Vast DNA Bank Pits Policing Vs. Privacy 275
schwit1 writes "Today a Washington Post story discusses the vast U.S. bank of genetic material it has gathered over the last few years. Already home to the genetic information of almost 3 Million Americans, the database grows by 80,000 citizens a month." From the article: "'This is the single best way to catch bad guys and keep them off the street,' said Chris Asplen, a lawyer with the Washington firm Smith Alling Lane and former executive director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. 'When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on.'"
Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, in numerous television interviews, troops in Iraq talk about bad guys, cops on the street talk about them, inteligence agency agents talk about them etc.
I'm kind of worried, is this the new code word for sub human? For unexplaned threat?
What a dolt. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, "It's not a crime if you don't get caught." I guess I should start robbing the estates of the dead. They wouldn't know about it, so I guess I should be able to do it. Or actually, no, you idiot. Just because no one knows about it doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes your actions more cowardly.
Fair? (Score:2, Insightful)
Frightening (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be greatly interested in a link to just who has had their data collected, and their collection methods. I do not want (and I am far from alone in this) the government keeping tabs on me or archiving my personal habits into some large database that will be used against me in the future. I have never been indicted nor found guilty of any crime and as such there is no reason for the government to retain such information.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys? (Score:2, Insightful)
52 digit number (Score:4, Insightful)
I do think that once a profile is done and a unique ID (The 52 digit number mentioned in the article and thread title) is developed that the sample can be destroyed. Concerns about new techniques etc are red herrings - if there is a need to do more with a given individuals DNA in a criminal investigation then the authorities should be able to show probable cause to get a new sample and do the analysis. Keeping a sample in storage is an invitation to abuse of the data.
Tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just todays politically correct way of saying untermensch.
Re:Bad guys (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh shut up.
If you think its just "radical hysteria" please explain the library records seizure rules introduced in the usa patriot act. Apparently it's "neocon hysteria" too.
You can have my DNA... (Score:2, Insightful)
...when you pry it from my cold dead cells.
The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. Anyone attempting to force a DNA sample out of me will be dealt with in the same manner I would deal with an attempted sexual assault.
Re:Frightening (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like the databases that Wal-Mart, Visa & MasterCard, E-ZPass, etc keep, and that the police can access at any time with a valid search warrant?
Face it: There is no privacy.
Re:Bad guys (Score:2, Insightful)
Book reading is, at present, not conducive to DNA sample collecting. Of course, reading politically correct books would never be against the law. Now, those filthy tobacco smokers, on the other hand
It would be wise to remember that what once seemed radical can soon become typical.
Framer's dream (Score:2, Insightful)
How easy is it to transfer DNA "evidence"? Trivial.
DNA is the single most worthless piece of crap for proving anything. All these experts talk about is how exact they can be about who's DNA it is, they never talk about how exact they can be about how it got to where it was found.
TWW
PS. This is my 3000th and last post. It's been fun and all that but I'm running out of years to be spending them ranting for free on /. Bye bye.
Re:Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
By then it will be too late to do anything about it.
Much less be able to talk about it on a public forum.
Re:What a dolt. (Score:5, Insightful)
That really puts his "When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on" statement into another light.
/Insert Gattaca [imdb.com] comment here
It is fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
If full scale thermo nuclear war killed everyone in the world, it would be "fair." That doesn't make it reasonable or right.
Re:Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys (Score:1, Insightful)
You don't know what you are giving up until it's long gone.
Land of the free! (Score:5, Insightful)
* Take thumbprints, photo and install RFID chip on immigrants (check)
* Take DNA and thumbs of every citizen (check)
* Monitor phone calls nation-wide and data transferred over the network (check)
* Big corporation control the government, government controls the people, people control nothing (check)
That's some land of the free you got there, guys.
Data collection versus data usage (Score:4, Insightful)
Information collection isn't the problem. Information misuse is the problem.
The problem with the data brokerage industry isn't that they collect data about me (and sometimes get it wrong). The problem is that there's no transparency for consumers into the data kept about them, and no efficient process for them to get inaccuracies corrected. The problem is that companies and the government are often using data (sometimes incorrect) in ways they shouldn't be allowed to.
You just can't stop data collection. It's going to happen, it's already happening, it's been happening. Organizations and people need to collect and exchange information in order for the economy and society to function efficiently and smoothly. Law enforcement needs information to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers. These kinds of informational needs aren't going to magically disappear.
What needs to be stopped it the misuse of data. I should be guaranteed by law the right to completely and freely see, without being charged, at any time, any and all information that any organization, business, or the government has on me, and I should be able to challenge the accuracy of the data and get corrections made in a timely manner. It should be illegal for law enforcement or the government to use data about my legal actions or protected opinions as justification for arresting me, harassing me, publicly smearing me, getting a search warrant against me, or suspecting me of criminal activity. It should be illegal for a lender to deny me a loan based on inaccurate information in my credit report; I should be guaranteed by law an opportunity to prove that the information is wrong and the lender should then be forced to reevaluate using the corrected data. It should be illegal for an employer to not hire me based on information in my credit report or medical records. Etc.
What we need are more accurate and good laws to protect people against the misuse of information. Then the mere collection of data becomes a moot point.
Re:Frightening (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Facism is when the efficiency of the government is more imporant than the rights of citizens.
RIP - US Consitution (Score:4, Insightful)
But then I realize I shouldn't get all worked up over the US Government doing this, I need to get worked up over my fellow Citizens who are letting this happen by not voicing Outrage.
Our current Laws, and Judical system (Thanks to the last couple SCOTUS appointments) give the executive branch so much power that they can dismantle our sacred rights.
This isn't a hypothetical, its happening now.
Wake up people.
Re:Frightening (Score:3, Insightful)
Abbie Hoffman (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, now, how many people do we know of who were running servers with thousands if not tens of thousands of mp3s that got in trouble?
Call me old fashioned, but that seems like the way it should be to me.
Re:Data collection versus data usage (Score:2, Insightful)
(*) Alas, "some people" are about 1% of the voting population. It amuses me when people bitch about what the current federal government has done, rather than the fact that it was able to do those things. I hear lots of "Impeach Bush" but not much "let's return power to the states and localities so that presidents stop being important." Good thinking, people: fixate on the villain dujour.
Death by a 1000 Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems pretty minor (not to mention creepy) but I beleive it's this constant onslought of new laws that is the most dangerous threat to our freedoms and way of life.
The congress (both federal and state) seem to think you can solve any problem just by passing a bill. And with the current culture of lobbyism/activism not unresaonable to think that eventually everybody will be guilty of something.
Right now we have a wannabe facist administration. What do you think will happen if we get a real one? Should someone dare speak out there would certainly be something they could be arrested on.
It's not even really about the impact new laws have on us today, but how they might be used in the future. Isn't kind of odd that people cussing someone out are now charged w/ making a 'Terrorist Threat'? Or have the baby seat pointing in the wrong direction is 'Child Endangerment' (a felony unless you're Britney Sprears). And of course remember Al Capone was eventually brought down with 'Tax Evasion' charges. You might think he might of deserved it but remember you could someday be on their rader.
Not to mention they're taking all our freedoms by protecting everybodys rights.
R.H.
Re:Data collection versus data usage (Score:3, Insightful)
You support the Bush administration in all of its actions because you believe them to be just, benevolent, and noble, who would never misuse power under any circumstances? Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that's true. But will the next guy also be perfect? And the one after that? And the one 20 years from now? No. Even if the current lot are paragons of virtue, you have to remember that, someday, the powers you give them will fall into the hands of someone who will abuse them for personal gain and petty vengeance at every opportunity.
Since when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Will this be yet one more program that is supposed to serve "just one" purpose, that grows and grows?
Re:Bad guys (Score:3, Insightful)
Some "things" are still a bit more important than others. "Things" like, say, justice.
Now, we just have to test the validity of the assertion that giant databases increase the incidence of wrongful accusations.
This is the kind of intuitive assertion that's best given the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise, especially in situations involving criminal justice and potential racial abuse. Any test that's even slightly inaccurate will report false positives given enough samples. This was essentially the basis of the ACM's objection to TIA. The burden of proof is definitely on law enforcement, and I'd challenge anyone advocating a centralized DNA database to first provide conclusive evidence that such false positives would be vanishingly rare.
Nevermind the fact that under current practices, the entire sample is kept, making all these other issues pale in comparison. As long as a mere arrest (or, in some cases, a detention) is enough to give law enforcement a permanent record with that much information (i.e., much, much more than the simple 52-digit "fingerprint" that's matched in the database), the program in question has glaring ethical problems.
Don't Mod Things Troll Just Because You Disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't agree with modding the post troll. If you disagree with a legitimate post counter it with arguments like the posters above, don't try to stifle honest discussion by abusing mod powers.
Re:Frightening (Score:2, Insightful)