DNA a civil rights issue in Supreme Court case

[boochi]

http://news.yahoo.com/dna-civil-rights-issue-supreme-court-case-060739404.html

Should we just have a system where every man, woman and child in this country is entered in a national database for identification purposes?

 

[Texashiker]

Sure, why not?

If someone knew their DNA was on record somewhere, would they be less likely to commit a crime?

As a law abiding citizen, I have nothing to worry about.

 

[nehalem256]

Interesting. I thought about this last night.

If

(1) The government cannot compel people to undergo medical procedures

(2) You cannot be forced to testify against yourself

It would seem to be difficult to justify taking people's DNA.

 

[TheVrolok]

Sure, why not?

If someone knew their DNA was on record somewhere, would they be less likely to commit a crime?

As a law abiding citizen, I have nothing to worry about.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4126/5192221149_9558ae40b1_z.jpg

 

[Ryan]

I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.

This is the first step.....

 

[Exterous]

Should we just have a system where every man, woman and child in this country is entered in a national database for identification purposes?

Well - the article is about taking a DNA sample after you have been arrested and charged with a crime. It seems a bit of a jump from there to required national DNA database.

For the article itself my first reaction is that if he was arrested and charged it seems ok. To me it seems very similar to taking his fingerprints and trying to match them in a database.

That said I would not be ok with being required to register my DNA with a national database just because they want everyone to

 

[Texashiker]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4126/5192221149_9558ae40b1_z.jpg

Various states already do a form of genetic testing on newborns, its called a heel prick test.

Do you have children, did you let the state do a heel prick test? If so, then why do would wonder if I am not serious?

 

[Jimzz]

Interesting. I thought about this last night.

If

(1) The government cannot compel people to undergo medical procedures

(2) You cannot be forced to testify against yourself

It would seem to be difficult to justify taking people's DNA.

This story is for arrested people. The same is done with finger prints and that has been held up.

But the national thing I would be against. Optional ok, but not forced.

 

[nehalem256]

This story is for arrested people. The same is done with finger prints and that has been held up.

But the national thing I would be against. Optional ok, but not forced.

I don't know that I would consider fingerprinting to be a medical procedure.

 

[TheVrolok]

Various states already do a form of genetic testing on newborns, its called a heel prick test.

Do you have children, did you let the state do a heel prick test? If so, then why do would wonder if I am not serious?

...

Well.

Gurthrie test != national DNA database. So testing a child for metabolic diseases != submitting DNA samples for national DNA database. So that analogy is right out.

Secondly, arguing that since you don't break laws, it's ok to give up some privacy for security? Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the quotation attributed to Franklin.

Thirdly, is there any evidence that a DNA database would be a deterrent to committing crimes? If so, how much? Statistically significant?

So yes, I still wonder if you're serious.

 

[Texashiker]

...

Well.

Gurthrie test != national DNA database. So testing a child for metabolic diseases != submitting DNA samples for national DNA database. So that analogy is right out.

So yes, I still wonder if you're serious.

Parents already allow their children to be tested for genetic conditions, so why not allow a genetic signature to be stored by the state?

One of the points I am getting to, people rarely speak up. Its like Texas and its heel prick for newborns. The state says its required by law, but there is no penalty for refusing the heel prick.

States have been collecting DNA information for years, and nobody complains.

Are we for sure the states have not been building a genetic database with all of these heel pricks? I guess all of that DNA information is just thrown away?

DNA collection of newborns has been going on for what, at least a decade? So why make a big deal about it now?

 

[TheVrolok]

Parents already allow their children to be tested for genetic conditions, so why not allow a genetic signature to be stored by the state?

One of the points I am getting to, people rarely speak up. Its like Texas and its heel prick for newborns. The state says its required by law, but there is no penalty for refusing the heel prick.


States have been collecting DNA information for years, and nobody complains.

Are we for sure the states have not been building a genetic database with all of these heel pricks? I guess all of that DNA information is just thrown away?

DNA collection of newborns has been going on for what, at least a decade? So why make a big deal about it now?

Well, according to guidelines/law it's not stored for database purposes. It may be stored for a few years for research purposes, but then the identifying markers are removed and it becomes flat data. So allowing the testing isn't even close to allowing a true database. Now, could you assume that we're all being lied to and some govs/institutions are keeping a true database with personal identifiers? I suppose you could assume that, I don't know why you would unless you're a bit paranoid, but you could.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sure, why not?

If someone knew their DNA was on record somewhere, would they be less likely to commit a crime?

As a law abiding citizen, I have nothing to worry about.

I posted a thread about such arguments about 5.5 years ago. In short, the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument does not hold water.

 

[irishScott]

Sure, why not?

If someone knew their DNA was on record somewhere, would they be less likely to commit a crime?

As a law abiding citizen, I have nothing to worry about.

Actually you have no freaking idea if you have anything to worry about. Can you say with absolute certainty that you've never committed anything that could be considered a crime under state and federal law? You can't. That's why we have the 5th amendment.

 

[Texashiker]

Actually you have no freaking idea if you have anything to worry about.

I posted a thread about such arguments about 5.5 years ago. In short, the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument does not hold water.

Well, according to guidelines/law it's not stored for database purposes.

The government already intrudes into our daily lives so much, what is one more thing going to matter?

Heel prick when a child is born, apply for social security number, pay income tax, register for draft, pay property tax, carry car insurance, and now with obama care people have to buy health insurance.

As a dad paying child support, I have to let the attorney general of the state of Texas know where I live and who my current employer is. If I do not pay child support, then the state can file a motion to have me thrown in jail.

We are already mandated and regulated so much, what is one more thing going to matter?

Why object to DNA collection, when the IRS can audit you with no due process?

There was once a time when people had to have a blood test to get married.

Where do we draw the line?

 

[piasabird]

What happens when they use your DNA against you in ways you did not expect. For instance you might have to pay higher insurance if your DNA indicates you are prone to alcoholism or have other Genetic markers or traits.

 

[Texashiker]

What happens when they use your DNA against you in ways you did not expect.

For instance you might have to pay higher insurance if your DNA indicates you are prone to alcoholism or have other Genetic markers or traits.

What happens when companies use your credit rating in ways you do not expect?

For instance, you may be charged higher car insurance rates, or denied a job.

 

[PokerGuy]

What happens when companies use your credit rating in ways you do not expect?

For instance, you may be charged higher car insurance rates, or denied a job.

Your credit rating is a result of your actions, DNA is not something you can in any way control or change. comparison fail.

 

[Texashiker]

Your credit rating is a result of your actions, DNA is not something you can in any way control or change. comparison fail.

Nobody has answered my question, where does society draw the line on mandates and intrusions?

Why is it ok to mandate someone to buy a product, but not hand over a DNA sample?

Why is it ok for a newborn to have a DNA test, but not let the government keep the DNA on file?

Why is it ok for the government to assign a social security number, but not ok to collect dna?

You see where this is going?

Considering how much we are already taxed, mandated and regulated, we have no excuse to argue against dna collection.

If we want to argue against DNA, then we need to repeal SS numbers, income tax, and having to register for the draft.

 

[Oldgamer]

Various states already do a form of genetic testing on newborns, its called a heel prick test.

Do you have children, did you let the state do a heel prick test? If so, then why do would wonder if I am not serious?

That is to check for genetic abnormalities, not to track someone , nor keep genetic DNA information on newborns. Completely different thing, from what the article is talking about. (Yes, I have grown kids.)

Anyway, I think if they are going to start collecting DNA on people who have had some arrest or offense it needs to be only for serious felonies, not for something as minor as not paying your traffic tickets or minor misdemeanor.

We really need to be careful with this type of stuff, because this can be used to frame someone, if someone really wanted to, they could.

Now a days, we have a crap ton of people in prisons who are innocent of crimes, and the state didn't or won't utilize DNA sampling/comparisons techniques now. How many times have we heard that someone was convicted wrongly of a serious crime, only to find out 20 years later through DNA evidence they were innocent?

Just look at all the rape kits, that have never been used, that sit on shelves with DNA in them, and the state won't process them.

 

[Jimzz]

I don't know that I would consider fingerprinting to be a medical procedure.

DNA is not medical either, IMO. They don't draw blood they just do a cheek swab. Its used as an ID, like finger prints.

 

[CycloWizard]

Nobody has answered my question, where does society draw the line on mandates and intrusions?

Why is it ok to mandate someone to buy a product, but not hand over a DNA sample?

Why is it ok for a newborn to have a DNA test, but not let the government keep the DNA on file?

Why is it ok for the government to assign a social security number, but not ok to collect dna?

You see where this is going?

Considering how much we are already taxed, mandated and regulated, we have no excuse to argue against dna collection.

If we want to argue against DNA, then we need to repeal SS numbers, income tax, and having to register for the draft.

Simple: none of the things you listed are ok. You are simply using big government as an argument in favor of big government.

 

[Wreckem]

Interesting. I thought about this last night.

If

(1) The government cannot compel people to undergo medical procedures

(2) You cannot be forced to testify against yourself

It would seem to be difficult to justify taking people's DNA.

1. A cotton swab to the inside of your mouth isn't a medical procedure.

2. You can't be forced to testify against yourself, but that right isn't as wide as you think it is.

Under your theory(especially #2) finger prints should be prohibited as well.

SCotUS isn't going to reach your conclusion. They are going to uphold taking DNA samples of those arrested for crimes. DNA is the modern day fingerprint.

 

[Texashiker]

Simple: none of the things you listed are ok. You are simply using big government as an argument in favor of big government.

For the past 70 years the federal government has been encroaching on our daily lives. Could we imagine a time when a social security number was not needed, or when the government did not have an income tax?

If the people wanted to object to an intrusive government, the protest should have been done in the 1920s and 1930s.

 

[Wreckem]

What happens when they use your DNA against you in ways you did not expect. For instance you might have to pay higher insurance if your DNA indicates you are prone to alcoholism or have other Genetic markers or traits.

DNA databanks that are created by law enforcement agencies aren't open to private industry.

If an insurance co. wanted to they could require you to submit to DNA testing for whatever, but they don't because its fucking expensive and a waste of time.