General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

55. Hello? Big ass Q - Tip swab on the inner cheek is all that's needed...

Reply to Laelth (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 12:16 PM

Jun 2013

It's like taking a test to find out your ancestry, or doing the Maury Povich appearance...

No blood needed at all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

182 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking: Supreme Court OK’s taking DNA upon arrest [View all] a kennedy Jun 2013 OP

"All your DNA are belong to The Corporate Borg." - The stupreMEMES, Inc. (R) Berlum Jun 2013 #1

Can you copyright your own DNA? L0oniX Jun 2013 #79

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #141

Not really a surprise SoCalDem Jun 2013 #2

Yep, no surprise really, except Scalia dissenting. dballance Jun 2013 #145

If so, I am saddened. Laelth Jun 2013 #3

and you'll find some supporters of it here probably Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #4

Yes, wait till drones can get DNA. Now THAT'S progress as promised. Safetykitten Jun 2013 #14

What blood? jberryhill Jun 2013 #11

The headline did not specify the means of seizing the suspect's DNA. Laelth Jun 2013 #15

Why bother with rape kits, then? jberryhill Jun 2013 #17

DNA can be extracted from urine; female urine more easily than male urine. FarCenter Jun 2013 #21

So why is routinely fingerprinting arrested persons OK jeff47 Jun 2013 #37

a snip of your hair should do. spanone Jun 2013 #108

No. Your hair is just protein. It has no DNA. jeff47 Jun 2013 #133

How do scientists get DNA from a strand of hair? spanone Jun 2013 #139

Mitochondrial DNA is not used for identification jeff47 Jun 2013 #155

Bingo TroglodyteScholar Jun 2013 #163

With hair I think you need a strand or two with the root attached DonP Jun 2013 #134

Cheek swab. No blood is drawn. N/T GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #18

You are correct. Le Taz Hot Jun 2013 #33

I wish I could say I was surprised at this outcome.... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #36

Such as? jeff47 Jun 2013 #39

Oh, I dunno, DNA databases, the massive potential for mis-use... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #44

Ok, and when I replace "DNA" with "Fingerprint" in your example jeff47 Jun 2013 #45

The DNA you leave in the trash is not necessarily personally identifiable... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #48

It's plenty identifiable for probable cause to get a warrant. jeff47 Jun 2013 #50

Not if it's mixed in with everyone else's garbage... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #68

Because the only possible way to collect it was at the dump. jeff47 Jun 2013 #84

You're assuming you live in a single-person dwelling... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #91

Not at all. jeff47 Jun 2013 #117

..."it would be very easy to get a warrant"... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #119

You have to keep in mind your scenario is quite contrived jeff47 Jun 2013 #126

DNA is inherently more "personal" than a fingerprint.. truebrit71 Jun 2013 #136

How is it more personal? jeff47 Jun 2013 #158

Yup think the police won't abuse this new toy... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #171

"They aren't sequencing your entire DNA." drmeow Jun 2013 #177

You'd be wrong. jeff47 Jun 2013 #178

There is a concern drmeow Jun 2013 #182

When they have their eye on you, they have their eye on your drinking cup, or your MADem Jun 2013 #86

..and we all know that the cops never "accidentally" arrest the wrong person, right? truebrit71 Jun 2013 #92

They can arrest the wrong person, but they can't make the DNA match if it doesn't. MADem Jun 2013 #93

But they will still have had their DNA taken and entered into a database... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #105

Well, no more of a problem than to those who have fingerprints on file, or driver's license MADem Jun 2013 #106

I have no issue with someone voluntarily offering their DNA as a way to prove innocence... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #118

When you have your driver's license photo taken, you've given up your rights too. MADem Jun 2013 #129

Just give you sterile water to drink in a sterile cup. GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #98

Hello? Big ass Q - Tip swab on the inner cheek is all that's needed... MADem Jun 2013 #55

The method of collection isn't the main issue.. truebrit71 Jun 2013 #69

A needle pierces the skin and requires "healing" afterwards. MADem Jun 2013 #71

I'd love to see that job description advertised!! truebrit71 Jun 2013 #73

Apparently, the "enforcer" only has to scoop it up and send it off to a lab... MADem Jun 2013 #76

HA!!! truebrit71 Jun 2013 #78

I made an error in the title of my post. Sorry. Laelth Jun 2013 #72

No biggie. I'll admit, I didn't like having my DNA "on file." MADem Jun 2013 #74

No doubt. Privacy continues to erode. That is the trend. Laelth Jun 2013 #81

I love a good gripe, myself! MADem Jun 2013 #82

disgusting PD Turk Jun 2013 #5

They have to buy me a few drinks first. FSogol Jun 2013 #6

i'm not sure i'm bother by dna vs. fingerprinting per se. it's the method of collecting unblock Jun 2013 #7

The story mentions 'cheek swabs'. randome Jun 2013 #10

less problematic than blood draws, though still a risk of infection or allergic reaction unblock Jun 2013 #34

Don't have to pry open the mouth. GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #100

My understanding is that you cannot Ilsa Jun 2013 #32

It's a cheek swab jeff47 Jun 2013 #42

"Really don't see how this is more odious than fingerprinting" Duer 157099 Jun 2013 #46

That's not how DNA evidence works. jeff47 Jun 2013 #47

"It's not possible to detect the presence of a disease-causing gene using this method." MADem Jun 2013 #109

The database is limited to "non-coding alleles" jberryhill Jun 2013 #111

I'll be honest--I wouldn't know a "non-coding allele" if it bit me in the ass, MADem Jun 2013 #112

Yes jberryhill Jun 2013 #113

Now that, I was able to understand! nt MADem Jun 2013 #115

It makes the database not usable for medical diagnosis jeff47 Jun 2013 #116

That is a very understandable explanation! MADem Jun 2013 #131

If your DNA matches what's 'found' at a bomb scene, say, you're potentially a person of interest. Octafish Jun 2013 #8

Or, in this instance, a rape victim's vagina jberryhill Jun 2013 #24

You are so right. Octafish Jun 2013 #29

Um, no. jeff47 Jun 2013 #53

Here you go, it refers to the DNA picked up by police. Octafish Jun 2013 #88

So....you managed to confuse 4 different DNA databases? jeff47 Jun 2013 #121

No. You're confused. Octafish Jun 2013 #127

No, you're deliberately avoiding the question. jeff47 Jun 2013 #130

What questions? The ones in your mind? Not interested in going there. Octafish Jun 2013 #138

No, answering the one I've explicitly asked 3 times would be fine. jeff47 Jun 2013 #156

How do you have access to the database? snooper2 Jun 2013 #65

Interesting response. Octafish Jun 2013 #89

Funny what people say ain't it? Rex Jun 2013 #125

Like a routine, almost. Octafish Jun 2013 #149

We can let the government take our DNA, but we can't license and tag guns like cars. onehandle Jun 2013 #9

The guy was arrested for threatening people with a shotgun jberryhill Jun 2013 #20

Hold him down and swab his mouth! But don't check on his gun. We might get in trouble. nt onehandle Jun 2013 #22

He no longer has a gun jberryhill Jun 2013 #23

We must start an online petition to free the gun. onehandle Jun 2013 #25

+1 burnodo Jun 2013 #166

Interesting 5-4 split muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #12

I can't wait to read Scalia's Dissent. That should be good. Dissent begins on Page 33 of PDF. dballance Jun 2013 #143

PDF of the opinion ProSense Jun 2013 #13

The police state rolls on. Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #16

"Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Rapist Identified by DNA" jberryhill Jun 2013 #19

Mixed feelings but in the end I don't think I like this. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #26

Uh-oh, it's one of those opinions where you must side either with Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #27

fortunately such decisions are quite rare! unblock Jun 2013 #35

I have no problem with this. Pragdem Jun 2013 #28

Because events prove them right? You DO know that different checks preceded this type? WinkyDink Jun 2013 #38

ok. nt darkangel218 Jun 2013 #57

I've done the cheek swab thing to get on the bone marrow donor registry. I hated giving fingerprints brewens Jun 2013 #30

Two different methods of obtaining DNA evidence riqster Jun 2013 #31

NOT good. DNA contains a lot more than just a person's NAME, FGS. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #40

I didn't realize only our names were encoded in our fingerprints. jeff47 Jun 2013 #43

Ihre DNA, bitte. KamaAina Jun 2013 #41

...und ihren Papieren. Octafish Jun 2013 #176

Taking DNA from people who are presumed innocent. Heidi Jun 2013 #49

And you've been out protesting the collecting of fingerprints for the last few decades, right? (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #54

As a matter of fact, I was an early opponent of AFIS. Heidi Jun 2013 #94

That's just the federal database. jeff47 Jun 2013 #154

I am with you on this. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #61

I eagerly await stalwart DUer graham4everything's insights about this decision. Heidi Jun 2013 #51

You Better Believe It! nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #87

!!! Heidi Jun 2013 #95

Okay--that's a DUzy!!! :poopcorn: nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #148

... Rex Jun 2013 #147

"DNA" is the new "fingerprints." MADem Jun 2013 #52

Did you mean NWO by any chance? darkangel218 Jun 2013 #56

I was in a Huxley frame of reference, actually! MADem Jun 2013 #67

Difference is - one is intrusive and removes something from your body The Straight Story Jun 2013 #59

They both remove something from your body. MADem Jun 2013 #64

"Taking" being the operative word here. Fearless Jun 2013 #58

"In custody" also being operative words jberryhill Jun 2013 #60

And? Fearless Jun 2013 #63

So why has "taking fingerprints" been perfectly legal for decades? (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #66

The dissent answers your question. Laelth Jun 2013 #80

Except it doesn't. jeff47 Jun 2013 #85

I was not aware that you had read the dissent. Laelth Jun 2013 #90

Well, if you only want to talk about your synopsis jeff47 Jun 2013 #124

Well they weren't taking them in 1789, now were they? jberryhill Jun 2013 #170

Because fingerprints while personally identifiable are not useful for other info mining. Fearless Jun 2013 #174

OMG. closeupready Jun 2013 #62

Bad. And good. moondust Jun 2013 #70

This is a good point. ananda Jun 2013 #104

I think this issue divides along Techie/Luddite lines.... I'm with the Luddites on this one! reformist2 Jun 2013 #75

Why not inject an rfid implant too while their at it. L0oniX Jun 2013 #77

There is one reason I like this. DevonRex Jun 2013 #83

I suspect there will be a greater rush to get more people into the system based on DNA Heidi Jun 2013 #96

"Reintroducing the Private Prison Information Act: An Interview" DevonRex Jun 2013 #97

link here redqueen Jun 2013 #103

LOL!! DevonRex Jun 2013 #107

Breyer voted with the conservatives, Scalia voted with the liberals. BlueDemKev Jun 2013 #99

You want my DNA? Dig through the trash and get it. bunnies Jun 2013 #101

And this differs from taking fingerprints because.....? (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #122

Nothings getting forced into my mouth. nt bunnies Jun 2013 #123

K, they're smearing goo all over your fingers, grabbing your fingers jeff47 Jun 2013 #128

They can take them electronically you know... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #137

The fact that you don't have to use a baby wipe afterwards jeff47 Jun 2013 #157

Ive been fingerprinted. bunnies Jun 2013 #175

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an angry dissent for himself and three liberal justices, Agnosticsherbet Jun 2013 #102

Well, folks... be sure not to leave your hairbrush on your work desk if you have enemies at work. Zorra Jun 2013 #110

None of your scenarios require DNA jeff47 Jun 2013 #135

How would that get you arrested kiva Jun 2013 #144

You do not make any sense whatsoever muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #150

It's called planting evidence in order to frame someone for a crime they did not commit. Zorra Jun 2013 #172

I keep thinking of Buttle and Tuttle being mixed up in the film "Brazil" suffragette Jun 2013 #114

This is probably a good thing. Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2013 #120

As long as that counts for ALL American citizens. Rex Jun 2013 #132

Of course, the porkers are celebrating this travesty. Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #140

Where do I go for my weekly cavity checks?? Inkfreak Jun 2013 #142

Your link goes to a page with NO STORY on it about this topic. Th1onein Jun 2013 #146

It was the top story when this was posted this morning. tammywammy Jun 2013 #151

won't this lead to many more arrests without real probable cause? grasswire Jun 2013 #152

+1 Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #159

No, we're constantly shedding DNA jeff47 Jun 2013 #160

+ 1000, of course they will. Arrest, DNA, release. n-t Logical Jun 2013 #164

Why would they do that when there a hundred other easier (and faster) ways to NYC Liberal Jun 2013 #169

Welcome to the "BORG"...Oh...yeah I've heard th Good Arguments about this... KoKo Jun 2013 #153

And your argument doesn't apply to fingerprints because........? (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #161

Because DNA Results can be misused and abused in a way BEYOND Fingerprints...it's another step KoKo Jun 2013 #168

For once I agree with Scalia TroglodyteScholar Jun 2013 #162

Just lovely... burnodo Jun 2013 #165

Be careful with your DNA from now on, folks. roamer65 Jun 2013 #167

No different than taking fingerprints. RB TexLa Jun 2013 #173

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #179

Here are the jury results for this post: LonePirate Jun 2013 #180

A Higher Power, Sir, Seems To Have Weighed In.... The Magistrate Jun 2013 #181