One Small Step Backwards for Civil Liberties...

Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
...and one giant leap for Big brother.

Yahoo News said:
WASHINGTON - The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people.

Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab, Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons.

Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information, such as family ties and genetic conditions.

Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.

Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.

There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.

Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements would add DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year.

Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from committing more crimes.

A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.

"Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.

Thirteen states have similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Now innocent people's DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said.

If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample.

The Homeland Security Department — the federal agency charged with policing immigration — supports the new rule.

"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.

The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.

The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period.
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection

Anyone in the UK will immediately recognize this as the same bull**** that was forced onto you. It's getting to the point where we can't really deny that the UK is a testing bed for laws that will eventually find their way over to the U.S. Here's some info on their predicament and how they're handling it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_National_DNA_Database

I don't think I even need to explain how I feel about this, but, in short, this is ****ing insane. I don't understand how anyone can justify this sort of thing. Hell, the fact that Homeland Security is all gung-ho about this should raise all kinds of red flags. They say all of the information they take will be locked away, nice and safe, but really, when is that ever the case? This information by itself probably isn't harmful, but when creating a profile on an individual, do you really think the government is limited to one source of information? Hell no. They'll take information from every feasible source, especially since most of it is accessible by the public (if you know what you're doing, anyway), and create a super profile that'll nail you down to the T. You're at their mercy from that point onward.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Hmm. While I can see the good coming from this, the bad far outweighs it. I have to say, they've lost their minds.

If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample.
Well, at least there's that. :/
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
And they'll probably do it 12 years later, assuming that nothing else gets in their way.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
I don't really see how this is different from taking fingerprints. Now, I don't agree with DNA collection from -uncharged- foreigners. That seems a little excessive.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
These things never start off huge and monstrous. They're built up over time, with little additions here and there.
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,037
Best answers
0
As worrying as this may sound, it's really nothing but a fingerprint. The data stored in a DNA database reveals
nothing about the individual per se. It just creates a unique signature.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Why aren't fingerprints enough, then? Every fingerprint is unique, so why bother going through the trouble of creating a DNA database and what is the purpose of adding foreigners to the database?
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Nixanthros said:
Why aren't fingerprints enough, then? Every fingerprint is unique, so why bother going through the trouble of creating a DNA database and what is the purpose of adding foreigners to the database?
Well, think of it this way. If I go to the UK and start killing people, don't you think the government would wanna know that I'm the one killing people? Since I'm not a citizen of their country, why would I have a profile in their country?
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,037
Best answers
0
Why aren't fingerprints enough, then? Every fingerprint is unique, so why bother going through the trouble of creating a DNA database and what is the purpose of adding foreigners to the database?
DNA fingerprints are much more reliable. Wear gloves=no fingerprints. Leave 1-2 skin cells
(Which is almost impossible to avoid) and a DNA fingerprint can be made.
Don't get me wrong I don't think that this is the best thing to do, but it isn't nearly as bad as it sounds.
I'd say DNA database of convicts is enough.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
That's exactly the problem. It isn't going to end with run of the mill convicts. It never does. Right now it's alright because everyone is thinking, "Pfft, I'll never be a felon. They're going to get what they deserve." But what happens when the rules change...again. What if protesters who weren't given a license for whatever reason decides to protest anyway? What happens if, in this time line, that is far worse of an offense than it is now? Do they deserve to have their DNA taken and placed in a nice "secure" database? You know, the kind that manages to find its way into the wrong hands every single time?

What happens when the DNA database extends to all criminals? What happens when doing in the future what you do today is no longer legal, and makes you a criminal? What happens when simply rebuking the President is considered a federal offense and you're caught?

This may all sound far fetched today, but if the past is any indication, we'll get to this point eventually.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
717
Best answers
0
Everyone here knows alittle something about bio chemical weapons right??

This is some dangerous stuff in my opinion.. with some dangerous possibilities..

I wonder if people think "Human Cloning" attempts have stopped.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Jesus, Jinx...just.....goddamnit.

Let's try to focus on the civil rights aspect here, rather than our secret clone army of inept criminals, and innocent foreigners.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
717
Best answers
0
lawl

k civil rights..

they take your dna, and can learn every little thing about you. Possibly to exploit you.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,417
Best answers
0
Jesus, Jinx...just.....goddamnit.

Let's try to focus on the civil rights aspect here, rather than our secret clone army of inept criminals, and innocent foreigners.
i effing lol'd

Maybe they could make clones from convicted felons and use them for research.

At least its just a mouth swab,
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
My main question is what do you think they are going to DO with your DNA. I mean you say all this stuff like 'in 12 years after you've asked them to they'll destroy your DNA' or 'they'll grab your dna even if your innocent'. But why should you care? It's not like they can watch your house and find out what you are doing in your private life, it's not like they are going to do regular checks and go like 'man that tolore guy really likes taco's, we find his DNA in the taco bell like every week'.

also I'm PRETTY sure that if they make something a crime they don't retroactively arrest people that did it in the past.

What happens when simply rebuking the President is considered a federal offense and you're caught?
at this point why's the DNA matter, we're already in a totalitarian government system that needs to be ousted, plus they could just force the dna stuff on us at that point anyway.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
at this point why's the DNA matter, we're already in a totalitarian government system that needs to be ousted, plus they could just force the dna stuff on us at that point anyway.
That's the point. This is just another case of the public being told, "This is for your safety, and we're going after the bad guys!" only to realize later we're being treated as if we're the bad guys. Case in point, wire tapping. They were originally supposed to tap the phones of suspected and known terrorists and bingo bango! We find out they're wire tapping American citizens, and reviewing phone records courtesy of AT&T.

There's absolutely no reason to take blood samples before a person is convicted (Innocent until proven guilty, guys), and there is certainly no reason to take blood samples from a foreigner, just because.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
That's exactly the problem. It isn't going to end with run of the mill convicts. It never does. Right now it's alright because everyone is thinking, "Pfft, I'll never be a felon. They're going to get what they deserve." But what happens when the rules change...again. What if protesters who weren't given a license for whatever reason decides to protest anyway? What happens if, in this time line, that is far worse of an offense than it is now? Do they deserve to have their DNA taken and placed in a nice "secure" database? You know, the kind that manages to find its way into the wrong hands every single time?

What happens when the DNA database extends to all criminals? What happens when doing in the future what you do today is no longer legal, and makes you a criminal? What happens when simply rebuking the President is considered a federal offense and you're caught?

This may all sound far fetched today, but if the past is any indication, we'll get to this point eventually.
You're arguing against your own point. A felon is a person convicted of a felony, meaning any charge that can result in MORE than a year of jail time.

A misdemeanor, a minor crime, can not result in more than one year of jail time.

Zeo said:
But what happens when the rules change...again. What if protesters who weren't given a license for whatever reason decides to protest anyway?
Protesting without a permit is an ordinance violation; not even a misdemeanor; hardly a felony. A felony is a serious crime.

"What if all these other things become a felony, and then they collect your DNA.." is not an argument against DNA collection.

"What if breathing became a felony with a punishment of 5 years in jail?"

"Then they'd take my DNA!"

It means no sense.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Yeah it has it misuses...So does an bigoted cop. I can't see this issue as black and white. One way it makes crimes less convenient for felons, but I can't expect the government to just leave it a lone.

Aren't people supposed to think "oh ok, if the government is holding it, then its safe"? Maybe it's these 8 years of Bush and terrorism bull**** that has everyone on guard, which can be a good thing. But I enjoy the idea of rapists changing his mind because he knows the government will find him.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
You're arguing against your own point. A felon is a person convicted of a felony, meaning any charge that can result in MORE than a year of jail time.

A misdemeanor, a minor crime, can not result in more than one year of jail time.



Protesting without a permit is an ordinance violation; not even a misdemeanor; hardly a felony. A felony is a serious crime.

"What if all these other things become a felony, and then they collect your DNA.." is not an argument against DNA collection.

"What if breathing became a felony with a punishment of 5 years in jail?"

"Then they'd take my DNA!"

It means no sense.
You missed the part where I made it clear this hypothetical situation took place in a different time line, where protesting without a license is far worse than it is today. As someone else said, we'd already be under a totalitarian government, so DNA cataloging would be the least of our worries. Applying today's rules to tomorrow's scenario doesn't work out if tomorrow's rules are completely different.

What will you do when breathing becomes a crime, Alea? What will you do? I know what I'll do. I'm going to breathe, damnit.

I'm going to breathe.

....

For anyone saying, "It's just DNA. Who cares?", know that having the government spying on your phone calls doesn't mean they're hurting you. It doesn't make it any less wrong that they're keeping copies of your phone records though.
 
brainfeeder
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
5,179
Best answers
0
This is almost like watching CNN or MSNBC.... pure sensationalism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top