PDA

View Full Version : F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases



Water Closet
04-19-2009, 09:10 AM
And so it goes; and so it goes...


F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases
Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Published: April 18, 2009

Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.

Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.

The F.B.I., with a DNA database of 6.7 million profiles, expects to accelerate its growth rate from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs which now stand at more than 500,000 cases to increase.

Law enforcement officials say that expanding the DNA databanks to include legally innocent people will help solve more violent crimes. They point out that DNA has helped convict thousands of criminals and has exonerated more than 200 wrongfully convicted people.

But criminal justice experts cite Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and worry that the nation is becoming a genetic surveillance society.

More at the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?_r=1)...

Don't forget that famous and ever-popular rationale, if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?

SarasotaRepub
04-19-2009, 09:20 AM
OMG!!!! Damn Bu$hitler and the BFEE to hell!!!!

Oh wait...:D

Moon
04-19-2009, 09:48 AM
Playing Devil's Advocate here, but how is this fundamentally different than someone being fingerprinted when they're arrested? They're still presumed innocent, as they have yet to be convicted, and yet personal information is still collected.

Water Closet
04-19-2009, 10:06 AM
Playing Devil's Advocate here, but how is this fundamentally different than someone being fingerprinted when they're arrested? They're still presumed innocent, as they have yet to be convicted, and yet personal information is still collected.

Unreasonable search and seizure. When one takes fingerprints, the process is effectively the same as a photograph, no bodily material is forcibly seized. When one takes a DNA sample, a part (however miniscule) of the body of the arrested is seized.

Moon
04-19-2009, 10:27 AM
Unreasonable search and seizure. When one takes fingerprints, the process is effectively the same as a photograph, no bodily material is forcibly seized. When one takes a DNA sample, a part (however miniscule) of the body of the arrested is seized.

I'd make the argument that the information collected is far more potentially damaging than the fact that nothing from the body is being seized. Regardless, suppose there was a technique available whereby your DNA information could be collected without any part of your body being seized, would you drop your opposition to the practice then?

JB
04-19-2009, 04:43 PM
Meh. If they're arrested they're probably guilty of something anyway.

Take the advice offered in another thread: Stay "off the grid". That way collection of your DNA will never be an issue.

I didn't know you cared so much about your fellow man. Particularly your arrested fellow man. Very noble.

Water Closet
04-19-2009, 04:57 PM
Meh. If they're arrested they're probably guilty of something anyway.

Take the advice offered in another thread: Stay "off the grid". That way collection of your DNA will never be an issue.

I didn't know you cared so much about your fellow man. Particularly your arrested fellow man. Very noble.

As you know, I'm a pure conservative in my concern for my fellow man, i.e., WGAS! However, I am a big believer in principle and oppose the continuing extension of government intervention and/or control into private lives.

Rockntractor
04-19-2009, 05:07 PM
Meh. If they're arrested they're probably guilty of something anyway.

Take the advice offered in another thread: Stay "off the grid". That way collection of your DNA will never be an issue.

I didn't know you cared so much about your fellow man. Particularly your arrested fellow man. Very noble.
If people who are arreted are probably guilty anyway why was inocent until proven guilty put in the constitution. Is that an old warn out idea that doesn't apply anymore?

JB
04-19-2009, 05:23 PM
If people who are arreted are probably guilty anyway why was inocent until proven guilty put in the constitution.Lawyers and judges needed something to do.

I was just goofing around until now. Can you kindly cite where in the Constitution the "presumption of innocence" explicity exists?

JB
04-19-2009, 05:28 PM
As you know, I'm a pure conservative in my concern for my fellow man, i.e., WGAS! However, I am a big believer in principle and oppose the continuing extension of government intervention and/or control into private lives.What is WGAS? Who gives a shit???? :confused:

The world is a dangerous place. Better one innocent man gets locked up than a hundred guilty men get set free.

Rockntractor
04-19-2009, 05:39 PM
Lawyers and judges needed something to do.

I was just goofing around until now. Can you kindly cite where in the Constitution the "presumption of innocence" explicity exists?
"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments" wilkipedia
I stand corrected.

Bubba Dawg
04-19-2009, 05:44 PM
What is WGAS? Who gives a shit???? :confused:

The world is a dangerous place. Better one innocent man gets locked up than a hundred guilty men get set free.

I feel exactly the opposite. I would prefer 99 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail. Anything else is a travesty.

If actual innocence is inconsequential, then there is no justice.

Water Closet
04-19-2009, 08:34 PM
What is WGAS? Who gives a shit???? :confused:

You got it. The conservatives' motto on this subject.


The world is a dangerous place. Better one innocent man gets locked up than a hundred guilty men get set free.

I've heard that somewhere, but I'm not sure it went quite like that. ;) :D

Seriously, however, I do object because of the principle, not because of the specifics. Take Padilla, for example. He, an American citizen, was held for three years without charge and without access to counsel, effectively scraping the notion of habeas corpus for Georgie-Porgie's short-term political gains. Johnny Ascroft, he of the "no-boobs" fame, caught him, almost single-handedly btw, with all the materials for a "dirty bomb." Funny how he was never charged with anything related to a dirty bomb.

When Napolitano and Obama declare some right-wing schmuck an enemy combatant, all those who cheered Johnny and Georgie need to remember that they gave them this power without objection.

Elspeth
04-19-2009, 09:00 PM
I feel exactly the opposite. I would prefer 99 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail. Anything else is a travesty.

If actual innocence is inconsequential, then there is no justice.

I agree with you here. If we are going the way of Britain (and it seems we do that in just about everything, including bad reality shows), then we will have a hugely increased DNA database in a few years. Police state anyone? And, yeah, it's the Dems doing it this time. Obama will get away with it because the mainstream Dems will have their guard down and only the right will be fighting this.

Water Closet
04-19-2009, 09:10 PM
I agree with you here. If we are going the way of Britain (and it seems we do that in just about everything, including bad reality shows), then we will have a hugely increased DNA database in a few years. Police state anyone? And, yeah, it's the Dems doing it this time. Obama will get away with it because the mainstream Dems will have their guard down and only the right will be fighting this.

Thank God we're not like those Euro-Weenies...


England's blanket retention of DNA profiles on criminal suspects was declared unlawful today. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the human rights of two British men to enjoy respect for their private and family lives had been violated.

The landmark ruling is expected to force a policy change in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where police retain indefinitely the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of people suspected but not convicted of crimes.

Approximately 4.5 million samples are currently stored on the UK's DNA database. More than 850,000 of these samples are from people with no criminal record, according to reports.

A more restricted policy applies in Scotland, an approach that may become a blueprint for UK policing after today's ruling.

http://www.out-law.com/page-9639

noonwitch
04-20-2009, 11:51 AM
I'd make the argument that the information collected is far more potentially damaging than the fact that nothing from the body is being seized. Regardless, suppose there was a technique available whereby your DNA information could be collected without any part of your body being seized, would you drop your opposition to the practice then?


There kind of is a way, if they get hold of a good hair sample off a suspect's clothing. But there would be logistics of proving that the sample is truly that person's hair, and that would likely lead to problems in court.


For paternity tests, they now take swabs of cheek cells. It works well, because then they don't have to get a blood sample from a crying baby or small child.