaking the law in some way because none of this advice matters if you are.

Don't start asserting your rights before you're arrested or acting like you're going to. Most cops really are just people with jobs to do and you have temporarily become a part of their workday. Make it easy on them in every way. They don't want to be there either.

If arrested, shut completely up and call a lawyer. Completely.

They have better things to do than arrest someone doing nothing. Overall, they are not interested in you- they are interested in law breakers. Yes- that's true, that's what is relevant to them. You don't rate, at all. They get evaluated in part by number of arrests that lead to a conviction of some sort, especially felony convictions, which are just awesome.

HTH

Re:GATTACA

[Hatta]

You have to have broken the law - and be charged with a crime- to be arrested.

Really? Everyone who is arrested has broken the law? In reality, you don't even have to have broken the law to be convicted.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[hazeii]

Not what happens in practice in the UK - over here, we keep an illegal DNA database of innocent people.

Dont be stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite everybody thinking in a primitive left and right ONE DIMENSIONAL world, everybody knows that authoritarians existed on the "left" and the "right" if they know anything about Nazi's and Russian Communism.

There is another dimension where people who are completely opposite on the economic scale are identical on the authoritarian scale.

Both parties in the USA are closely related but spend billions highlighting and exaggerating their few differences... yet people are continually surprised when their candidates get in and act more like the opposition than they expected...

Educate yourself: politicalcompass.org

capcha: superset

Re:Dont be stupid

[Sparticus789]

Tell me more about how extreme groups on the right of the political spectrum which believe that government should not exist are the same as Nazism and Communism.

Both Nazism and Communism are tools of the extreme left, increased size of government.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[CanHasDIY]

Using this sort of logic is not getting you any converts.

When discussing political extremism, I submit that using any sort of logical argument is akin to screaming at a wall.

Personally, I find complacency ("yea, sure, oppressive group/policy X is getting worse, but there's nothing I can/will do about it") to be a far more dangerous thing than any amount of fanatical extremism, if only by merit of its prevalence in our society; true, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy is actually quite rare (although they tend to scream so loudly they're hard to ignore), but the masses don't seem to have the wherewithal to shut these stupid assholes up.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[phantomfive]

There are things in America that both parties hold in absolute agreement:

1) That we don't want a police state, dictatorship, or anything like it
2) The sneaky suspicion that the 'other party' is trying to push us towards exactly that.

It's kind of hilarious, actually.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[CanHasDIY]

People who strongly believe in gun rights, who believe it is fair for citizens to take up arms against the government when the government overreaches its powers, would agree with the SCOTUS and say it is quite fair to take DNA sample at the time of arrest.

Can't speak for any one else, but as a believer in strong gun rights and the right of revolution, I have to say your contention is pure bullshit.

People who allow their biases to color their opinion on who receives which rights are why shit like this can happen; congrats, you've just shown yourself to be part of the problem.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

what if the DNA is a false positive match?

Then you go to jail. There are no false positives. (Well, there are plenty of false positives, and the number will only go up as the size of the database explodes, but when it's the prosecutor's word against yours, a jury raised on CSI will always convict.)

Re: What if the person is innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between collecting the DNA you discarded and being forced to give up your DNA, though.

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[stanlyb]

Chillies, Brazil.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[amiga3D]

Unfortunately this is a bi-partisan issue. Anytime you see Republicans and Democrats agree on something it's almost always going to be a big fucking for the American people. Unlike issues such as abortion and gay marriage where they divide the public in order to control us, this issue is one they unite on for the same reason, control of the masses. It's so obvious that I'm amazed people haven't twigged to it yet. Politicians are either Republican or Democrat while people are generally either Liberal or Conservative. While I am a conservative I never fall for the idea that Republicans are. This issue here proves that beyond doubt. Such control by the government is against any truly conservative principle.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

Very few liberals will admit that and you know it.

FTFY

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[icebike]

Doesn't matter. This gives police license to run dragnets for DNA. They can't solve a case but have DNA and a vague description, they will simply "arrest" anyone and everyone who is a close match to the description on trumped up charges that will be dropped after they get their DNA.

That leaves them open for false arrest charges, which would be pretty easy to prove if it happened on the scale you seem to imply, and each such arrest opens them up for perjury charge if they get a warrant. Especially if they have to let you go because the DNA exonerates you.
This ruling does not make arrest simply to get DNA legal, any more than Arrest simply to get fingerprints is legal.

For those few cases where they would otherwise follow a person around to get a sample of their DNA because they have other evidence not yet sufficient for a warrant, it does tend to suggest that they might be tempted to arrest them for some trivial issue. Still I don't see DNA only arrests on a pretense happening all that often without significant other evidence.

Contrary to what you see on TV it still takes days/weeks to get DNA processed in most states due to the backlog. The police aren't going to start wholesale DNA dragnets until results are cheaper and quicker to obtain.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

To be fair, in my observation, very few on the right believe such either. What disturbs me most is that these polarized views are from people who are convinced they know what their "opponents" think but don't actually think about what their own side's messages/actions are. I'm quite firmly in the middle with a slight left and libertarian (small L) political view. I truly find it disturbing.

Step One to becoming a Police State...

[tekrat]

Step One: Declare every citizen a criminal.

Re:Step One to becoming a Police State...

[stanlyb]

Passed. What's next?

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Again, that is not going to convince anyone.
A totally pointless comment. I could just as easily say "Very few conservatives would not like to see a police state" and it would be equally stupid.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[amiga3D]

Wrong. I support the 4th just as much as the 2nd amendment. As long as the rule of law holds sway I'd say taking up arms is unwarranted. How long the rule of law lasts I'm starting to wonder.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

I agree.
To me the worst of it is that pretty much everyone saying these things needs a polisci class before they speak about politics again. The slashdot libertarian, a quite different beast than real life ones, is generally the worst at this. They lack any information about even the school of thought their ideology comes from. For fun mention anarcho-socialism or left libertarianism to them. You can almost hear their heads explode.

medical?

[iggymanz]

think more broadly. studies may show a person with certain sequences might be more likely to commit certain crimes. We need to keep extra surveillance on such people for safety's sake.

And maybe you shouldn't reproduce, citizen, given your suspicious DNA sequences.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Salgak1]

what if the DNA is a false positive match?

Well, given current techniques, the calculated THEORETICAL chance of a false match is approximately 1 in 100 billion. Unless you're an identical twin, where the theoretical odds drop to 1 in 1000.

HOWEVER, there is lots of room for lab error. It would be helpful to quantify that, but apparently it varies from case to case, and analyst to analyst. For that reason, I conclude that DNA analysis is USEFUL, but not defintitve, at least at the current time. . .

People should not be upset at the court for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts job is to interpret the law. They found the law does not provide protection against DNA collection during arrest. Guess what people should be doing? Calling their representatives to ask for that law. It is not the judicial branches position to legislate from the bench. If this was a clear overstep of the constitution then sure, but DNA is a very large grey area especially when police have probable cause to collect evidence.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[KGIII]

You don't know much about your "opposition" do you? I, for instance, am VERY strongly in favor of gun rights, I do believe that we should be ready to take over the government if need be, and I oppose this decision strongly. Maybe you should think once in a while and stop listening to what the talking heads on the television tell you to believe?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Wrath0fb0b]

They can't solve a case but have DNA and a vague description, they will simply "arrest" anyone and everyone who is a close match to the description on trumped up charges that will be dropped after they get their DNA.

Actually, the opinion requires the arrest to be for a serious offense. So littering or seatbelt violations are not going to cut it.

For comparison, the Maryland law at issue here essentially limits the DNA testing to arrests for crimes of violence: murder, rape, robbery, assault. These are not victimless crimes and so are much harder to trump up -- you need to find putative victims in order to be credible.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[iggymanz]

Myself, most my friends and relatives, are strong supporters of gun rights, but none agree with things such as this that turn our country into even more of a fascist police state.

As an aside, the Founding Fathers recognized the right to bear arms again "despots at home, and enemies from abroad". We continue the move toward despotism.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[icebike]

Even if you petition to have them expunged they have in most cases already been sent to the feds, or at least the numerical encoding have.
The feds will not expunge. ever.

Re:Why don't they?

[stanlyb]

shhhhh, quiet, it was supposed to be a secret...

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[moeinvt]

"Very few liberals believe that and you know it."

You mean "Very few liberals will openly admit it". The whole philosophy of achieving Utopia through the mechanism of big government and central planning must also include extensive use of force and control. That's the dark side of liberalism that liberals will rarely acknowledge. Central planning is a model that must be forcefully imposed on a society. Individual behavior must be controlled so that it conforms to this model. Free individuals are too dynamic to be centrally managed, so they must be transformed into good little robots so that the model doesn't break.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[icebike]

Every place past McDonalds checks NCIC listings, and if someone has an -arrest- (not convictions, as supposedly, acquittals can be bought), they are branded as criminals for life.

Not true. (And you know it, so why troll?)

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

Challenge accepted:

Liberals believe in a large government that follows the phrase "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." This entire premise is reliant on a police state in order to function. The government must know about every possible need you have, whether it be food, diabetes medicine, wheelchair ramp, or special toilet paper (why? I dunno, ask a Dr.) Since the government will have such extensive knowledge of the individual, it will be able to mold the behavior of the population through taxes, fines, and subsidies. Government says that you have to walk 2 miles a day to stay healthy, so they put a check-in stand and tell people "walk 2 miles a day or you will pay a fine/tax." Then each person is allotted a certain amount of each type of food, to make sure they stay healthy. Everything becomes an allotment, the individual only has the rights and ability to make decisions that the government allows them to.

Conservatives (NOT Republicans) believe that the government exists because the citizenry allows the government to exist. The government is not in charge, the people are. And the citizenry have the rights and abilities to make their own decisions and pay the consequences of their actions, good or bad. It is the government's job to give you the ability to succeed, not force you to succeed.

Misunderstanding

[Antony T Curtis]

This is only potentially bad because of the way how people have now completely misunderstood the purpose of DNA fingerprinting.

DNA Fingerprinting was originally conceived to exclude suspects and was never intended to prove that a suspect was present.
(let that sink in for a bit)

(a bit longer)

This is why DNA fingerprinting is usually combined with probabilities with regard to how many other people share the similar DNA fingerprint match.
A DNA fingerprint match should not be considered proof of anyone's guilt. It only means that the suspect cannot be excluded.

However, in America, it seems that DNA fingerprint match is seen as proof of guilt instead of how it should be used where a fingerprint mismatch is proof of innocence. Far too often, I have heard of cases where the prosecution excludes DNA fingerprint evidence because it doesn't show a match ... which is an abuse and misrepresentation of the technology.

*sigh*

(I'm sure that many people will read what I had written and still completely fail to understand the difference)

Re:Misunderstanding

[EmagGeek]

The Police work for The State. The State's job is to prove guilt - er, sorry - convince a jury, comprised of the lowest common denominator, of guilt despite any evidence to the contrary.

The State would not collect DNA to try to prove innocence, as that is not their job.

Re:Misunderstanding

[Antony T Curtis]

Which is how DNA fingerprinting is being abused. DNA fingerprinting cannot prove guilt. DNA fingerprinting is not a substitute for good investigation.

Re:Misunderstanding

[stanlyb]

Since when the purpose of the police is to find you "innocent"???

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

My experience is otherwise (NY 20 years ago). They notified me to come pick up my original fingerprint cards after charges were dropped.

Perhaps that's changed but to my knowledge they are expunged.

It's still something we're already doing with existing data so DNA, while a more detailed medium, is still personal data being collected about you. It's no different and shouldn't be treated any differently than fingerprints.

Re:People should not be upset at the court for thi

[stanlyb]

Actually, they did very bad job at interpreting the law. Yes, they agreed that in this specific case the police was right to take DNA samples, but then why did not they say exactly that in their final decision??? What they did say is actually that no matter what you did, even if you did not do anything, it is enough just to be arrested for whatever funny reason, and your sample would be already taken.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Sir_Sri]

Birthday paradox of DNA testing done in arizona on prisoners.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/08/19/are-the-fbis-probabilities-about-dna-matches-crazy/

It depends on the specific technique used, but it's significantly more common than 1 in billions to have matching fingerprints and DNA etc. to people who are definitely not the one being looked for.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Vesvvi]

It's not literally true, but many (most?) places will ask if you've been arrested, convicted of a crime (sometimes just felony), etc. There may be no effective way to enforce consequences immediately, but it's certainly grounds for dismissal if they learn about it through some outside channel later.

Because The Bill of Rights only Applies to You

[wisnoskij]

As long as you are not a child, or elderly, or a criminal (where the definition of criminal is left completely up to the discretion of a police officer).

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[ponraul]

DPRK.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

Yeah I have and most politicians, liberals and others, have sold out to 'but terrorism'.

Whether stuff is deleted or not is a different question and yes I'll have an issue if it isn't. That doesn't change the fact that collecting information and data from ARRESTED individuals is already done widely and used to see if that individual has possibly committed a currently unsolved crime. If you have an issue with that, you already have it and DNA isn't any different in that respect.

I've been arrested. I've had my prints taken. And when the charges were dismissed, they notified me to come get the original cards so I could properly dispose of them as I saw fit.

Re:People should not be upset at the court for thi

[EmagGeek]

That's not how our law is supposed to work. The State can only do what Constitutional Law says it can do. That's how the Constitution and all laws passed pursuant thereto are supposed to work.

There is no law specifically granting police the power to collect DNA, so therefore for them to do so is illegal under the way our justice system is supposed to work.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

Hmm, I was arrested at 20 yrs old. Charges dropped. I currently have a Security clearance from the US DOD and have been gainfully employed in tech since only 3 years after said arrest 20 years ago.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Richy_T]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

Because I personally destroyed mine when they gave them back to me?

Depends on the jury...

[NotQuiteReal]

DNA evidence? Pfft - "all the prosecution showed was that OJ gots blood".

Re:Depends on the jury...

[PRMan]

In the OJ trial, the cops carried OJ's blood around in their car for 3 weeks, 2 weeks AFTER they took a blood sample from OJ himself. This made the evidence trail dirty and the evidence was thrown out. The cops blew every facet of that case except Kato and the limo driver's testimony, which weren't enough to convict him beyond reasonable doubt.

Re:Depends on the jury...

[GodfatherofSoul]

A couple more points. They took a blood sample from OJ and illegally took it out to the crime scene to "give to a detective." When that blood was finally checked back in, some of it was missing. Additionally, OJ's blood found on the scene was contaminated with a preservative used in blood samples taken from suspects. AND blood started magically appearing in other places. You can have any opinion you want about OJ's guilt, but LAPD planted evidence to help out their case.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[coinreturn]

It's still something we're already doing with existing data so DNA, while a more detailed medium, is still personal data being collected about you. It's no different and shouldn't be treated any differently than fingerprints.

I disagree. The decision says it is "identification, like fingerprints." Why is additional identification required when fingerprints are adequate?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[ArhcAngel]

I take littering VERY serious you insensitive clod! - McGruff

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Rene S. Hollan]

Bullshit. To myth24601 as well. I'll address his/her point first.

Charges rarely get "dropped". Cases simply don't get pressed. Felony arrests can be prosecuted up to five years later in many places (WA, for one), once sufficient evidence is obtained to make a case. The constitutional prohibition against being placed in double jeapardy means prosecutors only get one kick at the can, unless the same evidence can be repackged under a different charge.

In 2010, when my ex had custody, my son was hungry. As she hardly ever fed our kids, she let me take him to dinner, and wrote a permission slip (as I did not have visitation rights that day, and insisted on one). Well, she let the poor kid out, in February, with one shoe having the sole completely flop off. I told him, either before or after dinner, I'd get him new shows. He chose after dinner. Well, after dinner, he wanted to go home to mom, and I feared she'd have police waiting to illustrate the "poor footwear" that "I" had on him. So, I took him to Payless for those shoes first.

My son has issues. He suffers from Conduct Disorder (Oppositional Defiant Disorder in his younger days, that psychologists and psychiatrists have not been able to stem). In order for him to not run into traffic, I had to carry him into the store, all the while him screaming "He's choking me! He's killing me! Help, he's kidnapping me!" I handed a worker one shoe, asked, for a matching pair, got them paid, and took him home to his mother. Unbeknownst to me, on the way, he brusied himself with his seatbelt buckle.

He alleged I struck him, she called police, they interviewed store staff ("He was choking and trying to kill the child he was kidnapping"), and there was plenty of probable cause to arrest me for felony assault of a minor. I spent four days in jail before being able to post bail. Getting to one's own money behind bars is surprisingly difficult: banks won't release it to attorneys without a notarized power of attorney, and while your lawyer can visit you in lockup, a notary might be made to wait weeks. Lawyers are generally not permitted for front bail monies, because the offer can be used as a incentive to force an attorney-client relationship under duress.

Well, the case against me fell apart: he refused to testify, and his mental illness came to light.

Were the charges dropped?

No.

I got custody of my kids 18 months later, but to remove the uncertainty of a possible felony prosecution over the next 3-1/2 years, I had to get the original charges disposed. Despite not prosecuting me, the DA refused to drop the charges unless I pled to "something". I chose disorderly conduct (as someone might have thought I was actually kidnapping my son, and assaulted me: in WA, acting in a manner that might invite assault is disorderly conduct), and paid a $1200 fine. The original charges were disposed.

All this is public information. I could not hire a nanny for my son through nannies4hire.com because of my arrest record. But, and this addresses the AC: I had no trouble getting a new job some years later. Decent employers research things like this.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Failed in the first sentence.
That is pretty impressive. Not all liberal schools of thought follow that mantra, nor do all schools of thought that follow that mantra believe in police states. Go get a polisci text book.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[the eric conspiracy]

ALL of the conservative Supreme Court judges voted for this, and all of the liberal judges voted against this.

To try to frame this as part of a typical liberal agenda is distortive at BEST.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

There are entire schools of liberal thought that espouse there being no government at all.

The dark side of your ignorance is you typing drivel like you just did. Go get a polsci textbook and read it before you spout anymore such silliness.

You're focusing on the wrong thing

[rickb928]

It's not about whether the police (or the State) should be taking your DNA and/or retaining it, because they already have fingerprints and a photo.

If fingerprints and a photograph are enough to identify you, then that is sufficient. Requiring more should also require reasonable needs. Is DNA somehow more useful to them in any way?

Do you waive your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when you are arrested? If so, well, do you regain them if acquitted, or especially if charges are not brought in conjunction with that arrest? If so, then asking for the records to be destroyed or sealed is reasonable. If not, then why am I being treated as a if I was convicted, when I was not?

And if these records are retained, why not require that I be notified when they are accessed for any reason, even if notice is that a request was made, and that the results were kept secret? Oh, because we should not, for a moment, believe our government when it says it will only keep the data, but not use it. It stretched credulity to believe that the government will not use the data if they have it. There is NO other reason to keep it. None. If they want to keep it, they want to be able to use it. And I suspect they will not want to be held accountable for that use, even when they can merely declare it is 'necessary', and go right ahead.

We should require the government to offer substantive need to both collect and retain any information about us, no matter the circumstances. And this goes to the core of limited government arguments. Our government serves us. We do not serve our government.

Time to start voting smart, gang. Wise up, pr pay up.

Not a troll...

[NotQuiteReal]

but why would inserting the word "medically" in front of "private data" make it more important?

Re:Not a troll...

[tompaulco]

but why would inserting the word "medically" in front of "private data" make it more important?

Because currently medical private data is much more well protected than regular old private data. I'm not saying that is the way it should be, but that is the case, so in order to make yourself heard, you have to complain that they are violating your medical privacy, because nobody cares about your regular privacy.

Re:Not a troll...

[Rakarra]

but why would inserting the word "medically" in front of "private data" make it more important?

Because different laws medical data than regular data.
"That's what I've heard" though, so your mileage may vary.

Sooner or later...

[joh]

DNA-fingerprinting of the full population will be standard. There's no way around that. In the current state of affairs this would almost be the better alternative, because fingerprinting only those who get arrested (for any reason) will just serve as a powerful deterrence against all kinds of political activity like demonstrations. At least if everyone is fingerprinted anyway the fear of being fingerprinted doesn't matter anymore.

Our societies are shaped by our tools, like it or not.

Re:Sooner or later...

[ebno-10db]

That solves the problem of selective abuse by making it a universal abuse.

First case ever in which Scalia != Thomas?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I am just stunned that Scalia and Thomas wound up on different sides here. Has that ever happened before?

Re:First case ever in which Scalia != Thomas?

[_Sharp'r_]

Justices Scalia and Thomas only agree about 86% of the time over the long haul. Most of the other Justices also have 80%+ agree percentages with at least one other Justice.

The more interesting contrast is Scalia and Breyer.

"Justice Scalia has been on the defense side of every non-unanimous Fourth Amendment case this term: King (today’s case in which he wrote the dissent), Bailey (in which he joined the 6-3 majority), Jardines (in which he wrote the majority), and McNeely (in which he joined the Sotomayor plurality/majority opinion). In contrast, Justice Breyer has been on the government’s side in each of the Term’s non-unanimous Fourth Amendment cases: King (in which he joined Kennedy’s majority), Bailey (in which he wrote the dissent), Jardines (in which he joined the dissent) and McNeely (in which he joined the more government-friendly Roberts concurrence/dissent with Alito)." - Orin Kerr

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[stanlyb]

And another opinion says that if someone asks the court what is the difference between serious, and "not serious" arrest, the court would be forced to say: NONE.

Difference? Easy.

[denzacar]

First of all, it does not get tossed out. The whole point of warrantless DNA collection is about creating and maintaining a DNA database.

From TFA:

âoeMake no mistake about it: because of todayâ(TM)s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,â conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.

With that in mind...
I can't go through your trash, take some of your fingerprints from there and leave them at the crime scene to frame you, nor can I mess up a crime scene by sprinkling the area with fingerprints from hundreds of people I gathered from a barbershop's dumpster.

The difference being that without the database, police would have to connect you to the crime first, take your DNA and compare it to the DNA I stole from you and left it at the scene of the crime.
With the database, all they need to do is to find your DNA I left there.
Naturally, for you to be in the database you'd have to be arrested first, sometime prior to me framing you.
Anytime during your life.

Also, while those hundreds of DNA samples from the barbershop were once just decoys, now there's bound to be someone in that bunch who got arrested for something. Making them false positives.
Or the usual suspects if you like that term better.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[dkleinsc]

I have a different sort of idea about that:
1. Almost all people with no power, don't want a police state, dictatorship, etc because they know it will oppress them.

2. Almost all people with power would rather like a police state or dictatorship, because that allows them to keep their power.

3. Those people without power who have chosen to identify with or support a subgroup of those people with power have to square their opposition to police states with their decision to support their chosen subgroup. That leads to the "My party isn't oppressing me, the other party is oppressing me!" thinking from self-identified partisans.

The real blindness is this, which came out in a conversation between myself (borderline socialist), a moderately liberal friend, and a libertarian friend: Which person in your life is most likely to be oppressing you in some way? Answer: Your boss.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[PeeAitchPee]

You are wrong. Not only did Scalia vote against this, he authored a scathing dissent of the decision -- while Bryer, one of the Court's liberals, voted for it along with the Court's conservative Justices. And it's absolutely beyond question that Martin O'Malley, a diehard liberal who supports issues such as granting in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants and denying law-abiding Marylanders the right to carry concealed firearms (another MD case soon bound for the Supreme Court), has advanced and expanded this database as part of his agenda for over a decade.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[ebno-10db]

If you want to think for yourself, you should avoid any "isms" including, but not limited to, libertarianism, liberalism and conservatism.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[interkin3tic]

To expand on that, your mug shot and finger prints can't really be used to deny you medical coverage, increase your insurance premiums, or give much insight into your medical history. Your DNA obviously can. With the cost of sequencing going down, it won't be much longer before law enforcement agencies start sequencing your genome rather than just doing the DNA profiling they do now (which wouldn't be able to, say, predict if you were going to develop Huntington's disease or were prone to cancer, while full sequencing will.)

This means that law enforcement agencies will quickly be shielded from liability for accidentally leaking your DNA sequences to health insurance agencies and subsequently causing you to lose a LOT of money. So not only will you not get restitution, this is a huge liability for you if you get arrested.

When complaints about this arise, you'll be informed that you shouldn't have been arrested, it's really your fault, law enforcement is just trying to stop rapists and murderers.

Stop being thick

[ThatsNotPudding]

I don't see the difference between this and finger printing. If you are going to do either and the person is not found guilty that stuff should all be tossed out.

How the eff did this get a 5??

New fingerprints can't be synthesized from on-file images and dumped at the crime scene or on evidence already in the police evidence room.

Cops see everyone ever investigated and/or arrested as permanently guilty, therefore they are justified in their tiny minds and dark hearts in keeping DNA evidence to plant later on to vindicate their beliefs (not to mention getting promotions out of clearing all those pesky whodunnits).

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[NatasRevol]

When they were still on paper and not digitized.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Ol Olsoc]

Because Liberals, like O'Malley, believe in a police state. It is much easier to oppress your population and monitor them if you have their fingerprints and DNA on file.

Did you accidentally migrate from the Yahoo comment boards or something? Sheesh, what insight?

Very few Americans want anything like a police state. It's likewise very easy for a police state to form without access to any DNA records. Interestingly enough, it is probably easier, unless you seriously suggest that law enforcement will just say "Yup, a perfect DNA match" to every case, even if the whole country watched a woman kill someone on Television, and the "perfect match" is a black man from across the country with an ironclad alabi.

In an efficient Police state, no evidence is needed, and even better, all suspects will be killed trying to escape. DNA swabs would be a real nuisance to a police state, as they would eventually be a tool used aganst the state.

All it would take is one doctor willing to take on the risk, send the contradictory DNA proof of malfeasance zipping across the internet and its Game On!

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

Not a very convincing argument. And I prefer to study real sciences, not fake and contrived sciences like political science.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[icebike]

Still not true.

Because most companies do not subscribe to that level of detailed checking due to the cost involved.
In fact, unless you are applying for a very sensitive job for a Government Contract or something, no private employer checks court records.

Its just too expensive and error prone. How many Will Smiths do you think there are in the world
with a DOB that matches the actor? How many courthouses are there to check?

Its a site trying to sell a service, but I could have just as easily linked to the NCIC site itself, or
the FBI's page about NCIC.

Some Government Contracts require NCIC checks, but even these are not done
by employers, but by the appropriate government agencies.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[MickyTheIdiot]

> I don't know if you've been paying attention for the past 8 or so years or not, but liberals are now all about giving control of their lives (and, as usual, income) to the government.

Bullshit. I am very liberal for these times and I don't believe that at all, and neither does anyone I know who feels they are a "liberal."

You might be confusing the fact that as a group we think corporations ought to be regulated. We tend to draw a distinction between corporate rights and individual rights where a great number of so-called "conservatives" want to blur that line every change they get.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[the eric conspiracy]

Sorry but conflating Marxism to American liberalism is complete baloney.

The roots of liberalism are (from the Wikipedia article on the same topic) in the Enlightenment.

"Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with democracy and/or republicanism and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of liberalism was classical conservatism.

Later 20th century liberalism evolved into social liberalism where social justice and a mixed economy are needed to limit the gap between the rich and the poor. The trust busting of the early 20th century and the formation of labor unions are typical modern liberal activities.

Marxism is based on the idea of complete collectivism, no private ownership of capital, and no right of property, which are very different from any form of liberalism.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[xevioso]

Not really. At some point a court case will reach the Supreme Court on what constitutes a serious offense, but in the meantime most judges will understand what that means. It doesn't mean littering.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

So stop speaking about it then.
If you don't even know the basics about a topic, you should not discuss it in public.

I agree: It's the same as fingerprints

[msobkow]

I agree that DNA swabs are the same as fingerprints.

I've been fingerprinted many times as part of my job requirements. Those prints are on record, even though I wasn't detained, much less arrested. I'd have no more problem with providing a DNA swab than the prints.

But where DNA samples are different is when it comes to things like medical insurance. Having access to a fingerprint stolen from a database doesn't give insurance companies ammunition to do anything; but DNA information could lead to rejection of insurance coverage because one has "bad genes."

I don't think it's a particularly big step for the police to further conclude that blood testing for drugs and alcohol is just part of "due process" and doesn't require charges any more, either. And that does worry me because I'm a medical cannabis user, and would not appreciate having such tests on my records.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[moeinvt]

I am constantly trying to cure my fellow liberty activists of their annoying tendency to attempt to purge our ranks of anyone that doesn't meet some test of ideological purity. I see this happen quite a bit and it's discouraging.
That being said, I don't see how a libertarian of any stripe could embrace a single payer healthcare system. I'm basing this on the assumption that such a system would require forced participation. i.e. if participation was voluntary, there would be more than a single payer.

Lefties beware! This way lies madness!

[conspirator23]

I'm really amused by all the ideological civil libertarians who are shocked (SHOCKED I tell you!) at finding common cause with Scalia on this issue. The general assumption seems to be that Scalia "is finally right for once." Here's an alternative explanation: Scalia hasn't changed at all. It's the ideologically motivated civil libertarians who are off their rockers here.

If you'll tie your jerking knee down for a minute and whip up a Top 20 list of the most pernicious and chilling abuses of government authority, I suspect you'll have a hard time finding a spot for this line item. The risk/benefit equation on this is different. Managing this data in an appropriate and accountable fashion is officially Not Rocket Science. You may not trust the government to behave in a reasonable and appropriate manner, but there's all kinds of stuff you accept silently right now which is already egregious. Letting that stuff slide (Guantanomo, CIA-run drone strikes against civilian targets, National Security Letters, good old fashioned "driving while black", take your pick) while getting your panties in a bunch over soemthing with tangible benefits to a civil society is not much more than masturbatory paranoia.

Or maybe I should put it this way: When extremists of different factions agree, it doesn't make them less extreme.

Re:Lefties beware! This way lies madness!

[ebno-10db]

Managing this data in an appropriate and accountable fashion is officially Not Rocket Science.

Yes, but the fact that something can be done doesn't mean it is or will be done.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[dkleinsc]

The slashdot libertarian, a quite different beast than real life ones, is generally the worst at this.

Well, you say that, but I've come across real-life flesh-and-blood libertarians, including a Libertarian candidate for Congress, who spout ideas very similar to the Slashdot libertarian. Anything suggesting that libertarians are universally smart articulate people smacks of a "No True Scotsman" argument.

The majority of followers of most political belief systems have no idea why they believe what they believe or the theories behind it, and decide more on their gut reaction. For example, the liberal gut reaction is, in a nutshell, "Those people are victims of circumstances beyond their control, and that's not fair!". The conservative gut reaction is "Those people are lazy, and it's unfair that I have to pay for keeping them alive!". The libertarian gut reaction is "That tax bill is theft, and it's unfair that I have to pay it!". The authoritarian gut reaction is "Those people are dangerous and/or idiotic, and need to be controlled or all heck will break loose!". And so on for most other political belief systems.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

I was not saying that. Merely that it appears the slashdot ones are bottom of the barrel.
I am not a libertarian.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[cayenne8]

To expand on that, your mug shot and finger prints can't really be used to deny you medical coverage, increase your insurance premiums, or give much insight into your medical history. Your DNA obviously can. With the cost of sequencing going down, it won't be much longer before law enforcement agencies start sequencing your genome rather than just doing the DNA profiling they do now (which wouldn't be able to, say, predict if you were going to develop Huntington's disease or were prone to cancer, while full sequencing will.)

Combine this with the proposed measure that basically creates an ID biometric database within the current versions of the Immigration Reform polices in the Senate right now, and Voila!! You now have a complete biometric dossier on just about every citizen.

It's only a matter of time.

Didn't anybody tell the Govt. that the book 1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction, and not a roadmap for the future?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[cayenne8]

They already have license to run said 'dragnet' with your fingerprints. I'm as liberal as they come...and I really don't see the issue here. Now, like fingerprints, once charges are dropped, all such collected evidence should be destroyed.

Where did you ever get the idea that your fingerprints once taken are destroyed???

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

I don't see how a libertarian of any stripe could embrace a single payer healthcare system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

You know you just outed yourself as the typical slashdot libertarian right?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[lightknight]

When has our society ever shown even an ounce of restraint when they were sure that they had gotten the 'right guy'?

Sure, it's true that for every person on this planet, something like five others share the same DNA (or at least, the tests would confirm positive matches for five others..perhaps not the same DNA, but a limitation of the tests). But our societies are, by and large, pro-conviction; the litmus test here could easily be the plea bargain and extortionate legal feeds. Our populaces are, by and large, pro-conviction; hold a poll, ask them if, on the word of an officer, someone was involved in a crime, would they tend to believe this person participated in this crime? You will find that many will doggedly answer "yes"; they simply cannot fathom any circumstance where it would not be true, and when they can, they dismiss it out of hand as paranoid thinking.

I think I'm looking at a society in denial.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[tibit]

There are different kinds of "matches". There's a big difference between a marker match (the usual meaning of the phrase "DNA match"), and a full sequence match. That's why, as much as people despise the idea, there should be a push towards full sequencing since then there's really no question about where the DNA came from.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[jcaplan]

The DNA collected is not used to get an entire genome sequence. The court's reasoning is summarized here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-207

"(2) The processing of respondent's DNA sample's CODIS loci also did not intrude on his privacy in a way that would make his DNA identification unconstitutional. Those loci came from noncoding DNA parts that do not reveal an arrestee's genetic traits and are unlikely to reveal any private medical information. Even if they could provide such information, they are not in fact tested for that end. Finally, the Act provides statutory protections to guard against such invasions of privacy. Pp. 26-28."

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Penguinisto]

Small questions here:

Isn't there a statute of limitations for charges that don't involve murder? There would be otherwise if there were no arrest, which is why I'm asking.

Also, did you talk to the DA without a lawyer? I would suspect that there is some provision, or that you could sue to get the charges dropped considering the circumstances.

Finally? Damned glad I live in Oregon... dude, that's just raw.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Vairon]

Your premise is incorrect. The quote you used in your first sentence is from Karl Marx, a socialist not a liberal. Socialism and liberalism are quite different in many ways.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

From personal experience? i.e. I destroyed my print card personally upon dropping of the charges and it being returned to me.

Wherever did you find any proof that they aren't destroyed?

Re: What if the person is innocent?

[icebike]

Except the vast majority of companies don't Pay any service. Its just not often done in the real world, and when it is done, its a sign of an incompetent HR department.

A significant percentage of omployers don't even bother to check references, because they know nobody bothers to provide a bad reference.

What this really means.....

[sgt_doom]

....is they possess absolute ability and power to frame anyone and everyone!

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[GameboyRMH]

Wow, is that what they teach you about liberals on Fox News?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Holi]

I attempted that in my teens after getting arrested for something someone else did. Charges were dropped but after 2 years of fighting the state in court I could not get my fingerprints expunged.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[WheezyJoe]

I disagree. The decision says it is "identification, like fingerprints." Why is additional identification required when fingerprints are adequate?

Because you can do a hellofa lot more with DNA than a fingerprint. Criminals can wear gloves. Rape kits don't collect fingerprints. But a little DNA is dropping off of you pretty much all the time, like that hair follicle you just shed or that coffee cup you just drank from.

and that's the rub. Whoever winds up with your sample can do all sorts of stuff with it. They can plant it at a crime scene. They can match you to your relatives. They can determine what diseases you have (or gonna have), even profile your likelihood to commit a crime. Insurance companies will go ape-shit to get access, and corporations may make clones of you for sweat shops, moon missions, and scientific experiments.

We're entering uncharted territory. I'm glad if DNA collection puts rapists and other deserving criminals in prison. But the potential for abuse, even with the best of intentions, is staggering. Welcome to the Future.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[GameboyRMH]

To most people on both sides, "civil rights" is nothing more than a cudgel usable by the losers in an election with which to bash the other side.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[interkin3tic]

I know, and I did mention that. Economics currently prohibit it, but this will not remain the case for long. In fact, I'd be surprised if in the next ten years, it were not cheaper to do a full genome sequencing rather than the current techniques.

Not that law enforcement needs cost savings as a reason to intrude more into your privacy. They'll do it before it gets cheaper to do full sequencing, and point to this case as cover, even though as you pointed out the two are completely different.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Holi]

Umm, my two year court case to get my prints expunged from a false arrest in 1988.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[TechyImmigrant]

I'm going to buy stock in makers of PCR and sequencing machines.
There's sure to be a dramatic rise in demand for these machines as the government seeks to sequence the genome of every human.
 

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[jedidiah]

So your answer to intrusive government meddling is even more intrusive government meddling.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[ai4px]

Wait until they lower the BAC limit from .08 to .05.... then they'll be building that database faster than you can imagine. Of course, lowering the BAC will be tied to federal hiway funds, and it does nothing to prevent the majority of DUI cases today.... habitual offenders who already have their licenses suspended. Remarkable how similar the tactics are for going after law abiding gun owners too... cite statistics for people killed with stolen and unregistered guns, then take away "assault" rifles.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[amiga3D]

I believe true conservatism is all about individual liberty. A strong military is necessary to insure freedom and a police force is needed to maintain order. That doesn't mean they have the right to detain people on a whim or ignore the 4th Amendment. There is no real need for this kind of procedure. Collecting DNA from everyone is way beyond any power the government is granted Constitutionally. This is the end result of filling the court with judges who want to legislate from the bench.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[TWiTfan]

It essentially rules all DNA protections completely meaningless. They can canvas a neighborhood now and demand everyone's DNA. Anyone who refuses can be arrested on "obstruction of justice" or any other bogus charge. Of course, those charges will never hold up--but they don't have to.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[TWiTfan]

like fingerprints, once charges are dropped, all such collected evidence *should* be destroyed.

Yep, should.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

Oh I do. I don't agree with the entirety of the Libertarian platform (note that I'm for things like public funding of health care as an example) but it is closest to my ideology and saves some time when trying to explain it to folks. I'm actually registered as an Independent.

Libratarians turn to cannibalism

[pseudorand]

I have to agree with the majority, DNA is the same as fingerprints and photographs. Of course, them darn coppers shouldn't be allowed to take fingerprints and photographs, especially the latter steals your soul!

So to combat this horribly government overreach, I plan to become a cannibal. With all that DNA from lots of other people constantly in my mouth, they're bound to get a contaminated DNA sample, providing reasonable doubt and ensuring I'm never convicted for my new dietary choices.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

Again, proof of claims is important. I don't doubt it would be quite easy for what you claim to be the case, but that doesn't make it the case.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

I'm not entirely lock-step with the platform and my reasons are that the costs would be less for society to purchase these services and goods with the wholesale pricing afforded due to the massive amount of capital that the government has that we, as individuals and business owners/workers, don't have and thus can't provide at nearly the same price level. It would require forced participation, via taxation. Some ideals simply aren't attainable when confronted with the real world.

I'm registered as an Independent simply because I don't agree with the entirety of the Libertarian platform either. I am, well, hard to describe in a few blurbs of text and anything that truly describes me would be too long for you to bother to read. You'd just cut/paste something you found uncomfortable and argue with it. I've done this before and haven't any reason to think this time would be different.

It's funny that you mention purging due to not being ideologically identical and then, well, post that.

But, for the sake of conversation and yet brevity, I'm a left leaning libertarian with a great deal of influence from the classic libertarians. It's complicated but logical. That is why I like it. I support liberty for the individual but I understand what freedom is. People don't generally even know what freedom means. I'll give you an example:

I am perfectly free to kill you.
I am not at liberty to do so.

As for being able to opt-out of single payer health care, you're at liberty to buy your own insurance and at liberty to not partake at all. However, you're still going to be taxed based on your earnings. Would it mean tax raises? Probably not if I were Ruler of the Universe, we pay more than enough taxes already. Our problem isn't that we don't pay enough in taxes, our problem is that we spend that money poorly. Tax code problems are, of course, a different subject.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[chihowa]

Arguably, health care falls in the same category as roads and utilities. It's a public good issue that could be managed effectively by a central authority. There's room in it for profit, but access shouldn't be denied based on profitability. What we have now is a byzantine system where profit trumps basic function.

For a single payer system to work, though, the government would have to be able to keep its grubby fingers out of the funding. If we tried to implement such a system now, the funding would just end up being spent as if it was in the general fund. See Social Security.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

I should make that clearer:

By not partaking at all, I mean not taking advantage of the health services. Such a choice would be stupid but you'd be free to do it.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

What was strange is them stating that they didn't like people pushing people out due to ideological purity tests or whatnot. Then they attempt to try to tell me what I believe and what my platform is when, frankly, I can pretty much guarantee I understand the definition and platform far better than they do as I've made quite an effort to get an education in that area. As I was a Cold War child I found politics fascinating and have spent many years learning (both from reading and in a classic academia setting) and have used that knowledge to reach my personal opinions on how I feel and have learned the appropriate verbiage. It isn't my fault, however, that folks don't understand the vocabulary.

I think people attach themselves to a political platform based on one or two planks. They simply don't know the depth, don't bother to learn about them, and ascribe themselves based on those planks and use that as justification to assume that the remainder of the party members are ideologically the same or similar. I am not sure why they do this as I can probably provide enough historical evidence to prove that any single platform has its flaws and that blind zealotry is never a good thing. You need to be an individual, to examine and take what you reason to be correct, and apply that to your own views and then vote accordingly.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[moeinvt]

No, I wasn't aware that I fit a /.profile of "libertarian".

I'm also familiar with left-libertarianism.

I stand by my statement. A healthcare system where participation is forced and where competing systems are forcefully excluded has nothing to do with any brand of libertarianism.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

I have learned that anything can be considered a civil right so long as you get a loud enough vocal minority to keep up the pressure. I'd go into it but, well, it would just make me look like an ass because nobody would bother to read the entirety of what I have to say and it's a bit more complex than one can comfortably fit on a bumper sticker.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[nmr_andrew]

OK, you destroyed the original sheet of prints, but why do you think they're not in the FBI database?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

Why do think they are? everybody's going for uber-conspiracy theory without any evidence of what they say is happening.

I know I got mine back. And I'm pretty sure the ACLU would be all over this type of thing if what you and others are saying. Perhaps they have been and lost the case, but proof is required for such things to be believed as fact.

I hate it when I agree with Scalia.

[Nadaka]

That bastard.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Your statement is simply incorrect. If you were aware of social libertarians you would know your statement was incorrect.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

What kind of Liberal would tell someone to stop exercising their 1st Amendment rights? A real Liberal, one who wants to silence their opposition. Are you going to have the IRS audit me next?

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Very good point. I found that funny as well. His response to me on the above is even more hilarity.

I think people are simply lazy. It is easier to assume all members of group X believe what they believe rather than educate themselves.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

The kind asking you to educate yourself before proving how ignorant you are to even more folks?

I am not the government nor did I ask the government to silence you. So I cannot infringe on your first amendment rights.

For your sake I hope you are trolling, otherwise I feel bad for you. When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, most people would stop digging.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

And the roots of the Republican party are (from the Wikipedia article)

"Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party"

So the Democratic party, is a party based on "Liberal" ideology and Locke's philosophy of the social contract. If that is true, why were Democrats the party of slavery and Jim Crowe laws?

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[the eric conspiracy]

Scalia is not a type-castable conservative. He has often voted with the liberal judges when it comes to defense of the Bill of Rights.

Breyer is really the only exception here. To be honest I've never liked the stuff he's written.

There are plenty of conservative governors who have supported expanded DNA testing. Your example of O'Malley only suggests he is not as liberal as you seem to think.

For example the law in that liberal bastion of the state of Arizona:

K. If a person is arrested for any offense listed in subsection O, paragraph 3 of this section and is transferred by the arresting authority to a state, county or local law enforcement agency or jail, the arresting authority or its designee shall secure a sufficient sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for deoxyribonucleic acid testing and extraction from the person for the purpose of determining identification characteristics. The arresting authority or its designee shall transmit the sample to the department of public safety.

Likewise that deep blue(?) state of Alabama:

The Department of Public Safety shall collect for inclusion into the DNA registration system a blood sample, oral sample, or both, from:

(6) a person arrested for a crime against a person or a felony under AS 11 or AS 28.35, or a law or ordinance with elements similar to a crime against a person or a felony under AS 11 or AS 28.35.

The fact is that DNA testing of arrestees is not a liberal position.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

The only hole in this conversation is your pathetic defense at the indefensible. Liberalism is not what you pretend it to be. Apparently you live in Obama-mania-land, where reality is merely what you want it to be and not the reality of the world. Liberalism in America is marching lock-step towards complete Communism, and is almost there. Government regulations, like Maryland taxing landowners for any surface which does not allow water to permeate into the ground, are further intrusions on freedom.

You defense is to say "no we're not communists, we just want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor," which is exactly what I said earlier.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[pixelpusher220]

Uh, the claim is that copies are maintained forever in databases. My actual experience says differently. Everybody else does seem to believe they are stored...so the question is where does that belief come from? i.e. a source for the claim.

And this is also very fertile ground for ACLU and such organizations to be involved - if they are keeping records forever, it likely would be challenged...and there'd be a record of it somewhere win or lose.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Wow, you went full retard. Never go full retard.

I commend you on your trolling. If you are not trolling, please call the local loony bin they are surely looking for you.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[gatkinso]

So they draft a law forbidding that practice.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[tompaulco]

People who strongly believe in gun rights, who believe it is fair for citizens to take up arms against the government when the government overreaches its powers, would agree with the SCOTUS and say it is quite fair to take DNA sample at the time of arrest.
Even though it is pretty clear by now that your supposition is entirely false, I will also go ahead and add my voice, and that of all the dozens of other gun owners that I know, that there is no way a gun owner would be in favor of DNA sampling.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[Holi]

Except you have no right of revolution. That is what I find so ridiculous about 2nd amendment fanatics (I am not saying all gun owners are 2nd amendment fanatics) who believe the 2nd amendment gives them a right to overthrow the government. Remember the minute you open fire on an authority figure all your rights basically disappear regardless of what the constitution says.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

Are you actually Jay Carney? You are great at deflecting questions and using personal attacks to avoid the questions. So I will leave you to your Kool-Aid and Obamaphone.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

I am not sir.

I am not attacking you at all, I just was forced to assume you are a great troll. You redefine words and make stuff up to suit your world view. You also sucked me into a conversation that I should have known would not be productive.

I think you mean Reaganphone.

Wow... yeah, I don't get on here much as...

[Nexion]

the news outside the geek sphere seems more important these days. If you hadn't noticed our country is going to hell in a hand basket RAPIDLY. Tearing itself apart as it seems the majority mindset of densely populated areas attempts to overreach likely to end in an armed conflict where no one wins. It will likely all die down replaced by defacto anarchy after the monetary system collapses in the not so distant future. Then a group that has been preparing for just this event will make use of left over resources to clean up the millions dead due to starvation, and likely deliver aid in densely armored delivery vehicles rocking no shortage of ammo. They will of course rebuild without that annoying constitution thing that allows the slaves to get all uppity about their "rights". Of course the whole world will go to crap as the international monetary system is based on worthless paper with little gold to back it up. Some will recover better then others. Me? I'll do alright. Always kept a few things handy if something like this ever happened. The body armor specifically capable of taking many 9mm SMG hits is new tho. :P

There is humor in it if you look. Remember all those people who pointed out all the bad stuff Bush had done? I love poking barbs of fact at them and watch them squirm defending Obama. Typically either implying racism, religious fervor or that I'm a "tea bagger". I love to then point out that my love of democracy, liberty and love for our republic against their fanatical fascism is something my fiance from El Salvador and I will speak of and laugh about later at dinner. A dinner we wont pray before eating as we are agnostic. Cheers.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[h4rr4r]

Because over the years things change. Which is why all those southern democrats became republicans.

What you are referring to was called the "Southern strategy", the democrats abandoned it and the republicans took up the mantle. Which is why they are now dying as a party. Appealing to old racists and homophobes only works for so long.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

It's true. People are very lazy. They're physically lazy and intellectually lazy. I don't think we're that way by default, I think we're that way when our needs and wants have been mostly met. There are, obviously, exceptions...

Take, for example, a post I had above. It was modded "troll." They modded it troll when, frankly, it is hardly trolling. It was an in-kind response to your post. You weren't offended, you weren't being led on to get the most response for the smallest amount of effort, nor was it particularly inflammatory or the likes. They're just intellectually lazy and rather than opining, expressing their views (which I'm quite encouraging of and don't, at all, expect people to agree with mine) so they modded it troll.

I think your description of them as Slashdot Libertarians (I like that, a lot, by the way) is pretty spot on. They are shameful. I don't mind but, frankly, that's the best way I can describe them. The damage they've done to my party's name is unrepairable at this point and they don't even know what the platform is about. They latched on to one or two things, decided to take them to extremes, and have been very vocal with their absurd views. I encourage people to do this but not at the expense of sacrificing a platform because no, they don't even come close to representing the platform. Form your own party if you're going to be like that.

And yes, the reality IS that they came along in 2007-2008 and were so embarrassed by Bush that they dropped the Republican letter and co-opted the Libertarian name while actually knowing nothing about the party, the planks, or (as near as I can tell) having been invited to speak for the party. The party size trebled over just a couple of years. I've been a dues paying member since the early 80s though I'm registered as an Independent (which is actually the Independent/Green party here in Maine, I'm not a greenie so don't really like it but that's how it is) and I know a number of us aren't at all impressed with how this happened and the results. However, you can't just kick them out and they brought in more members than already existed in the party... So, yeah, I don't usually bother describing myself as a Libertarian any more. It used to be that it was easier, simpler, and closest to my actual ideology. Now it is not so simple to describe.

Real differences

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that finger prints on a glass surface would give authorities your DNA anyway. It might be a bit more difficult to decode due to the sample size.
                      What may be behind all of this is that the founders probably had no clue that photography and finger prints would ever be a reality and that as
long as a man moved a hundred miles or so his history was lost to his new neighbors giving him a chance at a new start. They had no way to foresee a man convicted of a lesser crime being condemned to being a life long second class person.
                      But another reality kicks in. Although it gave people a way to start over who where good people who simple broke a law once upon a time it also gave very bad people an opportunity to keep doing wrong. As the Christian church plays a smaller role in most peoples' lives these days we have a great number of people who get by by moving about and creating a life of perpetual criminal activity.
                      Protesting DNA collection is very similar to protesting being photographed and finger printed. Making the information quickly and easily available on the net further leads to a loss of ability to conceal errors of past years. Frankly it is not going to change. The message people need to get is to live a much more perfect life. Be admirable at all times. A tall order to say the least.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[CanHasDIY]

Except you have no right of revolution.

I never said I do; I said I am a believer in the right to revolution, which is completely different from claiming such a right actually exists.

That is what I find so ridiculous about 2nd amendment fanatics (I am not saying all gun owners are 2nd amendment fanatics) who believe the 2nd amendment gives them a right to overthrow the government.

Once again, no one I've spoken with has ever, ever claimed that the 2nd Amendment (proper noun, FYI) "gives them a right to overthrow the government." What it does, and why it exists, is to give Americans the tools necessary to limit oppressive government and, if necessary, defend our civil liberties with force. This meaning is quite obvious if you take the time to read the plethora of writings submitted by the founding fathers who wrote said amendment; Thomas Jefferson in particular is famous for his adamant claims that people should revolt every few decades, lest the overbearing pressure of bloated bureaucracy crush our liberties beneath it's burgeoning mass.

Remember the minute you open fire on an authority figure all your rights basically disappear regardless of what the constitution says.

Right, because other citizens have been conditioned to believe that rights are individual and thus, we are each responsible for defending our own liberties. Were we to somehow remove this indoctrination, and replace it with the understanding that civil rights will only exist so long as we, collectively, are willing to defend the rights of those we disagree with, I imagine the ability of the federal government to ignore them would vanish post haste. To summarize, via a paraphrasing of Benjamin Disraeli, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Very, very slippery slope here...

[tekrat]

So, any guesses as to how long before a DNA swab is required by the TSA before you can board a plane???

Mentality

[Synerg1y]

This is the whole lets see what you have if you have nothing to hide type decision. The theory being that somebody brought in for being rowdy might be a car thief from the neighboring state, but how about some competent police work to catch the thief in the other state rather than assuming anybody they pick up can be guilty?

The pigs of authority have scored a major blow here, and we're two steps closer to becoming an Orwellian state.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[the eric conspiracy]

The dichotomy between the Democratic party of Kennedy and that of Wallace is well documented. The transformation of America and the civil rights movement (opposed by conservatives like Goldwater) led to the change of party adherence by MLK and his followers from Republican to Democrat. This change drove the southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmond is a good exemplar of this transition.

Since then Republicans have represented the classical conservative viewpoint in America.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[cshark]

I think you would be challenged to find anyone in America who wasn't arrested at 20 years old for the crazy shit 20 year olds do. And who cares if they were? Jeez, man. Truth be told, some of the best programmers in the industry have dark moments in their pasts. I personally know at least two major players in the open source world that have done time in actual, real life prison. If you're worried about background checks, you're missing the point. Someone's past is not an accurate indicator of how they will behave, or what they will accomplish at your company, good or bad. Someone with no criminal record is no less likely to burn down your office as the guy who spent time in prison for arson. That's the world we live in, friends. People snap. It fucking happens. If you've been doing this for any period of time, you've probably snapped at least once yourself. So get off the high horse people. If you treat people decently, and give them the basic human respect they deserve, you're not going to have any serious issues with anyone. Treat people badly, and you deserve every bit of what you're going to get back, and probably more. The only thing that I would care about, if I were hiring someone would be a long history of mental illness. And that kind of thing almost never shows up in a criminal check, so good luck with that.

Not a big deal

[Nukenbar]

If you have a job of any importance with dealing with money or a security clearance you already have to give your finger prints for your license/clearance anyway.

If they want a swab from my cheek as well, go ahead.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[moeinvt]

If I'm "allowed" to buy my own insurance, that's not a "single payer" healthcare system, is it? If service providers are "allowed" to operate outside the system (e.g. taking only direct payment) that's not "single payer" healthcare either. You're talking about a welfare program.

You also endorse a tax on wage earnings to fund the state and welfare programs? I can see how explaining to people that you're really a "libertarian" could be a long winded endeavor.

I prefaced my comment with the idea about ideological purges because I don't believe in alienating potential allies. There are some liberty activists who will not accept the idea of ANY government whatsoever. In my experience, they tend to be the greatest ideologues and create a split with people who accept limited Constitutional government to the detriment of both. I'm actually a Henry George type libertarian because I see resource monopoly as the existence of a de-facto "state" run by the land owners.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[interkin3tic]

Not all government action is the same. Some government actions set reasonable standards for the common good. Others erode our rights. If you're unable to distinguish between the two, don't vote.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[interkin3tic]

Since your only objection to this invasive information gathering seems to be about how the DNA will be used to deny you health care, I'd like to point out that there's a very simple way to address your major concern: universal healthcare.

Simple in principle but not simple to implement short of a magic political wand. And a much more simple way would just be not to do it. Like as in, don't keep DNA samples of people who have been arrested, get a damn warrant. Lastly, don't assume that I bothered to list everything that makes it a bad idea.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Rene S. Hollan]

The statute of limitations on class C felonies in WA is five years.

All my communications with the DA were through my attorney.

Sue to get them dropped? Unlikely. There was probable cause for an arrest (the standard for which is very low).

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[ganjadude]

It has changed. Ive been trying to get my prints expunged from the records for a few years now over a false arrest

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[moeinvt]

Sorry, I thought the principles of non-aggression and voluntary association were inherent in all brands of libertarianism.

If "social libertarians" believe it's OK to take people's wealth under threat of violence, that a single monopolistic entity (government) should control the provision and exchange of ALL medical goods and services and that private parties can be forcefully prevented from having a voluntary relationship that involves exchange of medical goods and services, why don't they just call themselves "socialists"?

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Rene S. Hollan]

Well, it was a deputy prosecuting attrorney for Snohomish County in February/March 2010. I'll leave it at that.

As we had negotiated a plea bargain for a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in order to dispose felony asault on a minor charges, there are no grounds to sue.

I thought about it: here I was, carrying a screaming child into a store, with the child yelling, "Help, he is killing me. He is kidnapping me". A passerby might certainly think it was true and assault me. One standard for "disorderly conduct" in WA is doing something that invites assault. The classic example is uttering a racial epithet. As much as I thought I had done nothing wrong, the law is the law, and should I not like it, my options are to petition to have it changed. The standard met, I pled guilty to DC, and moved on with my (successful) petition for primary residential and sole legal custody of my kids. The judge in that case praised my choice to remove uncertainty about my being subject to future prosecution.

I had other options. I could have taken him back to his mother. I could have gone to the police with him and his shoes in bad shape. I could have called CPS. At the time, I thought anyone could see that this child was neiher being choked (he was screaming at the top of his lungs), and certainly not being killed. If police responed, the situation could have been made clear. I did not count on his hurting himself in vengeance so as to allege abuse, or his mother acting on it.

So, at this point it is best to (a) let it go, but (b) share how "the system" works, so others might be wary.

These days, local police know of his history of alleging abuse when he has some privilege revoked for bad behavior.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Rene S. Hollan]

Well, I am not in jail and I have primary residential and sole legal custody of my kids.

Make of that what you will.

Clean yourself up.

[VortexCortex]

See that dust mote wafting in the air? That dust on your computer screen, or the mantle? That's your dead skin. Your DNA. You left DNA in the disposable coffee cup you threw in the trash. Your hair fell out as you sat in a waiting room. Your DNA is everywhere you've been. But just because your DNA is somewhere, doesn't mean you have been.

What if I were planning a crime? Hmm, well, DNA evidence means an open and shut case. So, perhaps I hang out and look for someone who matches my physical build and appearance somewhat, what if that someone is you? Why, I could simply follow you around. Collect that hair from the seat you left. Accidentally drop my phone in the trash and come out with the disposed cup you tossed, with your saliva and fingerprints all over it. Note your schedule and ensure you won't have an alibi when I make the murder.

Currently we collect the evidence at the scene, but also look for motive and do real detective work, but we can do less of that now. The DNA Database pointed straight at you. You've got no motive, but your DNA and Fingerprints were all over the place and you match the description of a few eye witnesses, even if they couldn't pick you out of a lineup. You've got no alibi. The police "Like You" for the crime, and they've got no other suspects to go after... It's curtains for you. Of course you'll insist you're innocent, everyone does. I'm sure they can come up with some speculative reason why you would do the crime. Some past childhood event perhaps. Maybe I prey on victims I that you know, just to make it all the more easier to convict you.

With the evidence against you it'll be an open and shut case. If you confess and show you're remorseful for the brutal act, then maybe the courts will be merciful -- you'll be promised a less harsh sentence by the prosecution. I mean, what IS the truth? "It wasn't ME! Some guy who looked like me collected my DNA and fingerprints and observed my habits and killed someone I know to frame me!"

I can hear the gears turning now. Well, it IS all a VERY unlikely scenario isn't it? No one's actually going to do such a thing. Right? That's exactly what I'm betting the detectives, judge, and jurors will think, too...

DNA should NOT be held up as a magic bullet. It's everywhere. Everyone has access to your DNA. It should be used to prove innocence through non-matching DNA, or multiple different samples under the fingernails... If your DNA is found, that should just prove you exist, that's all. That could have came from anywhere. We don't need a DNA Database to prove two sets of DNA don't match, do we? We need a Database to quickly find someone to go after, right?

In the near future I'll be able to use a home stem cell kit to create whatever cells I want of yours, even semen. No jury will believe that some serial killer is cleverly plotting to use DNA against you, growing your DNA in a home lab to commit the perfect crime. It's a paranoid's delusion, not a "reasonable" doubt. Besides, if there were a string of serial killings, wouldn't the police notice that there were a bunch of murders that went unsolved? No. They wouldn't, eh? They'd have "their man" in those cases too...

Violence and coercion

[fyngyrz]

Should the matter ever arise, they will have to take it from me by violence.

Yes, well, the problem is... they will. And you cannot stop them; you cannot defend any resistance against them; and you cannot resist them effectively. The reality is that the government has absolute control and access to effectively unlimited violence (and therefore coercion), they simply need to choose to exercise it. The most likely trigger for such an exercise is any resistance to any action of theirs on your part.

Scalia

[mendax]

Then I was shocked to see Scalia was in the dissenting group.

Yes, so was I. That means that there is hope yet for that great foe of civil liberties.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Rakarra]

Charges rarely get "dropped". Cases simply don't get pressed.

It really depends on why the cases are "dropped." If the case is dropped because a person was innocent and the police catch the perpetrator of the crime, the innocent person will have a much higher chance of having their identification wiped and record cleared than if someone is released because the prosecution was unable to collect enough evidence to make a strong case against him.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[stanlyb]

Why proposed? I thought it is already accepted, and next year you have to provide your medical history along with your tax return.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[stanlyb]

Actually, every single government action is suspicious. I have yet to see even one that proves me wrong...

I hope there are limits on how the data is used

[modmans2ndcoming]

If they are limited to only holding the data collected so it can be used in criminal investigations then I am fine with it. It is no different than finger printing....If they are not limited to how it is used and by whom, then we should be concerned.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[phantomfive]

There is some truth to what you are saying, which is the reason the founders put so many checks and balances into the system. For the moment though, it is unlikely Obama wants to be a dictator, although sometimes he jokes about it. He's tried to limit (for example) what a president can do with drone strikes (possibly because he knows he won't be in office next term). And Bush didn't want to be a dictator either.

Part of your post is just a variation of the old, "the Man is keeping me down." Viewing your boss as an oppressor is infantile, and you should work to change that relationship as soon as possible.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[stanlyb]

or (c), forget about the whole story, and let your kid to live without you..

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[stanlyb]

It is really sad story, but now i see why i would never, never, ever, marry an american woman. Just like in the song...

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Rakarra]

I think there might be a 2.5, or just a corollary to #2 there: that many people with power know that someone or some class WILL be in charge, and they think they will make better, even more benevolent decisions. I know that sounds like #3 a little bit, but it's focusing on the people with power instead of those without. They want a police state because their police state will be what benefits everyone. And then there are those few who have power and don't want a police state/dictatorship because, although they might have an enlightened rule, whomever succeeds them most certainly will not.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[Rene S. Hollan]

She was Canadian. We had a marriage contract, executed in Quebec, CA. Unlike WA, "prenuptual agreements" have no weight there: marriage contracts are notarized, and can cover performance (who does what household duties) as well as assets. It required whoever does not work outside the home to maintain the home, raise the kids, etc. If both worked outside the home, we were to support the household in proportion to our incomes. Standard fare.

Well, she didn't. I remained faithful, but withheld certain "perqs" of marriage.

When she cheated, I figured I had the moral right to divorce her lazy ass. What I didn't realize was that, under WA law, her cheating gave her the right to have me thrown out of my own home, lest I be arrested, on the grounds that she was fearful that I might find out and get violent. So that I might support our kids, I left freely. Of course, that was construed as my abandoning our kids, so I had no chance at custody in the divorce. I regained it after she was found neglectful of them.

That marriage contract? Because it wasn't a prenup, it held no legal weight, precisely the reason we got a marriage contract instead of a prenup in the first place!

After the divorce, she was held in contempt for not selling the house she could not pay the mortgage on (for which I remained responsible, but with her having to make the payments, and I having a power of sale that I ended up exercising). When she lost custody, she alleged I never paid child suport for our son (I threw in an extra $100 a month for an allowance). The state hassled me for the money EVEN AFTER I provided canceled checks with her endorsement on them! I had to hire a lawyer to get them off my back.

But, the problem here isn't what she did as much as the laws that let her get away with it. And, for my part, I was stupid for having married her in the first place.

Then again, in the end, the kids were placed with me, with sole legal custody as well.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[gmhowell]

Finally? Damned glad I live in Oregon... dude, that's just raw.

You honestly think there's anywhere in the Western world, let alone the US, that doesn't fuck over men when it comes to their children and their babymommas? The position of the fucking may change, but the lack of lube is universal.

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[gmhowell]

If I ever committed a felony in the United States, once I got out of jail I would leave the country one way or another. You become a noncitzen after your conviction. What ever happened to rehabilitation?

There's a good chance that other countries would refuse you admittance with a felony in your history.

Re:Funny thing predicted.

[gmhowell]

Being a member of the ACLU and the NRA; it's more common than you think.

Re:The government is obsessed with felons

[iggymanz]

if the U.S. government labels you a "traitor" or "drug smuggler" you'll be doing that without a passport.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[KGIII]

You'd can insure most anything. I'm not a fan of taking that right away from you.

The other is reality, we need welfare. Otherwise we'll have peasants revolting. It's cheaper and a more stable society with welfare. Ideological purity is hampered by reality when common sense is used.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

"Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation and had supported the original senate version of the bill, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose.[16]"

Source: Check your facts

Cor blimey!

[sydbarrett74]

Scalia voted to maintain civil liberties rather than abrogate them? I think I see flying pigs outside my window, as well as demonic snowmen and cows mooing.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[TapeCutter]

Having a "tendency to belive a cop" does not in any way imply "they simply cannot fathom any circumstance where it would not be true". The tendency comes from the reasonable assumption that the cop is an independent witness who has nothing to gain. The adversarial court system exists to test that assumption. Pointing out the implementation flaws in that 1000 year old system is much easier than coming up with a better system.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[interkin3tic]

You're correct, though I think you're mixing up cause and effect.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[interkin3tic]

Laws against homicide? I'd feel like I was cherry-picking the most ridiculous example, except you made quite the blanket statement there.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[DigiShaman]

If I'm not mistaken, fingerprinting is now all digital. Perhaps it depends on your jurisdiction; I wouldn't know. But when I did contract IT work for a city hall that involved touching Police equipment, I was required to have my prints taken. That, and we had to undergo CLETS training.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[strikethree]

Very few Americans want anything like a police state.

Most Americans, hell, most people in the world, want most of the things that go into a police state. They all want someone else's email to be monitored, they want someone else stopped and searched because that person looks suspicious, they want the police and government bureaucrats all up in the other person's business. Oh, but they want freedom... for themselves... and the only way to maintain those freedoms is to keep everyone else closely monitored and controlled...

and the cognitive dissonance never kicks in. Welcome to planet Earth. Please enjoy your stay.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[moeinvt]

No, healthcare today hella-sucks, but it's because of massive intrusion by government, not profit-driven free marketeers.

Medicare and Medicaid create vast distortions in the market and set up a system of cost shifting which should not exist. In fact, this practice (charging similar customers different prices for the same goods) is illegal in most other industries. If government wants to play a role in healthcare, banning price discrimination would be a good start.
Then, there are government mandates like EMTALA which cause more cost shifting, especially onto those who don't have health insurance. That makes retail prices so unimaginably high that people who could otherwise self-insure must go to insurance companies.
Next, we have government forcing insurance companies to offer cookie-cutter policies which must cover particular services, even if the customer doesn't want a policy covering those services. Policies which are custom-designed for an individual would reduce costs.
With regard to drugs and medical devices, government creates a monopoly by banning re-importation of those items. In a free market, there's no way a drug would cost 90% less a few miles across the border.
Yes, the population is being extorted, but government is a primary cause of the problem. They've been messing with healthcare for 40+ years and the current system is the result of their interference.

Real Life is not a 2 Party System

[rmdingler]

Yes. Beliefs held dear to an individual seldom follow a straight party line, discounting the ditto heads who repeat verbatim what they hear on their single source of news and information. I find myself agreeing in principle with different parts of both conservative and liberal political platforms, but it occurs to me that men/women in office from both sides of the aisle seem willing to compromise their political convictions to strengthen their positions. There is very nearly a cabal amongst entrenched power-wielding officials, and when your freedoms get in their way, it is arguably in their interest to weaken them,

NOT TO MENTION...

[rmdingler]

Planting DNA at a crime scene would be an order of magnitude easier than synthesizing fingerprints.

The key is intrusion into the body

[krsmav]

IAAL. Although the Supreme Court doesn't mention this, every case is explained by asking whether there is an intrusion into the body. The original case was Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). The police had a warrant and broke into Rochin's apartment. He quickly swallowed illegal drugs, and the police used a stomach pump to retrieve them. Although it was not a case involving a warrant, the Supreme Court held that stomach pumping "shocks the conscience," and the drug evidence should be suppressed. The court later upheld fingerprinting without a warrant, but last month, in Missouri v. McNeely, it struck down a warrantless blood test for blood alcohol. The test involved piercing the skin and a vein. The court said that this violation of bodily integrity required a warrant. Note that it was not an emergency. The police could have gotten a warrant and run the test before the defendant's blood alcohol level declined too far to be meaningful. Then just yesterday, in Maryland v. King, the court upheld a non-emergency warrantless swab inside the defendant's cheek where a DNA test revealed that the defendant had committed another crime. There was no piercing of the defendant's skin, and the cheek swab was painless.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[the eric conspiracy]

Nice cherry pick, but to left out the rest,

All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of all of the Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana) since Reconstruction

Waste of resources

[Troy from Montana]

Should have never even been brought to the supreme court level. DNA has always been taken upon a felony arrest so just behave yourself and no more kicking and spitting.

Re:Before blaming the evil right for this ruling..

[Sparticus789]

No cherry pick, you claimed "the civil rights movement (opposed by conservatives like Goldwater)"

I merely pointed out the fact that you were wrong, that Goldwater supported every other version of the Civil Rights Act except 1964.

Getting a traffic ticket is in lew of being taken

[Marrow]

Into custody. You are under arrest.

Really, did the magic DNA machine start flashing

[Marrow]

GUILTY! in bright lights with a fanfare of music?

Re:Really, did the magic DNA machine start flashin

[krsmav]

Figuratively, yes. The DNA analysis matched semen found in the vagina of a woman the guy had raped several years earlier. I can only assume that the victim and her family were pleased, or at least relieved, to know that the rapist had been caught.

DNA differs from fingerprints ... how?

[fd10801]

"your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason" said Justice Scalia. Yes, and so can your fingerprints (and, in fact they are). Justice Scalia must have had a better objection than that.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[phlinn]

Depends how you define murder. Killing someone who breaks into my house and is armed shouldn't be considered murder, but is in some jurisdictions I have a duty to retreat. If the government either denies me the right of self defense or selectively enforces the law (lynchings for instance), then it is indeed suspicious.

Homicide is not the same as murder, but I'm pretty certain you were thinking of the latter.

Re:It's not like fingerprinting

[ebvwfbw]

...With DNA, they use numbers like 1 in 20,000 chance of someone else having the same genetic profile.

Since you're an AC, you probably won't see this. However if you do PLEASE post your source. I understood that an exact DNA match was much less likely than a fingerprint match. I know it has certainly excluded people wrongfully convicted, even when there was reasonable doubt.

Re:What if the person is innocent?

[bonehead]

And I'm pretty sure the ACLU would be all over this type of thing if what you and others are saying.

And there's the hallmark of a true liberal. You don't have to think for yourself because "I'm sure someone else would have pointed this out if it were true.

Grow a fucking pair, be a man, do your own research.

You disgust me.

Off-topic

[cffrost]

Off-topic but related to abuse of power: I emailed admin on your behalf in regards to the apparent mod-abuse you've been suffering. I've seen another user's signature stating that admin fixed their karma after being mod-stalked; maybe they'll help you out.