Breaking: Supreme Court OK’s taking DNA upon arrest

[MADem]

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

They have computer programs that can compare your facial characteristics with those of suspects at crime scenes. Once your picture goes into the database, you don't have much if any control over how it might be used.

I know some states have rules about DNA, and I admit I have not read this ruling, but some states will take the DNA and then dump it, not store it, if the person is not found guilty of a crime.

Other states keep it and collect it. Also, the context must be a "valid arrest"--not a "round 'em up and grab that DNA" exercise.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/03/188291914/supreme-court-upholds-warrantless-collection-of-dna

"In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent's expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

They liken it to 21st Century fingerprinting. People who are taken in and fingerprinted also get their fingerprints compared to see if, first, the person is who they say they are, and second, to find out if they've done something else.

And, by a narrow margin, this tactic has been found to be constitutional.

I really do appreciate your unease, but I don't think there's any unringing of this bell. This is part and parcel of a new way of approaching living in a larger society--there are cameras on streets everywhere, everytime we use our phone our locations are tracked, even new cars have "black boxes." I think privacy left by the side door a few decades ago, aided and abetted by generations who enjoy sharing the most mundane, yet personal, details about their lives on the successor to MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter. People willingly share so much about themselves that is personal, and really should be kept to themselves--but that willingness is changing the way that future generations approach the whole concept of "privacy."