DNA samples should be on record for...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Serious offences would include:

- photographing / videotaping a police officer in public
- refusing to hand over your password to any encrypted volumes
- copyright violations
- etc

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.

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.

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 good reason to support something like this, or indeed, any expansion of power or revenue -- because it benefits them personally, no matter what the consequence to the rest of society.

Let's call a spade a spade here, folks. We are talking about the most powerful, most expensive government in world history. The LAST thing the US government needs is yet even more power and revenue.

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.

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.