DNA samples should be on record for...
Displaying poll results.32189 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6307 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fear of a DNA database is a symptom of deeper issues. (Health insurance denying pre-existing conditions, what is considered "probable cause" nowadays, incontrovertible guilt based on DNA alone, etc.) Fix those, and I'd be fine with a database.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to agree. I'm far too paranoid of modern society to be ok with DNA database for anyone but convicted criminals of things like rape, murder and assault - though from a purely technical standpoint (requiring a complete lack of corruption and bigotry in society to be valid) we would all be better off if everyone's DNA were open publicly for research and rapidly available in a pre-sequenced format for use in medical treatment.
Lacking that utter lack of corruption - I have to go with only for convicted criminals of very serious offenses (only the most severe crimes: rape, murder, assault) except where volunteered for research purposes and stripped of all information aside from personal and family medical history.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that when that laws gets passed around in congress, "rape" will be transformed to "convicted sex offender", which currently means a whole lot of people who really don't belong in that category, unfortunately. Examples abound of minors doing perfectly normal minorly-things and ending up labelled as a sex offenders for life.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that when that laws gets passed around in congress, "rape" will be transformed to "convicted sex offender", which currently means a whole lot of people who really don't belong in that category, unfortunately. Examples abound of minors doing perfectly normal minorly-things and ending up labelled as a sex offenders for life.
This.
Also, why do we need a record? That's only useful if you believe they'll be a repeat offender, and anecdotally it seems like most serious crimes are one-off incidents. I think DNA evidence can be useful in many situations, but why can't that be collected on an as-needed basis? That avoids this whole issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well see, that's just it. If corruption is not a concern, then everybody should be in the database. If corruption is a concern, then everybody will be in the database, except of course, the administrators.
Re: (Score:2)
[A]nyone but convicted criminals of things like rape, murder and assault
And there's the problem. We can all agree that murder is wrong; I do not have the right to deprive you of your life against your will. We can all agree that rape is wrong; I do not have the right to impose myself upon you in a sexual manner without your consent. However, assault? Do you know what that is?
In the UK [wikipedia.org] assault is (broadly) any action in which "... one intentionally or recklessly causes another person immediate and unlawful personal violence." It also applies to threatening behaviour, i.e. caus
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is broken again. You are randomly logged out of the comment pages. This has increased the number of insightful anonymous posts dramatically the last couple of days.
For some reason this is the first non-anonymous post I have been able to make today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.. or any number of the X% of the population that has close enough DNA to fall into the error rate of their detection.
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as cowering in an excessively defensive manner from the tasers.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, if the world were perfect, then none of these imperfections would matter.
Till then we need multiple layers of checks and balances to decrease consolidate of power and preserve even a semblance of personal rights and freedom.
Above all (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you trust government and believe that their motives with this are nothing but moral, just, and selfless? I sure as hell don't. Given the track record of government, I have every reason to believe that their motives with this are (1) power, (2) revenue, and (3) precedent for the next expansion of power and revenue. After all, the bigger the business of government, the more lucrative that business is for those who can exploit it for personal gain. The elite who are actually calling the shots have a very go
Re: (Score:2)
Till then we need multiple layers of checks and balances to decrease consolidate of power and preserve even a semblance of personal rights and freedom.
Whilst I agree, I think the real underlying problem is revealed by your use of somewhat vague terms at the end of this sentence. No-one's actually been able to quantify exactly what "freedom" is.
Freedom might be definable from a legal point of view (i.e. "rights"), but it isn't rationally definable.
We kind of know what freedom and rights are, but without a quantified definition, we need to add impeding, undesirable and possibly unnecessary "layers of checks and balances" to cover all bases just in case.
Howe
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom: Absence of force.
It's quite simple actually.
We give up a little freedom to government to prevent illegitimate force from criminals and others who would take much more. Governments grab more and more until they become no better than the criminals and others and a revolution comes to fruition, and it starts all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The right answer. (Score:2)
Look no further.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Interesting)
To some extent, the larger the database, the more likely that false matches will be obvious, because they will match multiple people, which is an argument that the defense can use.
If the database is, say, one thousand people, and the prosecutor says to the jury "the chance of this match occurring by chance is one in ten trillion!"-- well, chances are that he can't be easily contradicted.
On the other hand, if the database is a hundred million people, and the prosecutor says to the jury "the chance of this match occurring by chance is one in ten trillion!"-- well, if he's also saying "ignore those other fifty matches, they're false positives"-- the jury is going to be suspicious.
The larger database makes it much harder to get away with sloppy lab technique.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the keepers of CODIS actively seek to prevent dissemination of the knowledge that there are far more "collisions" in certain searches than should be statistically possible. Combine the number of collisions with the prosecutions oft stated mantra that a DNA "match" means suspect X did the crime and you have the potential for abuse that is difficult to reconcile with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
DNA evidence is a very strong exclusionary tool, but I've never been convinced of the ability to prove guilt. There is no analysis of DNA in current DNA testing or the entries stored in CODIS; the entries are the compsci equivalent of MD5 hashes.
See:
FBI resists scrutiny of 'matches' [latimes.com]
From the last page of the above article:
In a database of fewer than 30,000 profiles, 32 pairs matched at nine or more loci. Three of those pairs were "perfect" matches, identical at 13 out of 13 loci.
Experts say they most likely are duplicates or belong to identical twins or brothers. It's also possible that one of the matches is between unrelated people -- defying odds as remote as 1 in 1 quadrillion.
Maryland officials never did the research to find out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's bullet lead analysis all over again. The FBI wants something that sounds 'sciencey' that they can use to convict anyone they want. Bullet lead analysis was disproven, so now it's DNA, and everyone knows that DNA matches are infallible, right? Now to just rig the system to match any suspect that we want...
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the keepers of CODIS actively seek to prevent dissemination of the knowledge that there are far more "collisions" in certain searches than should be statistically possible.
If they do that, this is withholding evidence, which is illegal.
Perhaps we should worry more about prosecutors breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
However, compare to everybody in the country/world and it is very likely match someone or more than one someone, but now doesn;t prove anything.
Not everything has to be a smoking gun. For example they can try proving the suspect was there, it's a lot less likely that two people which happen to have the exact same DNA was in the same place when the murders occurred. If they have a good recent sample from the crime scene they can do a more thorough DNA comparison with the suspect. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been 99.99999% guilty, most educated guesses put it at around 99%.
In any case, this is more childhood diseases, as seen in the DNA seq
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You have enough trust in the system that you are confident nobody will find out a new and - for a time - legal way to exploit that data?
I'm not exactly a conservative, but I wouldn't want my DNA on record. Research has just begun, and your DNA code may yet turn out to be the root password to all kinds of interesting personal things. I'd rather that stays with me.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh grow up, Tom.
Any politician who looks straight into the camera and gives a firm, iron-clad promise that the database wouldn't be used for new purposes in the future would have my trust. A politician would never lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Research has just begun, and your DNA code may yet turn out to be the root password to all kinds of interesting personal things. I'd rather that stays with me.
I think that's very misinformed on two grounds. (1) The "root password" metaphor is inappropriate. (2) Understanding the biological basis of disease is not something to be afraid of.
There is no "root password" to real life. That metaphor belongs firmly in the domain of magic. Your DNA will not make it possible for third parties to influence you --- at least, no more than having your photograph, or knowing your true name.
Without doubt, there will be some surprising personal information encoded in DN
Re: (Score:2)
(2) Understanding the biological basis of disease is not something to be afraid of.
And I didn't say anything even remotely like that.
But for disease research, you don't need a database linking me with my DNA, and for disease research you wouldn't go taking DNA samples from criminals. That is specifically for future criminal investigations.
Mostly, the personal things that make you "you" are not defined at birth.
Certainly not, and even if they are we know that things change and bodies as well as minds evolve.
Sure DNA information can be abused. And Americans will no doubt defend their right to do so in the interests of economic advancement or national security. But that's a very different problem.
No, that exactly is the problem. Making a good differentiation between useful things - and what you need to accomplish them - and abuse. The most common sli
Re: (Score:2)
But we have to fight it on legitimate grounds. The objection you proposed (that it could be in some sense a "root password" for personal information) is just wrong, and I explained why. The AC who also replied to me kindly illustrated just how silly the shrill object
Re: (Score:3)
-Clone you without your permission
(1) Make my day! That would be an awesome compliment. (2) Just like a DVD, copying me does not take anything away from me. (3) But it would be a very sneaky way of finding out how big my willy is.
-Use your DNA to create a child without your permission and use it against you
(1) Nonsense. There's a vast gap between knowing your DNA sequence and using it to create a child. (2) See point about implication of crime --- it would be a useful defence against paternity suits as well. (3) See
Re: (Score:2)
My guess (I could be wrong) is that ultimately having your DNA on file will be more advantageous than not because it will be available to anyone with nefarious intent anyway.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure we shed DNA constantly so anyone could get it, but there's a difference between them having your DNA stored in a database, and having your DNA stored in a database with your name against it.
Re:Not saying I don't care...but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You shed DNA constantly.
I also carry my face around with me in public constantly.
That doesn't mean I'm ok with the government putting video cameras everywhere and running face recognition software to keep a 24/7 log of where I've been.
Re: (Score:2)
i understand what you mean but i have a problem siding with someone that basically thinks their DNA might be the equivalent to some peoples believed "true" name.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's even in the insurers' best long-term interest. If those with more risk stop getting insurance (too expensive) and those with less risk demand lower fees, then overall the insurer gets less money. In the extreme, if everyone knew *exactly* what was going to happen, insurers would no longer have any clients. Of course, we're not yet there, but it seems to me like the more knowledge there is, the less business for the insurers.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA databases are pointless at best, and dangerous at worst. It may sound sci-fi, but today's genetic therapy treatments will be tomorrow's plastic surgery. When people can change their genetics at will, what's the use in identifying someone by their genes? And what's the potential harm? These are questions we should be asking today, rather than 10-20 years from now when the DMV requires a cheek swab.
Missing option (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought CowboyNeal was the creepy guy who lives down the street or maybe I am?
lol, a single entry database.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone who wants it on record, nobody who doesn't... oh, and CowboyNeal.
Excluding the CowboyNeal part, this was my thought exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Limited period of time won't work. Once it's in the system, there are backups. Most likely it's public record, and from there, it's everywhere forever.
Everybody who wants it on public record, and everybody who is dead who doesn't specifically prevent it in his will.
Missing option: by court order (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What? Not copyright violations?
Re: (Score:2)
How about letting a court decide as part of the punishment in a case by case basis? Perhaps being mandatory for certain crimes
Because ideally the courts are supposed to rule according to law, not according to what the judge happens to personally think is fair. So the courts should have a guideline in the form of legislation.
Everybody but me? DOH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you people who votes for that option please consider the simple fact, that "Everybody but me" really sucks, because being the only person without a DNA profile actually makes you very easy to identify?
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That depends on the concern. Some don't care about being identified, but would rather not let some companies (the insurance industry, for example) have that information about them.
I'm not one of those. I voted "nobody" simply because it was the first option.
Re:Everybody but me? DOH! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not one of those. I voted "nobody" simply because it was the first option.
Note to self: Before running for office, change name to Aaron Aardvark.
Re:Everybody but me? DOH! (Score:4, Informative)
Note to self: Before running for office, change name to Aaron Aardvark.
Ballot option ordering (at least the ones I have seen) are randomized for that very reason :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that seem fair to you?
Re: (Score:3)
dont get mad, get even! even if you want to leave him one state to live in, that is still 48 states for you to concieve all the bastards you want!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your twin have a goatee perchance?
Re: (Score:2)
Although only identical twins have identical DNA, they do not have the same fingerprints. It shouldn't be a problem for you to travel provided you have yours on record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprints are formed during gestation, they are simply ridges that form on the outermost layer of skin of the fingertips. As you age, the size changes, but not the pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
many, many things are not encoded in DNA... but get that way through processes during "development". The most striking examples are the detailed wiring and layout of your brain, which depends on specific input from the outside world, as well as many other events that are essentially random. So no, not even your clone would be the same as you...
Re: (Score:2)
But any paternity test will reveal that he is the father, no matter what his fingerprints say. That's the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm surprised by how few people went for the "Anybody who is arrested" option... because in the UK at least, that's the current situation. Go figure!
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to be a way out too (Score:2)
If there's going to be collection of DNA samples from everyone arrested for * the only way I could possibly see supporting that would be to make sure there was a real and transparent way for having that data removed if they were not convicted.
What's the point then of collecting upon arrest? Exactly.
Re:Needs to be a way out too (Score:4, Interesting)
yeah, the "arrest" requirement is way to arbitrary. You can be arrested for just about anything, then never be charged.
Re: (Score:2)
...the only way I could possibly see supporting that would be to make sure there was a real and transparent way for having that data removed if they were not convicted.
You mean just like they do with fingerprints?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's the treatment of fingerprints that has us leary of how DNA samples will be treated. ;)
Then again, perhaps it's everything else about the government...
Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd support option like "People nominated for serious offices."
Re: (Score:3)
There's probably a record of Obama's DNA somewhere, considering how paranoid the Secret Service seem... in case the reds* bring in an Obama look-alike, they can do a DNA-check to find out if it's the real Obama or not.
* or whoever the evil monster du-jour ist...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd support option like "People nominated for serious offices."
I have just one rule and there is no DNA database necessary for that: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
(Shamelessly stolen from Douglas Adams)
Re: (Score:2)
And the Priests of sexually repressive religions.
Re: (Score:2)
No one or everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These choices remind me of a theory of handgun ownership. Either no one should own one, or everyone should own one. There is little similarity regarding the actual issues at play, so please don't examine the analogy too closely.
It also didn't involve a car. (Slashdot rule #406. All analogies should involve a car in some way).
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Except for the bit about handguns.
Please take my DNA, but first... (Score:2)
I have no problem with my DNA being sampled and recorded for eternity. My very real problems lie with who has access to that data, and how they expect to use it.
I have variously read that in agriculture, fields of GM crops are contaminating non-GM plantings, to the supposed detriment of large corporate enterprises despite their desire to restrict that contamination. How far-spread is my own DNA, given that I have had no desire to restrict contamination of bus seats, roads, rubbish bins, toilet seats, gard
I'd like a Nihilist answer (Score:2)
I don't give a shit because I believe in nothing Lebowski NOTHING. Hope the whole system goes up in smoke.
The feds already have your name, number, photo (Score:2)
Important Missing Option: The Hottest Women (Score:2)
We need to clone these women. Or isolate the genes that make them hot, then create super model designer babies ASAP.
In the current situation... (Score:2)
'Everybody but me' (Score:2)
If records were kept for everybody except for one person, then that person's DNA is identifiable by merit of being the one that isn't on record.
People realise the social implications of DNA (Score:2)
Muntants Unite! (Score:2)
Sounds like a conspiracy from William Stryker!
No one must know of my inhuman ability to habituate subterraneanly, whist subsisting on pizza frozen snacks, unmoving for hours at a time in front of computational devices, not procreating....
Where's the CowboyNeal option? (Score:2)
Need it!
Re: (Score:2)
That option seems to be missing whenever a poll is being conducted by government sympathisers who wish to canvas public opinion on serious issues, or if the person who makes up the list is a bit lazy.
Would accept 'minimum necessary for ID' of felons. (Score:3)
I know that you can identify someone from DNA without having the complete genome. I would accept having the rough equivalent of a fingerprint on file. A "just detailed enough to be certain of identity" DNA profile, for convicted felons, would be just fine. The modern equivalent of a fingerprint database.
But *NOT* for "everyone", not even for misdemeanor convictions, most certainly not for people who are only arrested without conviction. (Although their DNA can be collected and tested against DNA from crimes, their DNA can't be kept in the database.)
Only (Score:2)
people whoa re currently serving time or paroled. After which, ti should be destroyed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No one likes to give, and everyone likes to receive.
I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about anal...
Re: (Score:2)
...which defeats the primary purpose of the database.
DNA records need to be retained in the database, just as the arrests/convictions/time-served records of current criminals are retained against the advent of a future crime. Any given criminal record should be accessible to the general public, but just as fingerprints should only be shown to whatever law enforcement agents need to see them in order to do their job, and perhaps to the convict/suspect and his/her council, so should the DNA records be kept u
Re:Criminals convicted for serious offenses (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminals convicted for serious offenses - but after they've served their sentence, paid their fines, and their probation is over, their DNA should be removed from the database. When criminals serve their time, they become innocent again, and should get all their freedoms back.
No they do not become innocent again. They are always and forever guilty of that crime. Granted, their debt to society has been paid for, and yes, they should get their freedoms back, but that does not mean their records are expunged. Their mug shots, their fingerprints, their criminal record remains intact. If DNA is a part of that record, it should stay with the rest of it.
Re:"Serious Offenses" Ambiguous (Score:5, Insightful)
Serious offences would include:
- photographing / videotaping a police officer in public
- refusing to hand over your password to any encrypted volumes
- copyright violations
- etc
Re:"Serious Offenses" Ambiguous (Score:5, Funny)
And what about a repeat offender for several lesser offenses?
You mean, like left-lane hogs and people who routinely drive with their turn-signals on?
Re:"Serious Offenses" Ambiguous (Score:4, Interesting)
And should the evidence be deleted when the sentence is fully served?
If not, all "serious offence" sentences in effect have life sentence components.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have to depend on the nature of the crime. White collar crimes in general does not involve DNA. While Robbery, assault etc have some chance of involving DNA evidence.
Some percentage of criminals are likely to commit another offense. This would in a sense help deter further crimes as well as make it easier to place them at the scene if they commit another offense and leave behind DNA evidence.
The purpose of collecting DNA is to make it easier to identify and prosecute them if they commit another o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because drug users are criminals who have decided to break the law for their personal benefit, just like any other criminal does.
With the slight difference that in opposite to about every other crime, there is no victim. Which is one of the many reasons why the drug laws in most countries are just absurd. Besides, here (Germany) only things like possession, cooking/growing, selling/buying are illegal, while consuming is not. Oh, and what about the legal drugs like alcohol? And where is the "personal benefit" when someone buys some dope for personal recreational use?
And statistically, the majority of drug users are criminals for other reasons (rape, robbery, assault, child abuse, etc.)
And, lemme guess, they are black or hispanic? Look, in reality, most
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, how exactly does one consume (not illegal) without first possessing (illegal)? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AS usually, the world doesn't work that way.
DNA might exonerate you, nothing it's not 100%. Meaning if it comes back there there is "only" a 99.99 percent chants it's not you, they will use that against you.
This happens a lot to men who get tested to prove a child isn't there. If it isn't 100% certain it's not your, you're assumed to be the father. Automatically found guilt and you will have to pay child support.
That is why this statement:
"? Oh, this matches the DNA of the child rapist/murderer. Case closed
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic is so full of holes it's difficult to know where to start.
Having one's DNA on file isn't the problem for "privacy freaks", and if you had an iota of common sense, you'd realize that. Who has access to such data and under what conditions is the concern.
Your example could easily be dealt with, and privacy preserved, by anyone who isn't as anchored in stale old thought patterns as you evidently are. If people chose to carry their own DNA file on a smart card or thumb drive, it would be accessi
Re: (Score:2)
They can take my DNA, they can take my prints, but they will NEVER have my phrenological measurements!
But in all seriousness, he's right. The purpose of a DNA sample is more to analyse the (layman's terms) "junk data". It's not even directly identifiable as yours, but when DNA samples are cross referenced with a limited list of suspects, it's useful for building likelihood in a case. The chances of someone else involved in a case and not a blood relative to you having the same array of data are infinites
Re: (Score:2)
(Why is it a slim chance and a fat chance are the same thing?)
For the same reason that flammable and inflammable are the same thing
Re: (Score:2)
Bone marrow transplants do not change the DNA of the rest of your body -- just your bone marrow, and I think that's just temporary as it's replaced by your body.
Cancer does not affect the DNA of parts of your body that are not cancerous -- which is usually most of your body even if you're dying of cancer.
Mutagenic compounds is a pretty broad category, but in general, if something can mutate more than a small percentage of your body's DNA, it's going to kill you. Anything else is the realm of science fictio