General Discussion

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

72. I made an error in the title of my post. Sorry.

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 12:51 PM

Jun 2013

I was able to read the opinion, finally, as it was posted online after the OP and after my initial response. Certainly, a cotton swipe is less intrusive than a needle (but only marginally). I still think I have a reasonable expectation that my DNA is private and protected by the 4th Amendment. How the state gets my DNA has little bearing on that if we're talking about part of my body that is attached to me (like the epithelial cells in my mouth).

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--this post needed careful and quick reconsideration.

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