DNA samples should be on record for...

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.

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.

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. causing someone to believe that unlawful personal violence is an immediate threat. "I'm gonna kick your head in!" Assault. Push you after you called my girlfriend a whore? Assault. You break into my house and I take up a kitchen knife / bat without knowing if you're armed or not? Assault. I would, however, add burglary to that list.

Serious violent offences (offences which must be tried in Crown court and not "white-collar" crime) should have DNA data retained. DNA samples don't help identify scam artists or embezzlers.

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.

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.

However I do like to think this means there's a logical possibility of the answer being figured out one day and Utopia realized (maybe complete with a universal but unnecessary DNA database).

Look no further.

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.

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 sequencing article we will rapidly improve our ability to analyze DNA. Maybe in 20-30 years we could just take a DNA sample at birth and store a full DNA profile on everyone at a fairly insignificant cost - if we want.

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.

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 DNA. Maybe one day we will be able to tell that you find other men rather more attractive than you would like us to believe. Or are motivated entirely by selfishness, or that you're a deeply conservative person, or incapable of sincere love. But these surprises will be special cases, and as society starts to understand the biological basis of things we now regard as deeply personal, the social construction of identity will adapt to make these things seem less personal. Mostly, the personal things that make you "you" are not defined at birth.

As a precedent, it seems to me that over the last few centuries, the biologicalisation and medicalisation of disease has led to the de-stigmatisation of things that would previously been considered personal issues. (As a current example, consider the medicalisation of alcoholism.)

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.

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.

What? Not copyright violations?

Note to self: Before running for office, change name to Aaron Aardvark.

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!

Your twin have a goatee perchance?

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.

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...

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...

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)