California Prop 69: The most dangerous precedent ever

[genius]

THis allows the taking of DNA from arrestees. Strikers and protestors are busted on bugus charges all the time. Californians are calling it the Gattaca Proposition. The end result will be that Ashcroft and insurance companies will get the DNA info and people will be denied jobs and insurance based on their DNA. We need a national effort to oppose the collecting of DNA from people who have done nothing wrong.

[DrWeird]

1. Haven't got a problem with it in principle.

Arrestees get their fingerprints taken.

Your typical DNA fingerprinting techniques offer now information about the genetic health of the individual. As long as police use the DNA for fingerprinting and aren't selling it to insurance companies, it's not a problem.

I wish people would quit getting their science education from Hollywood movies.

[Flagius]

2. Except that...

Except that fingerprinting is a non-invasive procedure that only aids in identification and cannot be used to determine the genetic history of an individual.

[DrWeird]

3. DNA fingerprinting is a non-invasive procedure...

they take cotton swabs from the inside of the cheek the last I heard.

They can be used to determine "genetic history" of an individual if for some reason that were being investigated.

What that's got to do with anything I'm not really sure.

[Must_B_Free]

6. The inventor of this process recently called it unreliable

he said something to the effect that with a larger sample size for comparison, the potential for false matches increases.

[DrWeird]

7. Which process?

PCR?

Gel electrophoresis?

[SoCalDem]

16. If it's for a violent crime, I see nothing wrong with it.

For misdemeanors I would oppose it :)

[cheezus]

17. um, if they have a dna sample they can figure all that out

even a small bit of DNA can be run through the PCR so there's enough product to find out whatevwer you want.

maybe it wasn't a movie, but i don't know where you get your science education

[madrchsod]

4. dna after one has been convicted

remember -we are innocent untill proven guilty- iknow that is another lost concept in the "land of the free"

[DrWeird]

5. And what about fingerprints?

What's the difference?

[TahitiNut]

10. Difference: You can't identify biological traits from fingerprints.

The DNA "fingerprint" (to the degree one exists) is but one use of DNA samples. The other is the emerging ability to ascertain various anatomical and biological attributes as well as heritage.

There is no 'information' in a fingerprint that might be used for discriminatory and privacy-invading purposes. There is such information, if now only through strong statistical correlation, in the analysis of DNA.

[DrWeird]

11. Right, but police departments don't do those kinds of tests.

In theory, the PD could sell the samples to a health insurance company who would then do the very expensive testing, which would be very impractible.

So all that would be needed is to outlaw the police from giving away evidence to private interests, which I'm pretty sure is already illegal.

[wuushew]

8. Everyone should be inconvenienced equally

with fingerprinting...all school children have theirs taken upon entering school. If this was done with DNA perhaps the unit cost of genetic testing would plummet and thus combat the socio-economic bias inherent in the justice system.

[Flagius]

12. Yeap!

We can start implanting microchips at birth next! Then, lobotomize anyone who gets "out of line".

[wuushew]

13. What about racial profiling?

In the case of airline security if every passenger was treated as a potential terrorist then the opportunity for discrimination based on religion or ethnicity would never arise. If a society deems something to be important enough to force one segment of a population to bow to the government then all citizens should be held to the same standard. Surely the richest country in the world can afford to be equitable.

[Mizmoon]

18. They already did that

psychosurgery.org

[el_gato]

9. People who make apologies for this kind of shit are fools

If you think this information will be used for anything other than nefarious reasons you are seriously naive. Just one more brick in the wall.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

23. Correction

People who make apologies for this kind of shit are COPS.

end of story

[wuushew]

14. kick

:kick:

[Bucky]

15. This proposition dishonors the noble name "69"

I even doubt that's how they extract the DNA sample.

[Mizmoon]

19. The slippery slope

We just hand our freedoms away like they meant nothing.

AFTER CONVICTION is one thing - upon arrest is a serious violation of civil rights.

[wuushew]

20. If it was a serious violation then fingerprinting would be illegal

Of all "rights" in the Constitution the right to privacy is the most nebulous and open to interpretation. In fact it appears no where in the text of the Constitution but rather has been invented by court precident. I think what many in this thread fear is not unequal or unjust treatment by the state but groups of people getting fucked over by private business with information they would otherwise not have.

[Mizmoon]

22. Fingerprints are a violation too, imo

Again, after conviction is one thing - or under a court order because they are needed to try to match to the crime scene. But to fingerprint EVERYONE by routine is wrong.

[wuushew]

24. Where is the ACLU then?

A cut and dry violation as you claim would have been settled long long ago.


-On Edit-

Since many innocent people are convicted and people like O.J. go free it obviously makes sense to cast as large a net as possible. The errors in catalouging data only after conviction are reduced by doing so during arrest and eliminated by extending such a system to the entire population. Personal liberty can and should curtailed for certain things like public safety and the general welfare. I would welcome a debate to determine to what degree this is practical and desirable.

[Mizmoon]

25. Well, you're claiming that DNA collection is no big deal

but the ACLU is fighting that. So your criteria that ACLU involvement equals a real concern means that DNA collection is an issue to be debated.

----------------------------------

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7886&c=129

"The ACLU urged the committee to ensure that any proposal it adopts include measures to guarantee that only persons convicted of serious violent felonies have their DNA entered into CODIS (the Combined Offender DNA Index System), that criminal defendants have access to DNA testing to establish their innocence and that the government destroy the physical sample used to provide DNA.

"While the FBI would like us to believe that the samples will never be used for anything besides catching criminals, the sad truth is that unless the samples are destroyed at some point they will be used improperly," Steinhardt said.

The Department of Defense, for example, has collected about three million samples from service personnel, purportedly to identify remains of a soldier killed on duty. Yet it not only keeps those samples long after the individual has left the military, it refuses to write rules denying third parties access to the records.

"Proponents of DNA databases argue that they can be used to prove someone's innocence just as easily as guilt. Sadly this does not hold true in the numerous states that refuse to allow people convicted of crimes access to DNA testing that might exonerate them," Steinhardt said. "It is only fair that criminal defendants be given the opportunity to use DNA technology that was not previously available."

[OutsourceBush]

21. I doubt you could expunge your DNA out of their database

Many things can be expunged from crimial records in order to allow people to move on with their lives. (protesters arrested on bogus sh*t, etc) But I doubt you could expunge your DNA out of their database, once they get that the nazis would not want to ever let go of it.