My problem with the Children's Safety Act

[Ghostwheel]

In a nutshell:

`(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, detained, or convicted under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

What this means is that if anyone is detained for any reason, including a broken taillight or violating curfew, they can take DNA samples from you. I have no doubt that as soon as it is allowed, an easy way to take DNA samples will surface, and anyone who is ever stopped for any reason will be forced to have their DNA taken, even if it is a bogus charge. Once they get the DNA, you can't make them give it back. How do you think the nation is going to feel about Big Brother having DNA from their children (or even their own) in a database somewhere?

IMO, this alone could kill this initiative.

[SewingDeb]

In a nutshell:

`(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, detained, or convicted under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

What this means is that if anyone is detained for any reason, including a broken taillight or violating curfew, they can take DNA samples from you. I have no doubt that as soon as it is allowed, an easy way to take DNA samples will surface, and anyone who is ever stopped for any reason will be forced to have their DNA taken, even if it is a bogus charge. Once they get the DNA, you can't make them give it back. How do you think the nation is going to feel about Big Brother having DNA from their children (or even their own) in a database somewhere?

IMO, this alone could kill this initiative.

I think DNA should be taken upon conviction. I understand where they are coming from in wanting DNA to compare to evidence in other cases. It would probably clear many cold cases.

Speaking for myself, I would have no problem with LE collecting DNA from family members, etc....heck, I will give a sample. There is already an easy way to collect DNA via a cheek swab with an oversized Q-tip.

We're all in the system one way or another. What's the big deal about taking a DNA sample?

[Bobbisangel]

I personally think it is a great idea. I would like to see every single person living give a DNA sample. I would also like to see each state start putting finger prints on driver's licenses. Eventially every person or most anyway would have DNA and finger prints on file. I think this would solve a lot of cases. Think of the case there are where LE have finger prints from a crime scene but no one to match them to because the person doesn't have a criminal history. I think it is about time the government gets down to business.

Remember when random UA testing was first brought up? Some people just had a fit. I always thought...if you aren't into drugs what is there to fear? Now everyone that I know who has applied for a job has to give a UA...no big deal. I think it is great. People will adjust to giving a DNA sample too.

[SeriouslySearching]

It is a double edged sword. While LE having the DNA samples of the criminal element is a great thing...having the DNA of John Q. Public at large could lead to other issues such as being able to plant such as evidence. It is rather a scary thought for LE to have too much control over DNA and how it can be accessed.

I agree DNA should only be taken in Felony convictions.

[SewingDeb]

Good point about planted evidence, Seriously Searching. I don't think the police should have physical custody of the actual DNA...they should only have the printed report and the information entered into CODIS.

[IrishMist]

IMO, the only legal way to collect it is from those that are convicted. Once convicted of a crime, your rights change. Until then, it's unconstitutional. As an American, you have a right to privacy, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Having freedom can be messy, but, as Thomas Jefferson said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

[believe09]

I agree with those erring on the side of conviction prior to the collection of DNA-Folks, we have had our personal liberties narrowed enough in our post 911 world. Tell me, has airport profiling and identity checks yielded any terrorists? Don't you think if it had, the current administration would be trumpeting it to the world? Next will be our medical/insurance histories microchipped-anyone get a sense of what is going on with the VA lately? Only recently thousands of vets had their information stolen or lost...and that was from a government agency! We cannot restrict the many for the benefit of the few; I would love cold cases solved as much as anyone...I work and pray about them. I have one contained within my extended family-but I don't want this done at the expense of my personal freedom.

Who are you if you do not have a driver's license, a SS card, a birth certificate. You do not exist-yet here on WS we have a case of a live, healthy intelligent individual who has amnesia. He cannot work, obtain benefits, have a bank account, a credit card, a driver's license because he cannot "prove" his identity. Yet he exists...it is crazy.

[SewingDeb]

There is a DNA test kit that will soon be on the shelf in the stores, if it is not already available.

[Levi]

In a nutshell:

`(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, detained, or convicted under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

What this means is that if anyone is detained for any reason, including a broken taillight or violating curfew, they can take DNA samples from you. I have no doubt that as soon as it is allowed, an easy way to take DNA samples will surface, and anyone who is ever stopped for any reason will be forced to have their DNA taken, even if it is a bogus charge. Once they get the DNA, you can't make them give it back. How do you think the nation is going to feel about Big Brother having DNA from their children (or even their own) in a database somewhere?

IMO, this alone could kill this initiative.
Why would someone have a problem with giving their DNA unless they have something to hide?

I'm not going to buy into this fear mongering from the ACLU types that think that passing tough laws on child sex offenders is going to cause us to loose all our freedoms.

[Levi]

I agree with those erring on the side of conviction prior to the collection of DNA-Folks, we have had our personal liberties narrowed enough in our post 911 world. Tell me, has airport profiling and identity checks yielded any terrorists? Don't you think if it had, the current administration would be trumpeting it to the world? Next will be our medical/insurance histories microchipped-anyone get a sense of what is going on with the VA lately? Only recently thousands of vets had their information stolen or lost...and that was from a government agency! We cannot restrict the many for the benefit of the few; I would love cold cases solved as much as anyone...I work and pray about them. I have one contained within my extended family-but I don't want this done at the expense of my personal freedom.

Who are you if you do not have a driver's license, a SS card, a birth certificate. You do not exist-yet here on WS we have a case of a live, healthy intelligent individual who has amnesia. He cannot work, obtain benefits, have a bank account, a credit card, a driver's license because he cannot "prove" his identity. Yet he exists...it is crazy.

I don't understand how we have had our personal liberties narrowed since 9/11. The Patriot Act IMO is a very good legislation, I think we should have thought about that before 9/11.

The Patriot Act just doesn't fight terrorism, but the justice department has been using it to catch child pornographers.

I'm just not worried, because I am not a child pornographer, drug trafficker, black mailer, spy, or a corrupt foreign leader.

Who would argue that a tool that cracks down on child predators or domestic terrorists is a bad tool?

[Levi]

I personally think it is a great idea. I would like to see every single person living give a DNA sample. I would also like to see each state start putting finger prints on driver's licenses. Eventially every person or most anyway would have DNA and finger prints on file. I think this would solve a lot of cases. Think of the case there are where LE have finger prints from a crime scene but no one to match them to because the person doesn't have a criminal history. I think it is about time the government gets down to business.

Remember when random UA testing was first brought up? Some people just had a fit. I always thought...if you aren't into drugs what is there to fear? Now everyone that I know who has applied for a job has to give a UA...no big deal. I think it is great. People will adjust to giving a DNA sample too.
I agree 100%

[lightwaveryder]

dna testing is not always 100% accurate, especially in the case of men who have the same father but different mothers, there have been cases where multiple samples taken under different conditions yield different results.

imagine your half brother gets arrested, and is being charged with murder. He says you did the killing and is willing to testify against you in court. he gets a sweet deal and you go to jail and you never did anything wrong.



these things happen.

you must consider all options when looking at something like this.





~lightwaveryder~

[justche]

Why would someone have a problem with giving their DNA unless they have something to hide?

I'm not going to buy into this fear mongering from the ACLU types that think that passing tough laws on child sex offenders is going to cause us to loose all our freedoms.

I have a problem with it - and I don't have anything to hide.
Talk about the epitome of privacy breech. I shouldn't have to prove I'm not guilty of some random what if.
There's not an agency out there that I would trust to safeguard the information.

[SewingDeb]

dna testing is not always 100% accurate, especially in the case of men who have the same father but different mothers, there have been cases where multiple samples taken under different conditions yield different results.

imagine your half brother gets arrested, and is being charged with murder. He says you did the killing and is willing to testify against you in court. he gets a sweet deal and you go to jail and you never did anything wrong.



these things happen.

you must consider all options when looking at something like this.








~lightwaveryder~

That's not the way I understand it. A man will not have the exact same DNA as his father since he gets half from his mother and half from his father. There will not be a match with the father so the son can be ruled out by DNA. That's what's really good about it as far as justice is concerned.

[Pepper]

IMO, the only legal way to collect it is from those that are convicted. Once convicted of a crime, your rights change. Until then, it's unconstitutional. As an American, you have a right to privacy, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Having freedom can be messy, but, as Thomas Jefferson said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Then how do you explain fingerprints? When someone is arrested they are fingerprinted and a mug shot taken. This is BEFORE conviction. How is this any different than collecting DNA?

I am a licensed contractor. I had to give up my prints in order to be licensed. My husband is a teacher. He also had to be printed in order to have his job. I don't see how DNA is any different.

[Pepper]

That's not the way I understand it. A man will not have the exact same DNA as his father since he gets half from his mother and half from his father. There will not be a match with the father so the son can be ruled out by DNA. That's what's really good about it as far as justice is concerned. That's my understanding too. The only time DNA is identical to another family member is in the case of identical twins.

[Zanko]

I think it's a great idea to take DNA. But with the current backlog I'm afraid it would take 10 years to get the data entered! Especially if they are taking everyone's DNA who is arrested. Might be more feasible to take DNA from those convicted, even with a misdemeanor.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Yeah, I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal. :rolleyes:

What's that sound? Oh, just the Framers rolling in heir graves.

4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Pepper]

Yeah, I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal. :rolleyes:

What's that sound? Oh, just the Framers rolling in heir graves.

4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But no one is addressing my question below. If you can take fingerprints from anyone for any reason, why not DNA? What's the difference?

Then how do you explain fingerprints? When someone is arrested they are fingerprinted and a mug shot taken. This is BEFORE conviction. How is this any different than collecting DNA?

I am a licensed contractor. I had to give up my prints in order to be licensed. My husband is a teacher. He also had to be printed in order to have his job. I don't see how DNA is any different.

[4eyedbuzzard]

But no one is addressing my question below. If you can take fingerprints from anyone for any reason, why not DNA? What's the difference?

The government can't take fingerprints from anyone for any reason. You freely chose to pursue professions and employers that required it as a condition of employment/commerce. And whether I agree with that or not is immaterial. But the justification for further intruding on the right to be secure in one's personal effects cannot simply be that (via due process) we have done so in the past in certain limited instances and situations. There is no probable cause or evidence to suggest that every citizen should be allowed to be searched and their DNA seized.

[SewingDeb]

I don't see anyone going door to door seizing DNA. I don't have a problem with DNA being taken upon arrest. It has freed many innocent people.

[ckhagen]

I don't see anyone going door to door seizing DNA. I don't have a problem with DNA being taken upon arrest. It has freed many innocent people.

Just because you're arrested does not meant you've done anything wrong and your rights should still be preserved. The first time you get arrested because the DMV accidentally listed your tag number as stolen, you might change your mind about that. (ask me how I know :furious: ) Lots of people get arrested for very minor things that most of us wouldn't even consider an arrest-able offense. I don't think that they should be stripped of their rights to hold on to their own biological profile.

[SewingDeb]

Just because you're arrested does not meant you've done anything wrong and your rights should still be preserved. The first time you get arrested because the DMV accidentally listed your tag number as stolen, you might change your mind about that. (ask me how I know :furious: ) Lots of people get arrested for very minor things that most of us wouldn't even consider an arrest-able offense. I don't think that they should be stripped of their rights to hold on to their own biological profile.

Your fingerprints and photo are taken at booking as another poster has stated. This is before conviction and for identification purposes. DNA would also be for identification purposes. There would be no need to keep the actual biological material once there is a written report and it is entered into the system.

You lose a lot of rights at the point of arrest and it doesn't matter how minor the matter is if you are suspected of breaking the law. Why should this be any different?

I personally would not care if LE has my DNA or not. I have worked in two professions that required fingerprints so I am already in the system.

[Pepper]

Your fingerprints and photo are taken at booking as another poster has stated. This is before conviction and for identification purposes. DNA would also be for identification purposes. There would be no need to keep the actual biological material once there is a written report and it is entered into the system.

You lose a lot of rights at the point of arrest and it doesn't matter how minor the matter is if you are suspected of breaking the law. Why should this be any different?

I personally would not care if LE has my DNA or not. I have worked in two professions that required fingerprints so I am already in the system.

Exactly! If you can take fingerprints and mug shots when arrested, then why not DNA? I don't see the difference.

[Spazkat9696]

You know what I don't care if they have my DNA because I'm not a criminal.

[Grainne Dhu]

Why would someone have a problem with giving their DNA unless they have something to hide?

I don't trust the government to keep data safe. There are constantly media reports of various state and federal agencies discovering they've lost control of data from thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Keep in mind that your DNA isn't just a unique identifier; it can also reveal if you have certain conditions and, in the coming years, it is likely that it will reveal many more conditions.

So, say that you have diabetes. You're careful with your diet, your exercise, you follow all of your doctor's advice. If you pay for your health coverage yourself rather than getting it through your job, the fact that you have diabetes will increase your premium. I know--I had to drop my health insurance when my premium went over $1350/month with a $15K deductible, no prescription med coverage. And that policy only covered me, no one else. It didn't matter that I had "perfect" control of my diabetes (according to my endocrinologist) and it didn't matter that I was never ill.

What if you have the genes for Huntington's Disease? Onset is late 30s to late 50s, predictable by how many copies of the defective base pair you have (the more copies, the earlier the onset). Huntington's Disease is inevitably fatal and it involves involuntary movements, cognitive dysfunction and psychiatric disturbances.

How many employers do you think would be willing to hire a 35 year old who had lots of copies of the faulty base pair, indicating that they will probably experience early onset of symptoms? People with Huntington's are completely normal before the onset of symptoms... and they need to pay bills just like everyone else does.

There's a recent study that shows a very high correlation between a certain gene variant and PTSD. People who have the gene variant and who experience a traumatic event are highly likely to experience PTSD; people who have two copies of the gene are almost guaranteed to get PTSD if they experience a traumatic event. Would it be fair to treat someone who has that gene variant as if they were a walking time bomb even if they show no symptoms of PTSD? How about doctors--if an obstretician knows in advance that a woman may be predisposed to developing PTSD, might they be tempted to decline that woman as a patient so that if the delivery is traumatic, they won't incur increased liability?

If a teenager's DNA indicates that one or more sets of onco-control genes (genes that control/prevent cancer) turned off, would it be fair for a college to deny them admittance on the basis that they are likely to have a shortened life span, so using resources to give them an advanced education could better be used for another applicant who has all onco-control genes active.

Perhaps all of the above should be made common knowledge. Personally, I think it's no one's business except the person who owns that DNA. Yes, Huntington's Disease shortens a person's working life but that's a risk an employer runs with every new hire. Just because someone doesn't have the gene for Huntington's doesn't mean they won't be hit by a bus and become disabled!

If you are willing to give the government that sort of information about yourself, then you trust the government a whole lot more than I do. Even if the government itself does not misuse your information, it has already been clearly established that state and federal governments are not capable of keeping data safe.

[liltigress]

When I first started reading this thread, I thought I had no problem with DNA collections, but you sure make some valid points and plenty to consider, Grainne Dhu.

A while back, I saw on the news about a woman having to prove that her daughter was really her own daughter. Weird? Sure... It seems the mother had 2 DNAs depending on the location on her body it was taken. This is extremely rare, but it has happened. (I will search for that story).

So, with that to consider, I have wondered how many people have been cleared of a crime that they were truly guilty of? Or how many men were dismissed from their parental rights when they really were the father of that child?

Suddenly, implanting a chip into a person for identity purposes doesn't seem so far fetched to me. It could help identify or locate missing children/persons, just as it currently helps identify pets. :confused:

[Zanko]

The person with 2 DNAs is called a Chimera. I remember the story was a woman who needed to get a paternity test to prove the father of the child was his. Turned out that she was not the mother! Except, she was. She had different DNA in different parts of her body. She had to fight to keep her children! I think it was on a show called Medical Marvels or something like that.

[liltigress]

Zanko, I believe you are absolutely right about that. It was the first I'd heard of that happening and it kinda threw me for a loop then the questions started surfacing in my head about different scenarios. Thanks for that info. :)

[Grainne Dhu]

A while back, I saw on the news about a woman having to prove that her daughter was really her own daughter. Weird? Sure... It seems the mother had 2 DNAs depending on the location on her body it was taken. This is extremely rare, but it has happened. (I will search for that story).

Yes, Lydia Fairchild is what is called a chimera; when her mother got pregnant, there were two fraternal fetuses which became fused at a very early stage of cell division. It is thought to be a rare condition. Lydia Fairchild's story is extremely upsetting because at one point the Department of Human Services insisted on sending a witness to the actual birth of one of her children (the testimony of the doctor and nurses present at the previous two births was not considered proof that she had actually had those children!). Testing showed that it was not Ms Fairchild's child. The DHS then fabricated some weird story that Ms Fairchild was becoming pregnant via IVF, a procedure that costs $10+K per try.

And such is the prejudice against poor people in this country, she was suspected of abducting all three of her children, even the one whose birth was witnessed by a DHS employee. Did they seriously imagine that Ms Fairchild had abducted an infant and stuffed it inside herself??? Boggles the imagination.

So, with that to consider, I have wondered how many people have been cleared of a crime that they were truly guilty of? Or how many men were dismissed from their parental rights when they really were the father of that child?

It is still thought to be a very, very rare condition. Considering that humans spontaneously abort very easily (estimates are that over one third of all pregnancies spontaneously abort in the first 14 days), it's very rare for a fetus with such anomalies to survive.

Suddenly, implanting a chip into a person for identity purposes doesn't seem so far fetched to me. It could help identify or locate missing children/persons, just as it currently helps identify pets. :confused:

As the technology exists today, it would be difficult but not impossible for the radio frequency identity (RFID) chips to be misused. They have no power source in themselves, so in order to be read, they have to be activated by a source of radio waves pressed against the skin over the chip. Most people would notice some stranger coming up and pressing an RFID reader against their arm (or neck, another possible location for chips).

However, this is rapidly changing. There are now readers that can activate RFID chips from six inches away. In a crowd of people, someone waving an RFID reader would probably be more noticeable but perhaps not. It is not unlikely that within the next ten years there will be RFID readers that can pick up chips as far as ten feet away.

And then what happens? RFID chips, in and of themselves, don't carry much information. They can only carry an alphanumeric string. The reader picks up that alphanumeric string, then checks with a centralised database for the associated information.

And that's where I'm going "hold on, wait a minute, let's be thinking this over..." Central database? How secure will it be? As secure as the VA, which allowed the records of 200,000 (yes, two hundred thousand) soldiers be stolen?

If someone had an RFID reader and access to the database, what could they do with the info? One thing they would know is where you live and that you are for sure not home at the time. If you appear to be with a group of people including an adult male about your age and children, that's probably your family, so they aren't home either.

With your name and address, they can probably find out your birthdate. With those three pieces of information, they can then probably find out your parents' names and your mother's maiden name. With that information... they can access your billing information with many companies including many banks. They can probably open up credit card accounts in your name.

I've read a lot about ID theft in the last five years. Invariably victims of ID theft spend a great deal of time and energy clearing up the mess. Which is great, they eventually clear up the mess. But I'm betting they would rather have spent that time playing with their kids, watching movies, doing crafts or just lying in a hammock and listening to the birds chirp. Or maybe posting to Web Sleuths! Is there really anyone who wants to deal with numerous forms of bureaucracy, over and over and over?

I'm comfortable with the idea that people who have committed felonies forfeit certain rights. But should people who have never committed a crime be forced to assume the same sorts of risks?

[Zanko]

Very good points Grainne Dhu.

With the widespread fingerprinting done for anyone arrested or working in various fields including daycares, social services, LE, and so on, have there been any instances of information "leaks"?

In my field of work, I must be fingerprinted and this information is stored on a federal database. If my fingerprint was associated with a crime, the information that they extract would include my name, social security number, date of birth, address and so on. This is the same information that is currently in the DMV records, social security office, and so on. Although I do believe that there are breaches of security, I am not familiar with any cases where this information has been compromised. I'd be interested in reading more about it.

[liltigress]

I also have my fingerprints and information in the FBI files for my line of work, also for my license to carry a weapon. There is always the possibility of a security breach even with the Federal databases but they are still a must-have. I do understand in certain lines of work, some have to undergo a background check.

But, I'd have to say, if DNA collection is more productive than the fingerprinting system during an arrest and/or conviction, then I believe I am all for it.

My thought is... will the DNA be in code and entered into a database, or will the DNA extraction itself be available in a lab somewhere, or both? I really am ignorant as to how that would work. I would hope the chain of command would be so large on such a thing that it would be near impossible for someone to go in and pick out a particular vial (by number?) and spill it at a crime scene to pinpoint any particular innocent individual.

[Zanko]

Ya! How does it work? Would the actual sample be stored somewhere or would it come down to data entry?

[Grainne Dhu]

Very good points Grainne Dhu.

With the widespread fingerprinting done for anyone arrested or working in various fields including daycares, social services, LE, and so on, have there been any instances of information "leaks"?

Fingerprints are not, so far, highly susceptible to computer searches (unlike what is portrayed on TV). The fingerprint can be scanned and entered into a computer database but so far, the best computers can do is kick out a list of possible matches.

Remember the Brandon Mayfield case? He was a victim of a mistaken computer generated possible match based on his fingerprints from when he served in the military. A technician looked at the computer generated list of possibles and thought that Mr Mayfield's prints were a match.

Of course they weren't. But that wasn't discovered until his life had been subjected to considerable upheaval by the whole process.

In my field of work, I must be fingerprinted and this information is stored on a federal database. If my fingerprint was associated with a crime, the information that they extract would include my name, social security number, date of birth, address and so on. This is the same information that is currently in the DMV records, social security office, and so on. Although I do believe that there are breaches of security, I am not familiar with any cases where this information has been compromised. I'd be interested in reading more about it.

There have been so many, I don't feel able to list them. For a quick look at the scope of the problem, Google on "government database losses" (without the quote marks).

One of my closest friends works in computer security. He tells me that he has had to tell innumerable people "no, using a random password generator is not safe if you then write your random password on a Post-It and stick it to your computer!" You'd think that would be so completely obvious, no one would need to be told that. But, amongst the agencies he's been at where he has found people doing that? The IRS. What government agency has more of your personal data than the IRS?

He's also had to tell people to stop using their own names (first, middle or last) as passwords. And stop using birthdays. And stop using the name of your agency...

If I had his job, my head would be flat from beating it against the wall. He is easily the most patient man I have ever met.

[Grainne Dhu]

I would hope the chain of command would be so large on such a thing that it would be near impossible for someone to go in and pick out a particular vial (by number?) and spill it at a crime scene to pinpoint any particular innocent individual.

The way DNA is usually collected from an individual is by using a plastic swab thingie with very soft, tiny bristles to swish against the inside of the cheek. That picks up plenty of cells for testing and is difficult for someone to fake (the way blood can be faked, for instance).

There wouldn't be enough of a sample to be used to plant at a crime scene. I'm also certain that if someone's DNA came up as a match, the first step would be to collect a new swab from them just to make sure that there wasn't a mistake in the original entry (for instance, a tired data entry clerk accidentally transposes numbers or letters).

My concern is that the DNA code itself can reveal a lot about you and it reveals more each year. Pair that with the government's record with poor computer security and, well, people who have no business knowing about you could learn more than you would ever dream possible.

Pretty soon it will be possible to tell via DNA test who is likely to get multiple sclerosis. Would you want potential employers to be able to do a surreptitious check and then refuse to hire you, even though you are currently completely healthy because at some point in the future you may come down with MS?

The illegal check thing is already happening. It's very difficult to detect because if there are, say, ten qualified applicants for a job, only one will get hired and who's to say why the other nine were refused?

The price of your personal information is steadily going down. Five years ago, credit card information was worth $25 per active card (name, number, exp date) on the black market. Today, that same info is only worth 50 cents.

It is getting easier and cheaper all the time for people to get personal information. Why make it even easier?

[Medea]

My compromise is that they take the DNA of someone who is arrested for a VIOLENT felony and they have the option to petition to have the sample destroyed if they are found to be factually innocent and the police agree they are no longer a suspect, e.g. arrest was a mistake.

As far as the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why object'...that is the slipperiest of slippery slopes beyond which is a deep dark Orwellian rabbit hole where the citizen has no right to privacy whatsoever.

[LI_Mom]

My compromise is that they take the DNA of someone who is arrested for a VIOLENT felony and they have the option to petition to have the sample destroyed if they are found to be factually innocent and the police agree they are no longer a suspect, e.g. arrest was a mistake.

As far as the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why object'...that is the slipperiest of slippery slopes beyond which is a deep dark Orwellian rabbit hole where the citizen has no right to privacy whatsoever.

Especially when you consider the govt. is claiming the right to arrest people it labels "enemy combatants" & deem them too dangerous to even be given a chance to defend themselves against the charge.

There's NOTHING to stop this same govt. from eventually widening the net in order to 'disappear' more & more people... all in the guise of keeping the public safe.

This would NOT be so troublesome IF we didn't know for a FACT that many of the people who were stripped of any basic civil rights are KNOWN to be innocent... but the govt. says they don't know what to do with them now.


Although, I DO think the BIGGEST danger is corporations, especially those in the health arena, in getting a hold of this info & using it to find more & more ways to deny 'undesirables' the same full services they provide for the 'better' customers.

[Grainne Dhu]

My compromise is that they take the DNA of someone who is arrested for a VIOLENT felony and they have the option to petition to have the sample destroyed if they are found to be factually innocent and the police agree they are no longer a suspect, e.g. arrest was a mistake.

As far as the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why object'...that is the slipperiest of slippery slopes beyond which is a deep dark Orwellian rabbit hole where the citizen has no right to privacy whatsoever.

I absolutely agree.

Not only should the sample be destroyed, any data from that sample should be deleted from every computer it has been recorded in.

The attitude that if something isn't criminal it should be okay to hold it up to public scrutiny gives me the shivers. For instance, many years ago, when I was living in my first apartment, there was a scent that I thought was just to die for. Ooooooooh, it was heavenly, it was wonderful, it practically made me swoon every time I tried it on. I couldn't afford it (it was more than half my weekly paycheck and nearly half what I paid in rent!) but I did what I think every young person does at least once and made a poor decision. I lived on noodles and catsup for so long that I have never been able to abide the taste of catsup ever since in order to buy that perfume.

Would I want my neighbours to be tut-tutting over my foolishness? NO! It was foolish but it didn't hurt anyone but me. It's silly now but it would have been terribly humiliating then.

Everyone has something like that.