Anyone think this is a good idea?!
I understand fingerprinting, but DNA just seems so much more... personal.
*********
White House: Forcibly Extract DNA of Innocent Americans
The White House has announced it supports the "DNA Fingerprint Act,"
a proposed new law that would permit the government to collect and
maintain a database of DNA samples of individuals who are arrested
or just detained by federal authorities -- even if they are not
convicted, or even charged with a crime.
This latest Big Brother-type proposal was authored by senators Jon
Kyl (R-AZ) and John Cornyn (R-TX) and introduced Sept. 29 as an
amendment to the Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197). It was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote.
The measure was quickly denounced by civil liberties group across the
political spectrum, from the libertarian Cato Institute to the
liberal ACLU. All are urging that -- despite White House support --
the DNA provision be eliminated from the bill before it goes to the
full Senate.
Currently the FBI maintains a DNA database limited by law to persons
convicted of a crime. The new bill would dramatically expand that.
Those arrested and detained, but not ultimately convicted, would
have to petition the government to have the information removed from
the database.
Civil libertarians have long warned that the government would
attempt to expand the DNA database to include persons not convicted
of crimes, or even, eventually, the entire population. This latest
move indicates those warnings were right on the money.
Sources: Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301665_pf.html
ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=19188&c=15
USA TODAY: http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=19188&c=15
What is the role of government?
Why does government no better than us?
And if the law is made through a referendum, Why should the views of the majority be enforced on the minority?
I dont think its the governments job (as the modern one thinks it is)
to jump in and interfere with every aspect of life.
Before the World Wars the English government was ment to do three things; keep law and order, look after Britains over seas interests (Colonies/trade) and protect the country from invasion etc.
Fox hunting has been banned - this effects none of the bove criterea.
I do not see how it is the goverments decision to tell people where they can or can not smoke, and certainly not enforcing their rules on privately owned pubs.
Originally posted by wibjust think if the FBI had dna match for every person in a database, like they do with finger prints. Blood, semen, hair, etc left at a crime scene could be matched to a specific person to help solve a crime. To me the good that could do would out weigh any thing negative that could come from it. To many people are paranoid about the government and the info they collect.
Anyone think this is a good idea?!
I understand fingerprinting, but DNA just seems so much more... personal.
*********
White House: Forcibly Extract DNA of Innocent Americans
The White House has announced it supports the "DNA Fingerprint Act,"
a proposed new law that would permit the government to collect and
maintain a database of DNA samples ...[text shortened]... ews/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=19188&c=15
USA TODAY: http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=19188&c=15
Originally posted by newdad27My main problem with this program is the government making a mistake with DNA. I understand your point here, I'm not arguing about the good this could do, I agree with you on that, I'm just concerned about the bad. Tracking, collecting, storing, sharing DNA info with other agencies... All of those instances lend themselves to mistakes. I just don't trust the government to handle the logistics of this thing properly. And as we all know the gov ain't exactly the best record keepers in the world.
just think if the FBI had dna match for every person in a database, like they do with finger prints. Blood, semen, hair, etc left at a crime scene could be matched to a specific person to help solve a crime. To me the good that could do would out weigh any thing negative that could come from it. To many people are paranoid about the government and the info they collect.
I'v had to deal before with government mistakes. One was with the IRS, which I eventually won! But what I found was that all of the burden of proof and all of the "grunt work" had to be done by me and my lawyer. The IRS screwed up and we had to *prove* they were wrong. Not the other way around.
I have these same fears about DNA. Fingerprinting is one thing, but when some huge government entity has possession of your DNA and makes a mistake, you or I could end up getting a visit from the boys in blue for a crime we didn't commit. From that point forward we have to hope the gov corrects it's own mistakes, or we have to prove them wrong. That will usually require a huge investment of my time and money.
Originally posted by wibOk, say they make a mistake, say you get arrested for a crime you didn't commit because of their mistake. How much time and investment would it take to detain you and match your DNA with the wrong DNA? Unless of course it's the labelling that got mixed up, then your basically screwed. But I would think that with something so very life altering that certain procedures and precautions would have to be adhered to.
My main problem with this program is the government making a mistake with DNA. I understand your point here, I'm not arguing about the good this could do, I agree with you on that, I'm just concerned about the bad. Tracking, collecting, storing, sharing DNA info with other agencies... All of those instances lend themselves to mistakes. I just don't trust ...[text shortened]... we have to prove them wrong. That will usually require a huge investment of my time and money.
Personally I don't care what info the government has on me. I have no secrets, I have nothing to hide from anybody, including the government. If it makes them feel better to know every last boring little detail of my life all the power to them.
If i was sure that the information would be both completely secure and that my rights would never be violated by their possession ofthat infomration, I would have no porblem. UNfotunately I put the same trust in the modern western governments as I do in my local crack addict.
Originally posted by wibi understand your point but i think that scenario is unlikely and the good out weighs it. I mean your dna can always be taken again if a mistake is made and compared to the sample they find. But if my child was kidnapped, or my house robbed, or a serial killer is loose in the city--the fact that any piece of that person can be used to find and stop them trumps the possibility that a mistake could be made. I mean they could even make the dna not admissible in court, but the info could be used just to locate the person....then normal police work would be used to convict.
My main problem with this program is the government making a mistake with DNA. I understand your point here, I'm not arguing about the good this could do, I agree with you on that, I'm just concerned about the bad. Tracking, collecting, storing, sharing DNA info with other agencies... All of those instances lend themselves to mistakes. I just don't trust ...[text shortened]... we have to prove them wrong. That will usually require a huge investment of my time and money.
Originally posted by catfoodtimNo. Not at all. I don't trust private businesses anymore than I trust the government. But a corporation can't forcibly arrest me at gun point and throw me in jail for a few nights either while they clear up their "snafu".
So by inference you'd trust private industry to manage this better?
Face facts, now the discourse is there we can't stop DNA records being kept.
At least government can be held to account, however difficult this may be.
Private industry has kept our names, address, bank details, whereabouts, spending patterns, etc etc on file for an age. And ...[text shortened]... tion legislation via government.
Imagine if the private sector was let loose with DNA data?
And for the record, I'm not entirely against this DNA thing either. I just see major problems in record keeping, distribution, sharing the info with other govt agencies, etc. The usual problems that already occur with govt records in our society.
The main difference is this - it's one thing for the govt to screw up a credit report or your drivers license number. It's a whole other issue when you're sitting in a cell and some public defender says to you "well it doesn't look good, they found your DNA at the scene".
Originally posted by catfoodtimins co. etc would not have access to your dna anymore than they can pull up fingerprint records. Do most companies take your fingerprint (DNA?) when they hire you or provide you insurance. It's not like this info can be readily accessed and used to discriminate against you. Lets not get paranoid.
fair point
but when you're turned down by private insurance companies for your home or health insurance because your dna shows history of heart disease, or the prospective employer declines your job application because of a specious dna 'flaw' you'll have less appeal and the impact could have just as much effect.
bit of a pandora's box really isnt it?
[edit] so how do we keep government from abusing our dna information?
Originally posted by catfoodtimWe cannot. The only way to prevent that is to never give it to them in the first place. But...
ins co. etc would not have access to your dna anymore than they can pull up fingerprint records.
insurance companies don't need your fingerprint data. don't they use social security, health, address and credit data? which is just as unique.
my point was that the discourse exists that dna records can now be kept on file, so are you really ...[text shortened]... y business.
so how do we keep government and private sector from abusing our dna information?
Many people in my state have been released from prison based on DNA evidence that clears them of the crime they were convicted of.
So I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water yet. 🙂
EDIT: Obviously the DNA of those convicted was not taken when they were arrested. These crimes were committed long ago. Now that we have the technology of DNA testing available things have changed quite a bit and many prisoners are volunteering for DNA testing.
Originally posted by catfoodtimfirst of all dna has not even been proven yet to even be able to show that one is succeptible to any illness yet. When and if that happens are you saying private industry is going to be paying for scientific examinations of the dna of all prospective clients and customers? Business will risk civil rights law suits and pay for this dna reasearch in this conspiracy with the government? And how is dna going to be used to frame innocent people any more than evidence is used now? I mean because i'm in a room and one of my hairs falls to the floor and later that day a murder is commited in that room and they find my hair; someone i'm going to be framed for the murder in some mass conspiracy?? So they call me in and ask when i was there and if I saw something. Maybe something i saw will help the investigation, but I'm not going to worry that with no further evidence that some how I'm going to be framed....That's just paranoia.
ins co. etc would not have access to your dna anymore than they can pull up fingerprint records.
insurance companies don't need your fingerprint data. don't they use social security, health, address and credit data? which is just as unique.
my point was that the discourse exists that dna records can now be kept on file, so are you really ...[text shortened]... y business.
so how do we keep government and private sector from abusing our dna information?