Slashdot Mirror
Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests
schwit1 sends this news from the Washington Times:
"Pennsylvania police this week were pulling people to the side of the road, quizzing them on their driving habits, and asking if they'd like to provide a cheek swap or a blood sample — the latest in a federally contracted operation that's touted as making roads safer. The same operation took place last month at a community in Texas. Then, drivers were randomly told to pull off the road into a parking lot, where white-coated researchers asked if they'd like to provide DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol at given times. With uniformed police in the background, the researchers also offered the motorists money — up to $50 or so — for the blood or saliva samples."
What?
Who'd really buy into that?
"Here, take my biological information. You want to use it to create an army of biologically superior clones? That's nice. Oh, $50? Even better!"
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
No, I do not consent to any search.
[
What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?
I don't think pulling people over for research is a reasonable use of police power. Actual enforcement, maybe, but not for research.
Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Come on, of course it's just for study. Why else would the National Science Academy form the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge? What, to get DNA linked to drivers licenses? Of course not! The National Science Academy already has all of that information.
This is just a benign, voluntary research campaign. So please, listen to the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge and just hand over your DNA. We would also appreciate a few ovums from a selection of healthy, attractive ladies aged 18-25. For research purposes of course!
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
to make sure everyone understands that it is voluntary.
If uniformed police officers are pulling you off the road in marked cars with flashing lights, your participation is hardly voluntary.
What happens if you decline to answer the questions of the men in white coats a little too firmly? Well, an officer with badge and gun is right there to show you the error of your ways!
I'm amazed the local chapter of the ACLU is merely "watching the operation closely" (per the article).
... approved this study?
Pretty much all studies involving human subjects in the U.S. have to be approved by a review board for compliance with ethical and safety standards. This study is an obvious fail in multiple respects, and I can't imagine a reputable review board approving such a thing. And if it wasn't reviewed, the study participants^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H victims of the study probably have standing to sue.
http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63
They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.
More information and links to past examples of these "studies":
http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/20/texas-cops-force-drivers-off-the-road-to-give-dna-to-federal-contractors/
This is one of those things where LE thinks how easy their job would be and how much more effective they could be if they had everyone's DNA on file and people of course worry about anyone having that kind of power.
We're not Norway (unfortunately by my lights) people. If we dont' trust each other with this level of information,maybe that's because we know each other and we therefore ought to listen to ourselves.
Sure all knowledge and power and everything could *could* be used just totally for good and never for evil. And? And? And your argument is?
Pretending that a corrosive kind of corruption isn't being enabled with these kinds of god-level knowledge of what everyone does, is, thinks, where they go and who they talk to- pretending that this doesn't enable evil (as well as good) or that the evil is just SO unlikely, is just stupid and quite frankly anyone trying to pass themselves off as incensed that I should worry about this , or to paint me as WAAAAY out there, is not even naive in my view, but most likely a manipulative liar.
We know ourselves. We grew up here , went to elementary school here, got our first jobs here and we've seen what we've seen and know what we know about ourselves. Thus the popular resistance to such measures. .
They offered $50 for my DNA and arrested me when I whipped it out and started masturbating. I want my $50, dammit.
You want some depressing shit?
Read this for a while:
http://fear.org/
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?
THL phish sticks
$50 is a lot more to a lot of people than you think. If you have a secure job or a lot of money it may seem like surrendering your privacy for nothing important. But for some people that means a chance to eat more than beans and rice this month, a phone card that could land them a job, or a 5 month overdue oil change.
Perspective is important.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Voluntary is having a sign "$50 for a cheek swab, next right". Involuntary is police directing you to testing area. Period.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
This isn't about DNA or road safety it is a test to see how much shit people will take from their government and what additional compliance can be purchased with money.
I sure don't teach Them to do that. Every defense Lawyer, Prosecutor, and police Officer I have ever spoken with has consistently told Me the same thing: if the Police say They want to talk with You, You give one answer, "Not without My Attorney's approval."
Twenty or thirty years ago there used to be people called "journalists" whose job it was to (a) collect enough data so you could figure out what happened, and (b) write it up in an intelligible story.
Look at the linked story *critically*. How does the "reporter" know DNA was being taken? What is his source for this, or is he just guessing?
This story is basically rumor -- passing along what's on the grapevine. There's no actual reporting here. If there were, that would answer the questions a reasonable person might have. For example: are the researchers collecting DNA or not? And who *are* these researchers? Can we get a name please? Or an institution?
Back in the day a reporter would have identified the researchers and called them up for an interview, or at least a statement from the research institution's public affairs office. He'd look up the grant in the federal records and find out whether or not the researchers had been granted money to collect DNA and what they are being paid to do with it (yes, you can do that!). He'd may even have interviewed people on the institutional review board (required by US law) that approved the project.
But the "reporter" in this case did none of this. She appears not to have done *any* verification or independent research. A story like this would take a real reporter two or three days to nail down, not two or three phone calls.
I'm not saying some horrendous violation of civil liberties could not have taken place, I'm saying the writer of the article didn't do enough work for anyone to decide what did or did not happen. This is not reporting, it's *blogging* under a byline.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Remember: It's only being done in red states by state police.
Since when is Pennsylvania a "red state?"
Better zip up, your confirmation bias is showing.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There are only two kinds of cops: 1.) Bad cops and 2.) Accessories after the fact.
"You can have my DNA when you suck it out of my dick."
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Notice how they're only doing this in a few states? I have a feeling this sample collection has nothing to do with DUI or any research..... I have a feeling they're looking for someone specific via DNA from already-collected evidence in some ongoing case.
C|N>K
Since when is Pennsylvania a "red state?"
In terms of the state government? 2012.
Governor - Tom Corbett, Republican
Lieutenant Governor - Jim Cawley, Republican
Pennsylvania House of Representatives - 110 Republican, 92 Democrat, 1 Vacant
Pennsylvania State Senate - 27 Republican, 23 Democrat
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - 4 Republican, 3 Democrat
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
He's likely referring to the presidential election. As the electoral votes are awarded on a popular vote, with gerrymandered districts NOT figured (directly..) into the outcome, he clearly forgets that the State GOP has deemed that their continued representation of a minority through use of gerrymandered districts is more important than having a representative democracy.
Happens all the time.