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)
Tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Re:Bad guys (Score:3)
Re:Bad guys (Score:3, Interesting)
There has already been a case of mistaken identity with DNA evidence when a British guy was accused of a rape commited in Italy even though he had never left the Britain. When these databases get too large the idea that no two are the same goes out the window because they only look at so many points and it
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.
Re:Bad guys (Score:2, Interesting)
How unthinkingly "progressive" can you be?
It's still not illegal to read The Anarchist Cookbook, but it's still illegal to blow up buildings. Determining which teenager purchased The Anarchist Cookbook a week before the school blew up is a perfectly valid tool the police can use when tracking down who the bomber is.
Come back when there is a consistent practice of knocking down people'
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:Bad guys (Score:2)
I went to a speech a year or two ago given by a former ACLU board member (Alstein I believe was his name--law prof). When a student asked what he thought about the current McCarthyite atmosphere, he replied that any such comparison was the "product of a fevered imagination" and that the civil rights issues of today "were the minorest of colds in comparison."
In all honesty, how has your life changed in the past five years? HAS it?
five years ago today (Score:2)
today I roil with distaste over every story concerning rights, freedom, and privacy.
it would seem, the standard requirement to being a member of the executive branch higher echelon is a willingness to bend the law beyond the point of legality.
I do not consider the country I live in today, to be preferred to the one I lived in five years ago.. (I haven't moved- it has changed)
ten years ago, the bulk of militar
Re:five years ago today (Score:2)
And I disagree with your assertion about the average voter feeling in the military..is this another one of your feelings? Because I certaintly have not been able to find any data to back up your assumptions.
Re:Bad guys (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you live in a cave....hang on I'll start again. Everybody living on the planet had their life changed after 911, wether they realise it or not. The change was not the threat of another 9/11, it was the (planned?) reaction to it. World oil production has peaked and so has the USA's political, economic & military power, regardless of who is running the planet the "cheap energy ride" is over and we are all in for a much rougher ride over the next few decades as global population makes it's downward "correction". Hopefully those who come out the other side will have more than goats and thorny weeds.
Also please don't lecture me about civil rights and McCarthy, it is the fact that these things are fresh in the social memory that people now scream so loudly when they see the political pendulum swing wildly to EITHER "side" (ever notice how both extreme left/right look different but produce the same results for joe sixpack). Rummy is nothing less than a carictature of McCarthy, he has been foaming at the mouth about terrorists/communists and suicase nukes since the seventies.
I was born in the 50's, where I live the government was still taking children from natives in bark huts (often violently), the kids were adopted out to white families in the suburbs, the natives were not told what happened to their kids and did not get voting rights untill 1969. Today the Aborigines are back on the front page, this time it's all about family violence, drugs and petty crime, and for some strange reason these people simply don't understand "law and order" and see the cops as their enemy. It's also reported in such a manner that one would assume isolated, uneducated white families don't exist.
I ask myself, is this current political push to force aborigines to abandon their "unviable communites" in any way connected with our mineral boom and sudden interest in exporting more uranium?
Re:Bad guys (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad guys (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a definite problem. Which is why you'd better always get a good lawyer.
Re:Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
"Should" is the operative word. Even before the days of DNA banks and the USA PATRIOT Act, bad/lazy/stupid/overworked police and DAs could try innocent people and sometimes find them guilty.
So, I'd say that a good lawyer has always been necessary.
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
You're saying that since the system is already fucked up, we should make it even worse? You should run for office!
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Maybe, but the point was that it's more necessary the more wrongful accusations there are to go around. And you yourself agreed that it's a problem that grows with these ridiculous databases. So then you agree that giant databases that increase the incidence of wrongful accusations disproportionately affect the poor?
Re:Bad guys (Score:5, Interesting)
Any "thing" that requires more money
Now, we just have to test the validity of the assertion that giant databases increase the incidence of wrongful accusations.
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 giv
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Thus, the ratio of coincidences to suspects without alibis will stay essentially the same as the amount of available data increases.
Also, you make it sound like investigators have no training or experience in weighting circumstantial evidence, or winnowing down a list of suspects, or differentiating between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.
I mea
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
It's easier to defend your freedom than to take it back.
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:Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Facism is when the efficiency of the government is more imporant than the rights of citizens.
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
I'd rather live in total anarchy than in your dream world.
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Re:Bad guys (Score:2, Informative)
The fact that the FBI gets an order rubber-stamped by a special secret court specifically set up to grant such stamping, does not change that the process is done without the Constitutionally-required warrants based on probable cause, in violation of state confidentiality laws, and using unconstitutional gag orders.
See this analysis by the FCNL [fcnl.org]:
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:Bad guys (Score:2)
As it so happens, a friend's boyfriend was served by the MPAA last year over one movie he shared on Kazaa. I haven't seen either of them in awhile, so I do not know how it turned out.
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.
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
I also haven't heard of their being any problems with reading "politically correct" books. I personally find such books to be contently-challenged,but hey, de gustibus non est disputandum, right?
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Re:Bad guys (Score:2, Interesting)
In point of fact he was, because his culture was, indiscriminate. He'd get off with guys in camp because it was full of guys, and rape the women in the towns he conquered, because they were full of women.
There was, indeed, a certain aversion to homosexuality as a sexual perversion, but not because it was the obverse to heterosexual, that was just as perverted. "Bi" to one degree or another was considered normal.
It was ok to prefer one or t
Re:Bad guys (Score:3, Informative)
Really, you can't refer to him sexually as anything other than "not abnormal for the time period". In Greece they didn't have contraception, but they did have strong motivations for limiting their population (scarcity of arable land), so it's not surprising to see a population gravitate towards same-sex encounters for casual sex play. Despite what the radic
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?
Re:Bad guys? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just todays politically correct way of saying untermensch.
Re:Bad guys? (Score:3, Interesting)
Untermensch Explained (Score:3, Informative)
Because, if you go to the Wikipedia page for "Untermensch" [wikipedia.org] you'd learn that the Nazis used it to describe inferior people.
However, the roots of the word (in it's Nazi context) go deeper than that. It originated in 1922 from the writings of an American named Stoddard [wikipedia.org] who was racist, a WASP and a white supremacist.
From the wiki:
Re:Untermensch Explained (Score:3, Informative)
And while the explicitly racist edge of it tends to be surpressed (heck, in some cases it's reversed!) it's the same mindset at work. Those that the system wishes to eat, it first dehumanises in the eyes of its servants. Whether it's 'bad guy' or 'untermensch' the functional content is the same - these people are below us, not full
Re:Bad guys? (Score:2, Interesting)
To paraphrase Dave Letterman, "You shouldn't be worried.
I'd say that your intuitive unease is spot-on: this sounds like yet another [double/new]speak term for "anyone w
Re:Bad guys? (Score:2)
Re:Bad guys? (Score:2)
As you very well should be. Not all kids hit puberty at the same time, so shouldn't you be hitting them with sex ed when the first of them hits puberty, if not earlier? Which means that, yeah, if only one of the boys is far enough along to get an erection, then you're also teaching the rest of the boys who can't.
Your reference to "Not liking the idea of introducing these concepts to hormone driven teens" is also a great reaso
Re:Bad guys? (Score:2)
Re: Bad guys? (Score:2)
I remember when we had bad actions. Most people do some good actions, and most people do some bad ones from time to time as well, though some are worse than others. Crimes, they were called.
Now, we have bad people. Paedophiles. Illegal immigrants. Terrrrrists. Filesharers. You know.
"Hey, you're a bad person. So we're going to give you all these labels. And lock you away; you don't deserve to be free. And take away many of your rights; you don't d
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.
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
Re:What a dolt. (Score:5, Informative)
This reminds me of a certain Unitary Executive [rawstory.com] and his henchmen [usatoday.com].
Let's understand that the FBI prefers not only to keep the DNA database (which records only thirteen "genes"), but also the original sample, from which the donor's entire genetic code can be recovered.
Nowadays, the government doesn't discriminate against Jews. On May 14th 1940, it would have been perfectly safe for Anne Frank to have her "Jewish DNA" recorded by the Dutch government. On the next day, the Dutch government surrendered to Nazi Germany, and suddenly any Dutch government records were, legally and in fact, German government records.
Someone will shout "Godwin!" at this point, and some other patriotic American will claim, "it can't happen here."
Oh?
Ask your Japanese-American friends what happened to their grandparents in the America West in 1942. Or ask the parents of any your black friends about how, even after World War II, a black man risked his life if he tried to vote and broke the law if he used the wrong water fountain in many of these United States.
Or ask a gay man about how before Bowers, he could be put in prison for what he did with other consenting adults behind the locked doors of his own house.
Plenty of zealots, scientifically correct or not, have claimed to find genes that mark for "Jewishness" or "Negro blood" or even "criminal tendencies" or "homosexuality". Plenty of times, these zealots have gotten their prejudices written into laws: Nuremberg laws [ushmm.org], Jim Crow laws, or, in 1927, the U.S Supreme Court's upholding of the forced sterilisation of Americans based on then-prevailing genetic theories:
Then, the zealots' hobbyhorse was eugenics. Today the politicians keep the people worked up by riding the hobbyhorses of "the war against terrorists" and "homosexual marriage". But Big Government has demonstrated time and time again that there are things with which it cannot be trusted. Our genetic codes are clearly one of those things that Government will eventually misuse. Our only defense is to prevent Government from getting it
Re:What a dolt. (Score:2)
No subtlely differnt. It's not a crime if the victim doesn't notice. You can still get caught, just make sure they never find out.
Most government crimes occur in this way. People find out what's going on, but no one is brought to justice. Instead, the whole operation is shut down, and the powers that be do their utmost to make sure the victims remain ignorent.
So in short, the FBI can install X-10 cams in your bathroom and walk away scott free if you
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.
Re:Frightening (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with a DNA database is that everytime they run a search against it, everyone in the database is a suspect.
"Blah blah blah it's no different than fingerprints blah blah blah"
You're wrong. It's nothing like fingerprints. My fingerprints are unique.
With DNA, they can get a partial match based on your relatives. Ontop of that, DNA matching isn't always all that accurate. You can read a lengthy book excerpt [bioforensics.com] that goes in depth.
DNA evidence isn't always all the prosecutors make it out to be.
they HAVE the data - maybe focus on how it's used? (Score:2)
Actually, a bigger problem (not to take away from your point, but to underscore it) is that everyone not in the database is not a suspect. So when you hear them say they have it "narrowed down to two people", of course they mean "it's either these two or perhaps 6 billion not on record, or even 1 million of those who might match all they searched for". But you just know they're going
Re:Frightening (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens if someone goes for a job in, um let's just say a security firm, or a bank, or the army, and they get turned down because your estranged half brother committed credit card fraud 5 years ago on the other side of the country.
Even worse, that pervy loner uncle that no-one ever talks about much rapes and kills a girl, and they come looking for you because you're a match.
Even worse in some ways (you can always get an alabi for the occasional criminal accusation, burglary etc) is when big business gets it's hands on the records (which is pretty much inevitable), and withold mortgages from honest people with dishonest relatives.
Compulsory DNA database? Pffffft. I'm glad I'm Irish, and not for the first time.
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:Frightening (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Frightening (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Frightening (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, you can avoid Wal-mart for now. But Wal-mart isn't even close to being the only place you'd ever make a financial transaction.
To stay completely out of the databases, you'll have to forgo making any reservations at hotels, airports, or rental agencies. They pretty all require a credit card on file (usually that's just one tidbit among many).
And cash doesn't work for big purchases. Assuming you even have the cash for it--most people don't--go down to the nearest car dealership and pay cash
Re:Frightening (Score:2, Funny)
Until now, refusnik. We'll be watching you.
KFG
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree... (Score:4, Funny)
No, the single best way to keep bad people off the street, is to not allow ANYONE onto the street. But that has its drawbacks too...
Re:I disagree... (Score:2)
Why is having bad guys roaming the street always listed as a problem? If there are bad guys on the street, then that means they are away from my home. If I have a car, then I can run them over. What's so scary about criminals on the street? Heck, that's where I'd prefer they be... not at home, next door to me.
A much worse concern (Score:2, Funny)
Did you know that whenever you touch anything with your hand, you leave a unique mark on the thing you touched? This mark can be examined to identify you and track where you've been! Everywhere you've been.
It's a privacy nightmare. Where's the ACLU on this?
Re:A much worse concern (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true, to a point. However not every person's DNA/fingerprints are on file. I was born in 1981 and I wasn't finger printed when I was born (well actually foot printed then). Then in school, my mom never had me fingerprinted either when they had the fingerprint drive for kids incase they get abducted. I've never been in trouble w/ the law, except for a traffic ticket here and there. That doesn't mean I'm innocent, it just mea
Finger prints harder to fake (Score:5, Interesting)
A few dollars and a PCR machine, and there's enough DNA to "taint" anything I want. If I already have the DNA, I can frame someone with DNA "evidence" and the current miseducated jury will proclaim the 100% match to be 100% proof.
So you should be worried about databases of DNA. There's no worry about using the DNA itself, just the governmental agencies posessing it. If a court orders I give a DNA sample to test against existing evidence, I can't see the easy ability for abuse (I'm not considering the self-incrimination angle.)
A database is a much different matter.
Looks like Mr. John Doe has finally gone too far. Pull his DNA file, duplicate it in mass, and
spread it around the next dead homeless person you find. Who knew he was socially unbalanced and
liked to kill homeless people? Well, those political activists were always a strange bunch! A
few years in prison will help him sort is out.
When did it become appropriate for the government to own a piece of you? A fingerprint is an external feature, but DNA is a part of you. Ceratinly it will be put to noble uses, but like anything that is available, sooner or later it will also be put to much less than noble uses. That's just human nature.
Re:Finger prints harder to fake (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:52 digit number (Score:2)
Re:52 digit number (Score:2)
You said it (Score:2, Interesting)
And thats EXACTLY why we won't have it.
So if you were an "ememy" of the state (Score:2)
because we have now been told for years that DNA is 100% infallible, it can never be wrong.
Re:So if you were an "ememy" of the state (Score:2)
But there is probably no way to force the govt to comensate you for your lost time and distress.
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:You can have my DNA... (Score:2)
If "they" come with a court order compelling you to give DNA, fighting back will just wind up with you in jail for contempt of court and/or resisting a police officer.
Re:You can have my DNA... (Score:2)
Which fall off your skin and float away in the air all the time. It will soon be possible for them to get a DNA sample from the soda can you just emptied, or the doorknob you just gripped, or clothing you've worn, or even by walking past you on the street and sucking up some cells with a special vacuum.
> 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.
After you get out
You don't need a DNA database to catch "bad guys" (Score:2, Interesting)
As you can see "bad guy" depends entirely on your point of view and definition. What is a "bad guy"? Someone who robs a bank? Kills someone? Oh, for sure, many people will agree that those are "bad guys".
What about more "questionable" bad guys? With a complete DNA database, you're save from nothing. Even the tinyest lapse of "good behaviour" has consequences. Even if you don't know it. Thrown away a cigarette stub somewhere? Well, you might
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.
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.
Open to the people (Score:2)
I honestly don't care that my DNA is on file. I want to know however, about programs which are allowed to use this information, and for what purpose. The overwhelming majority of the people in the U.S. are law abiding citizens(unless you go by *IAA standards) and are willing to at least passively assist in protecting their way of life. To some extent, people will act the way you treat them, so if you treat a po
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.
Re:Land of the free! (Score:2)
Keep caring just for your well-being and by the time you realise what's up, it'll be too late.
USA is largely regarded as a police state by people abroad.
My brother has some business to do there and we gotta take extensive measures so we he doesn't bring suspicion "as a
Re:Land of the free! (Score:2)
scissors are now allowed in american airspace.
immigrants are not tagged
dna and thumb prints are not taken of every citizen
Re:Land of the free! (Score:2)
DNA isn't that far off.
Correction (Score:2)
Re:Land of the free! (Score:2, Interesting)
That second point of immigrants not being tagged is simply not true... as my GF and I quite often leave the country with her (she is from Taiwan). And I can certainly tell you, she gets harassed almost as much as I do. The last time we entered the country, they tried to force a RFID sheet for her passport. (I happen to work for a few firms that provide such tech). Tagged? You bet.
And all it takes is to be on someone's list and presto, you are suspect for everything from the bombing in Madrid to las
Abbie Hoffman (Score:2, Insightful)
"Bad guys" (Score:2)
Chris, as long as everyone agrees on what exactly a "bad guy" is, this isn't much of a problem. However, with the current US king^H^H^Hpresident already redefining prisoners of war as something else ("enemy combatants") just so he do with them as he pleases, the definition of "bad guy" might not long stay something we all agree upon...
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:Data collection versus data usage (Score:2)
Re:Data collection versus data usage (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess some people(*) just assume that misuse is inevitable. Why? Because that's how power works, always. Capability is what you have to look out for. Intent is nearly irrelevant, because sooner or later, someone with malevolent (or maybe just misguided or irresponsible) intent will come along.
(*) Alas, "some people" are about 1% of the voting population. It amuses me when people bitch about what the current federal govern
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 wi
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.
Who's gathering it? (Score:3, Funny)
Wait...the Washington Post has been gathering genetic material?
DDay (Score:2)
Re:DDay (Score:2)
Indeed. I've often said that the only reason I'd go to the USA would be to help in the next revolution. Not exactly the sort of thing I'd put on my visa application though...
just wait until ... (Score:2)
THEN we'll see whether the lawyer community is as eager to be profiled via DNA as they are to have others profiled that way.
Just imagine, a crime is committed, and the latent DNA evidence at the scene (which may or may not have anything to do with
Yea its terrific to catch criminals (Score:2)
Single best way to catch bad guys (Score:2)
Gattaca (Score:3, Informative)
In Gattaca, genetic profiling was technically against the law, but was the de-facto standard way of life regardless of the law.