"Civil liberties groups believe it is the long-term aim of the state to keep the DNA of everyone from birth." This is not paranoia.. Later the article states, "the Government is determined to increase the National DNA database from around 1.8m samples to at least 3.5m by next year." Basically, the more people that are accused, (however unconvicted) the more DNA samples may be collected, eventually reaching the goal of 'maximum security(?)' Sounds like the scientific approach to the Homeland Security Act. Parallel the government thinking you are a terrorist and taping into your phone lines to them believing you are guilty of a crime and comparing your DNA to that "collected" from the crime scene. Its Understood that this specific article suggests that the DNA of the relative "closely resembles" that of the convicted criminal which led to the guilt of the convict, however, DNA may be collected incorrectly, and therefore may lead to an incorrect conviction. Yes, from this article we learn of one occurence where similar DNA LEAD to the murderer admitting his crime, however, how many times has this strategy failed? And one must ask, how you may feel one day if you recieve a call to come in because YOUR DNA closely resembles that from the collected crime-scene. Or hell, matches so indefinitely that IF you do avoid conviction, your thousands of dollars in debt due to the lawyer you had to hire to get you out of this government-prompted b.s.
Slashdot Mirror
"Civil liberties groups believe it is the long-term aim of the state to keep the DNA of everyone from birth." This is not paranoia.. Later the article states, "the Government is determined to increase the National DNA database from around 1.8m samples to at least 3.5m by next year." Basically, the more people that are accused, (however unconvicted) the more DNA samples may be collected, eventually reaching the goal of 'maximum security(?)' Sounds like the scientific approach to the Homeland Security Act. Parallel the government thinking you are a terrorist and taping into your phone lines to them believing you are guilty of a crime and comparing your DNA to that "collected" from the crime scene. Its Understood that this specific article suggests that the DNA of the relative "closely resembles" that of the convicted criminal which led to the guilt of the convict, however, DNA may be collected incorrectly, and therefore may lead to an incorrect conviction. Yes, from this article we learn of one occurence where similar DNA LEAD to the murderer admitting his crime, however, how many times has this strategy failed? And one must ask, how you may feel one day if you recieve a call to come in because YOUR DNA closely resembles that from the collected crime-scene. Or hell, matches so indefinitely that IF you do avoid conviction, your thousands of dollars in debt due to the lawyer you had to hire to get you out of this government-prompted b.s.