dmarc117 Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 The Man decides to cull the population of people with some sort of genetic deficiency. ...imagine what would have happened had Hitler had a DNA database at his fingertips? didnt stalin try to make an ape army...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 if they're going to plant hair from your brush, how does having your DNA profile in a database help or hinder them from doing it? Maybe they would now plant the printout that comes out of the machine that would show your DNA and your name so it would make an areest be much quicker?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 DNA is the fingerprint of the modern era. Makes sense. Remember it has proven people falsely accused innocent too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) they arent creating clones of us with this dna. its for identification purposes. If I don't have to register my guns with the Fed, I shouldn't have to register my me. But if other people want to, I won't stand in their way. I've been arrested enough times (never convicted) to know the cops don't need probable cause to haul you in on some BS if they want to. So you'll have to excuse me if I express a little healthy distrust of an armed government that wants to catalog me. Edited May 16, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 If I don't have to register my guns with the Fed, I shouldn't have to register my me. But if other people want to, I won't stand in their way. I've been arrested enough times (never convicted) to know the cops don't need probable cause to haul you in on some BS if they want to. So you'll have to excuse me if I express a little healthy distrust of an armed government that wants to catalog me. Then are you saying they should stop taking fingerprints? When arrested you lose several rights. If they give you a cup of coffee can they get DNA off the cup or anything else you touch? Cigarette butts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Then are you saying they should stop taking fingerprints? No, I didn't say that. Are your eyes broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 If I don't have to register my guns with the Fed, I shouldn't have to register my me. But if other people want to, I won't stand in their way. I've been arrested enough times (never convicted) to know the cops don't need probable cause to haul you in on some BS if they want to. So you'll have to excuse me if I express a little healthy distrust of an armed government that wants to catalog me. they already have your fingerprints. you are cataloged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) they already have your fingerprints. you are cataloged. My DNA isn't, and I'd like to keep it that way until either: (1) I'm actually convicted of a crime; or (2) a warrant is issued. Look, just because there's a clean and simple way to violate the 4th Amendment doesn't mean we just go along with it. I'm sure the police could find out lots of very useful crime fighting evidence if they started searching the homes of every person arrested, too. But the cops need a warrant for that, even if they had "probable cause" for the arrest (except in exigent circumstances). Sheesh, I thought you were supposed to be one of the "conservatives" around here. Edited May 16, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Look, just because there's a clean and simple way to violate the 4th Amendment doesn't mean we just go along with it. right. I guess we'll see how all those 4th amendment challenges to this policy go. is it really your position that taking a couple hairs or a saliva swab violates the 4th amendment, but fingerprints and mugshots do not? you want to flesh out that argument for us a bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 right. I guess we'll see how all those 4th amendment challenges to this policy go. is it really your position that taking a couple hairs or a saliva swab violates the 4th amendment, but fingerprints and mugshots do not? you want to flesh out that argument for us a bit? I think a pretty strong argument can be made that collecting DNA and all of the information it provides - such as potential medical conditions, potentially sensitive family information, etc. - is more closely related to rifling through someone's private papers (which requires a warrant) than it is to taking someone's picture or fingerprint. It's not the process of collecting the data (the swab or hair pull) that is the problem, it's the information that can be garnered from that sample. To kind of rehash an earlier statement, arrest is kind of a weird place to draw the line for any of those things. There are lots of people who are arrested but not charged, indicted, or convicted. Why should someone be forced to be part of a government database if they haven't been convicted? Is anyone familiar with the legal reasoning behind this (as in court cases)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 right. I guess we'll see how all those 4th amendment challenges to this policy go. is it really your position that taking a couple hairs or a saliva swab violates the 4th amendment, but fingerprints and mugshots do not? you want to flesh out that argument for us a bit? Fingerprints and mug shoots are what they are: they're only useful for revealing someone's identity. Plus, they don't take any "thing" from you. DNA is not only a "thing" (no matter how small that thing is), it reveals a whole lot more about someone besides just their identity. Plus, there are countless examples of how the government has screwed up/mixed up DNA samples/evidence within the law enforcement context. And even if they don't bungle my DNA evidence in that regard, I have zero faith, and I'm offered no assurances, of what my DNA sample can and will be used for (a risk that is virtually nonexistent when it comes to mug shots or fingerprints). Lastly, if I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't be treated as if I have or, more properly, treated as if my government expects that I will be doing something wrong in the future. I'm just not into the government's warrentless collection of data on law abiding citizens. Fingerprints and mugs shots are necessary in order to document the arrest itself, and to process that event. But the cops don't need my DNA for that: they want my DNA to create a data base for future events, which may or may not be criminal. Can you imagine what someone like Joe McCarthy could have done with that info? That was only 60 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 17, 2008 Author Share Posted May 17, 2008 (edited) It's not the process of collecting the data (the swab or hair pull) that is the problem, it's the information that can be garnered from that sample. DNA is not only a "thing" (no matter how small that thing is), it reveals a whole lot more about someone besides just their identity. DNA analysis provides a powerful tool for human identification. DNA samples collected from individuals or derived from crime scene evidence are analyzed to produce DNA profiles that are entered into CODIS. These DNA profiles, which embody information concerning 13 ``core loci,'' amount to ``genetic fingerprints'' that can be used to identify an individual uniquely, but do not disclose an individual's traits, disorders, or dispositions. See United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Johnson v. Quander, 440 F.3d 489, 498 (DC Cir. 2006). Hence, collection of DNA samples and entry of the resulting profiles into CODIS allow the government to ``ascertain[] and record[] the identity of a person.'' Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir. 1992). The design and legal rules governing the operation of CODIS reflect the system's function as a tool for law enforcement identification, and do not allow DNA samples or profiles within the scope of the system to be used for unauthorized purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132, 14133(-©, 14135e. Edited May 17, 2008 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 DNA of everyone arrested = no DAN of everyone convicted = yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 (edited) DNA analysis provides a powerful tool for human identification. DNA samples collected from individuals or derived from crime scene evidence are analyzed to produce DNA profiles that are entered into CODIS. These DNA profiles, which embody information concerning 13 ``core loci,'' amount to ``genetic fingerprints'' that can be used to identify an individual uniquely, but do not disclose an individual's traits, disorders, or dispositions. See United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Johnson v. Quander, 440 F.3d 489, 498 (DC Cir. 2006). Hence, collection of DNA samples and entry of the resulting profiles into CODIS allow the government to ``ascertain[] and record[] the identity of a person.'' Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir. 1992). The design and legal rules governing the operation of CODIS reflect the system's function as a tool for law enforcement identification, and do not allow DNA samples or profiles within the scope of the system to be used for unauthorized purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132, 14133(-©, 14135e. I actually read Kincade based on your post. I learned a couple interesting things. First, while the information stored in the CODIS system only marks someone's identity, the government does not destroy the tissue sample they take that information from: that sample can freely be tested for whatever the government feels like testing, if they want to. Second, the 4th Amendment absolutely applies here; the Kincade court spent the better part of their very length opinion explaining why a DNA sample was subject to, but did not violate, the 4th Amendment's protections. However, the DNA testing and cataloging that is taking place is only taking place with convicts and parolees (or other individuals with diminished expectations of privacy and legal protections under the 4th Amendment). Third, without more, the mere capturing of the DNA IS considered a "warrantless" search. While there are three basic exceptions to the general rule that such search and seizure requires a warrant, mere "law enforcement" is insufficient to meet any of those three exceptions. Again, I don't care that its a simple procedure that is easy to comply with. Our 4th Amendment protections shield us from DNA "searches," unless and until: (1) we're actually convicted of something, at which time our rights are diminished; (2) there are exigent circumstances or some other exception applies; or (3) the police get a proper warrant. So barring more, a law abiding citizen with no criminal record should not have to provide a DNA sample merely upon arrest. I'm more convinced of that now that when we started this discussion. Thanks for providing the citations to those cases, DMarc. Edited May 17, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 DNA of everyone arrested = no DAN of everyone convicted = yes You leave my DAN out of this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 I'll reiterate that I'm OK with this on the condition that the DNA is used only for identification purposes and can only be accessed by law enforcement. Insurance companies, for example, would love to be able to access this data for genetic information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Not sure that I am comfortable with this. I understand the arguments for it. It's that there is a lingering and growing sense of discomfort within me as regards to our government. I'm becoming more and more of a Libertarian, and I don't like the idea of giving more power to the State. It might be fine right now to say that it doesn't effect you unless you are arrested, but keep in mind that new laws are passed with every session of Congress and hardly any laws are ever obsoleted or retracted. A more oppressive government could easily make the most innocuous behaviors illegal (smoking, talking on cell phones, etc.). The penalties might start out light (a fine) but could then morph into community service, probation, jail time... It all makes me very nervous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Not sure that I am comfortable with this. I understand the arguments for it. It's that there is a lingering and growing sense of discomfort within me as regards to our government. I'm becoming more and more of a Libertarian, and I don't like the idea of giving more power to the State. It might be fine right now to say that it doesn't effect you unless you are arrested, but keep in mind that new laws are passed with every session of Congress and hardly any laws are ever obsoleted or retracted. A more oppressive government could easily make the most innocuous behaviors illegal (smoking, talking on cell phones, etc.). The penalties might start out light (a fine) but could then morph into community service, probation, jail time... It all makes me very nervous. be a good boy and you will be fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 The government should not be collecting anything of mine without a warrant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 That essentially means that as long as a cop can come up with something that is judged sufficiently above the "lame" line, that the arrest can stand. Again, arrest is proof of nothing. Nice way to "sound byte" my post! It is up to the court to decide if it was a good arrest, not the arresting officer. If not, then DNA him of the arrest is not tossed. This way od IDing people protects the innocent as well as convicts the guilty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 The government should not be collecting anything of mine without a warrant. It is called, "search incident to arrest". You don't need a warrant in this situation. Pretty much law 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 It is called, "search incident to arrest". You don't need a warrant in this situation. Pretty much law 101. You fail Law 101. Justify how an officer needs to search my DNA to keep the officer safe from me or a hidden 3rd party. Am I hiding a knife between my nucleotides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 Pretty much law 101. But you've blinded me with science.....you've blinded me with science! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 The hardcore Christians think I am an extremist and I could really care less what you do to the bible. The bible is a book and holding its physical form in too high of esteem is idolatry. Well, one positive out of this would be that "Deadbeat Dad's" not willing to admit responsibility for their offspring would have less of a chance to get away without paying child support!! Not saying jack#sses like that wouldn't already be in the court system or anything... no wait, that is what I'm saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 The only reason they should want everyone's DNA is to grow vital organs for Americans, but that's not it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.