Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

A DNA Database For All U.S. Workers? 625

fragmer writes "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested a plan on Wednesday that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers. The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will 'uniquely identify the person' applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged. Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the Social Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A DNA Database For All U.S. Workers?

Comments Filter:
  • by espressojim ( 224775 ) <> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:51PM (#15416544)
    I agree that this data isn't something I want gathered (because trolling for criminals will be too easy). However, as a minor nitpick: you don't resequence the human genome for each individual. You test a relatively small number of single nucleotide polymorhpisms (SNPs) or microsattelite markers. The amount of markers needed is very small to establish uniqueness, and the cost is pretty low per person (it'll cost more to extract the blood and purify the dna than to run the genotyping.) Financially and technically this is very doable, but I don't think it SHOULD be done.
  • Re:Privacy Violation (Score:2, Informative)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:14PM (#15416866)
    Unfortunately, the right to privacy isn't actually in the constitution.

    Ninth amendment to the Constitution:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Specific, clear and directly on point. Discussion over.

  • Re:Uh huh (Score:3, Informative)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:16PM (#15416873)
    Oh course Koresh and Weaver didn't succeed. They had less guns than their opposition. Revolution only works when everyone helps out.
  • by ( 807087 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:20PM (#15416888)
    your opposition has clusterbombs and cruise missiles.
  • Smart Yank. (Score:3, Informative)

    by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311@yahoo.GAUSScom minus math_god> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @04:37PM (#15417259) Homepage
    That is obvioulsy why the IRA owned South Armagh and even the police had to be flown in and could not use the roads for safety, even garbage had to be flown out by helicopter from the bases (until the SAS came in and played them at their own game with their underhanded tactics). Get your facts right. Terrorists did a HUGE amount of damage to the UK government and over a LONG period of time. The UK Government had no chance against the populance that dispised them so much.

    And? I said that guns are useless for defending yourself from the government. You havn't presented anything against that.

    All you've said is that terrorists can cause a lot of damage. So? What's that got to do with guns? Terrorists who cause the most damage don't even use guns! They use fertilizer, box cutters, improvised artillery shells, and airplanes. And for all the damage the IRA did, all they managed to do was hurt the economy where they lived. All of their efforts did nothing but hurt themselves. Pretty stupid, isn't it?
  • by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @05:35PM (#15417528) Homepage Journal
    What part of:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Do you not understand? All of the above is a longer way of staying you have a right to privacy from government intrusion.
  • You couldn't be more wrong if you were president. The majority of American casualties and deaths in Iraq are due to firearms. The idea that firearms are ineffective is, much like you, beyond stupid.

    Hrm, wouldn't it be wonderful if somebody kept track of the causes of troop fatalities in Iraq? Then we could tell which one of us is really stupid. But wait! SOMEBODY DOES KEEP TRACK!

    Top 10 causes of troop fatalities in Iraq, March 2003->May 2006:

    Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack 863 - 32.1%
    Hostile - hostile fire 389 - 14.5%
    Non-hostile - vehicle accident 215 - 8%
    Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire 154 - 5.7%
    Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb 101 - 3.8%
    Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack 89 - 3.3%
    Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack 78 - 2.9%
    Non-hostile - helicopter crash 78 - 2.9%
    Hostile - helicopter crash 66 - 2.5%
    Hostile - hostile fire - ambush 60 - 2.2%

    That includes the start of the war though. If you look at the past three months (March->May):

    IED/Car Bomb/Explosion/Helicopter/missile: 119
    Non-specied hotile fire/small arms fire: 37

    That counts unspecified hostile fire (which could be anything) in the 2nd category, as I would guess it's more likely that actual IED casualties are classified as IED deaths than just hostile fire deaths while gunfire is more likely to just get lumped into hostile fire.

    36.4% of all fatalities (combat AND non-combat fatalities) in Iraq since March 2003 were caused by IED. In the past three months, over half of *ALL* troop fatalities (99 out of 183) have been caused by IED. If you take out the non-com deaths, 63% of combat deaths are by IED alone.

    The longer the war has gone on, the more insurgents have been relying on IED's. Why? Because the insurgents who use guns are dead. That's the tactical environment in Iraq: Use your gun to kill a few US troops before you get killed, or use your IED to kill more troops and do it again later.

    Source: []
  • by cyberwench ( 10225 ) <> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @09:10PM (#15418351)
    What do you mean, "what remained of them"?

    The Taliban is still a strong presence in Afghanistan, they're far from being defeated. They're not running the _entire_ country anymore, but they're certainly not gone. The troops still there are trying to build up an infrastructure while defeating the Taliban, and it's not going all that hot. It's NATO troops there now, by the way. This really should be common knowledge - I know Iraq is the "in" country right now, but that certainly doesn't mean Afghanistan's done with.

If you suspect a man, don't employ him.