Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

The nation's chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, "It's the right thing to do" to "tighten the grip around folks" who commit crime.

Seriously, WTF?:| What does keeping a record of someone's genetic profile have anything to do with stopping crime? Is this Hope and Change we can believe in? This is madness. This is just plain horrifying.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

I despise Obama but I'm not opposed to this. The more info we have on past offenders the better.

Well, a lot of times they get DNA samples from crime scenes, but have nothing to match it against because there's isn't some centralized DNA data bank.

Of course, there are a lot of privacy issues being invoked by doing this. I think I really need to see more arguments against this issue, since the current ones really aren't that good.

I despise Obama but I'm not apposed to this. The more info we have on past offenders the better.

Pirate700

DNA sampling for someone convicted is one thing, but merely for someone being arrested?

I can haz Due Process?

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I despise Obama but I'm not apposed to this. The more info we have on past offenders the better.

MarcusAntonius

DNA sampling for someone convicted is one thing, but merely for someone being arrested?

I can haz Due Process?

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

dercoo

Has anyone here ever been a suspect and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the crime at all? Here's the thing: if you're not a criminal you have nothing to worry about. If you're involved in a crime either as a perpetrator or victim, then the police having your DNA is a GOOD thing. I would be concerned if they just pulled in some random guy of the street who literally did nothing and had nothing to do with any crime, but was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, but even then it comes down to how the police handle DNA and what is done with it. I mean, if someone asked for my DNA and I knew it was for nothing else other than "just in case" then I would be happy to have that on record, along with my finger prints and dental records. I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide, but if I found out they mixed up or lost my samples (which should be destroyed anyway with only the results kept on file) and my DNa was either wrongfully used or something then it's a concern.

If you're John Doe and you're not a criminal what are you worried about?

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

Pirate700

Has anyone here ever been a suspect and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the crime at all? Here's the thing: if you're not a criminal you have nothing to worry about. If you're involved in a crime either as a perpetrator or victim, then the police having your DNA is a GOOD thing. I would be concerned if they just pulled in some random guy of the street who literally did nothing and had nothing to do with any crime, but was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, but even then it comes down to how the police handle DNA and what is done with it. I mean, if someone asked for my DNA and I knew it was for nothing else other than "just in case" then I would be happy to have that on record, along with my finger prints and dental records. I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide, but if I found out they mixed up or lost my samples (which should be destroyed anyway with only the results kept on file) and my DNa was either wrongfully used or something then it's a concern.

If you're John Doe and you're not a criminal what are you worried about?

DigitalExile

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

Pirate700

So it would be okay for the government to sample anyone (including you).

Why stop there , lets make weakly drug testing mandatory for everyone.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

Pirate700

No kidding. I mean why do you support things like the Fourth Amendment, what are you hiding?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I despise Obama but I'm not apposed to this. The more info we have on past offenders the better.

Pirate700

DNA sampling for someone convicted is one thing, but merely for someone being arrested?

I can haz Due Process?

Exactly, we're only after the bad people. Good people will never have anything to worry about.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

dercoo

So it would be okay for the government to sample anyone (including you).

Why stop there , lets make weakly drug testing mandatory for everyone.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Why do you not want the government to have your DNA info? What are you afraid of?

Pirate700

So it would be okay for the government to sample anyone (including you).

Why stop there , lets make weakly drug testing mandatory for everyone.

4th amendment

apposed

Pirate700

4th amendment

dercoo

I know I'm being cynical, but hopefully my exaggeration makes me point for me. :D And no, those verbs are not directed at you or anyone else at all.

Edit: Added :P so EVERYONE knows I am 100% joking when I make those comments. I don't want to be moderated for being "out there"

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So it would be okay for the government to sample anyone (including you).

Why stop there , lets make weakly drug testing mandatory for everyone.

dercoo

4th amendment

I see it as a really advanced social security card/number... but my concern is, what if someone steals or unethically misuses your DNA? I mean, my DNA is one way to prove I was not at the scene of a crime for example. I think the intentions of such a measure are good though. But think about this - most people don't trust health care companies with their DNA info because of the fear of discrimination (which is an abuse of power in a way). They would be comfortable with a larger entity handling it? Especially one that many would argue has a greater propensity for abuse? I can see why a lot of people are worried - there is a privacy concern at the root of it all. But again, I can see how this will help law-enforcement a great deal. I am a bit torn about the issue.

I see it as a really advanced social security card/number... but my concern is, what if someone steals or unethically misuses your DNA? I mean, my DNA is one way to prove I was not at the scene of a crime for example. I think the intentions of such a measure are good though. But think about this - most people don't trust health care companies with their DNA info because of the fear of discrimination (which is an abuse of power in a way). They would be comfortable with a larger entity handling it? Especially one that many would argue has a greater propensity for abuse? I can see why a lot of people are worried - there is a privacy concern at the root of it all. But again, I can see how this will help law-enforcement a great deal. I am a bit torn about the issue.

entropyecho

Could there not be a way to keep records purely at the local level? And only if a person is prosicuted have those records nationally available.

DigitalExile

This is madness.

MarcusAntonius

Wait, so does this mean then that the US has been renamed "Sparta"?

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Could there not be a way to keep records purely at the local level? And only if a person is prosicuted have those records nationally available.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Could there not be a way to keep records purely at the local level? And only if a person is prosicuted have those records nationally available.

DigitalExile

Could there not be a way to keep records purely at the local level? And only if a person is prosicuted have those records nationally available.

DigitalExile

I guess after some thought, it really is no different than fingerprints, a public criminal record, a mugshot, whatever. I guess it just hits closer to home than all the rest since your DNA just seems so close to home if that makes any sense - too personal.

I think this might actually be a good idea. It could help police catch people who commit crimes. They already take your name, address, picture, and fingerprints when they arrest you. This isn't much different. Tauruslink

Now that's an invasion of privacy if I've ever heard of one. Maybe for convicted criminals, but on arrest? That has all sorts of implications.Penguinchow

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

This is madness.

chessmaster1989

Wait, so does this mean then that the US has been renamed "Sparta"?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

This is madness.

Pirate700

Wait, so does this mean then that the US has been renamed "Sparta"?

I like the new name. 8)

Why do you not want the government to have your DNA info?

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Why do you not want the government to have your DNA info?

BranKetra

Yeah, well, in the US every infant born at a hospital has a barrage of DNA tests ran. It's been this way for a few decades now.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

Pirate700

DNA evidence can be faked.

If the dotguv has yours on file... you could be framed.

Story from Scientific American

DNA acquisition upon being arrested and booked is not unwarranted search and seizure. The Government/FBI has my fingerprints on national file just because I'm a gun owner. Are you against that too?

Pirate700

Since you ask, yes. I am absolutely opposed to gun registration. I live in a state that has no gun registration, I own guns, and the federal government most certainly does NOT have my fingerprints on file anywhere.

Are you sure that the federal government/FBI has your fingerprints on file for merely owning a gun? I'm pretty sure that we do not have national gun registration and that any gun registration in this country is handled on the state level, with most states having no gun registration of any sort. I think that your state bureau has your fingerprints on file, and that you are mistaking them for the FBI. I mean no offense, but I just need to clarify a few things.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

DNA acquisition upon being arrested and booked is not unwarranted search and seizure. The Government/FBI has my fingerprints on national file just because I'm a gun owner. Are you against that too?

dkrustyklown

Since you ask, yes. I am absolutely opposed to gun registration. I live in a state that has no gun registration, I own guns, and the federal government most certainly does NOT have my fingerprints on file anywhere.

Are you sure that the federal government/FBI has your fingerprints on file for merely owning a gun? I'm pretty sure that we do not have national gun registration and that any gun registration in this country is handled on the state level, with most states having no gun registration of any sort. I think that your state bureau has your fingerprints on file, and that you are mistaking them for the FBI. I mean no offense, but I just need to clarify a few things.

Next the'll be asking for fingerprints......

Use your brain here for a sec, if say, a robbery was commited by a habitual offender, and he/she left some hair behind, a lab could tell us that they were at the scene.

Next the'll be asking for fingerprints......

Use your brain here for a sec, if say, a robbery was commited by a habitual offender, and he/she left some hair behind, a lab could tell us that they were at the scene.

With-Hatred

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

DNA acquisition upon being arrested and booked is not unwarranted search and seizure. The Government/FBI has my fingerprints on national file just because I'm a gun owner. Are you against that too?

dkrustyklown

Since you ask, yes. I am absolutely opposed to gun registration. I live in a state that has no gun registration, I own guns, and the federal government most certainly does NOT have my fingerprints on file anywhere.

Are you sure that the federal government/FBI has your fingerprints on file for merely owning a gun? I'm pretty sure that we do not have national gun registration and that any gun registration in this country is handled on the state level, with most states having no gun registration of any sort. I think that your state bureau has your fingerprints on file, and that you are mistaking them for the FBI. I mean no offense, but I just need to clarify a few things.

I find it interesting that people want to protect their DNA sequences as if it's their social security number or something. What could the feds/cops do with it? Sell it? Who cares? They can't really do anything bad with it... at least not that my immature little self can understand. What's the incentive for planting DNA? I just don't see the big deal. I bet that not a single person in the world could "name" their DNA sequence, so why should they care if the gov't can?

[QUOTE="With-Hatred"]

Next the'll be asking for fingerprints......

Use your brain here for a sec, if say, a robbery was commited by a habitual offender, and he/she left some hair behind, a lab could tell us that they were at the scene.

Penguinchow

Well if the cops are going to take my blood for being innocent then they better also give me some damn icecream afterwards. French vanilla.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Wait, so does this mean then that the US has been renamed "Sparta"?

chessmaster1989

I like the new name. 8)

Personally, I like the idea of people who commit gun crimes being easier to find, but hey, I'm just a fan of common sense.

With-Hatred

People who commit gun crimes are felons and in most states, that excludes them from the right to bear arms. I am talking about innocent people who should be left alone and shouldn't have to allow the government to keep their biometric information on file, "just in case". Should the government keep the biomatric information of convicted criminals on file? Sure. I have no problem with that. Should the government keep the biometric information of innocent citizens on file? Absolutely not. Government has no business collecting such information from innocent civillians. Such information can be used as a tool of coercive investigation and oppression. I am not in favor of handing the central government information that could aid it in oppressing the populace.

Some people behave as if though no government has ever oppressed its people. History, though, teaches a different lesson. Governmental oppression is, in fact, the norm throughout human history. There have been more oppressive governments than non-oppressive governments. Information that helps identify individuals and makes their anonymity impossible is a tool that government could use to squash dissent and oppress the populace. Gathering such information from innocent citizens serves no legitimate crime-reduction purpose. It serves no other legitimate governmental purpose. The only utility in gathering such information would be as a means for quelling insurrection and ensuring that governmental authority goes unchecked.

I am opposed to unchecked authority, and I believe that the means to engage in insurrection should remains in the hands of the people.

Thats great hope they do something like that in Canada.

[QUOTE="With-Hatred"]

Personally, I like the idea of people who commit gun crimes being easier to find, but hey, I'm just a fan of common sense.

dkrustyklown

People who commit gun crimes are felons and in most states, that excludes them from the right to bear arms. I am talking about innocent people who should be left alone and shouldn't have to allow the government to keep their biometric information on file, "just in case". Should the government keep the biomatric information of convicted criminals on file? Sure. I have no problem with that. Should the government keep the biometric information of innocent citizens on file? Absolutely not. Government has no business collecting such information from innocent civillians. Such information can be used as a tool of coercive investigation and oppression. I am not in favor of handing the central government information that could aid it in oppressing the populace.

Some people behave as if though no government has ever oppressed its people. History, though, teaches a different lesson. Governmental oppression is, in fact, the norm throughout human history. There have been more oppressive governments than non-oppressive governments. Information that helps identify individuals and makes their anonymity impossible is a tool that government could use to squash dissent and oppress the populace. Gathering such information from innocent citizens serves no legitimate crime-reduction purpose. It serves no other legitimate governmental purpose. The only utility in gathering such information would be as a means for quelling insurrection and ensuring that governmental authority goes unchecked.

I am opposed to unchecked authority, and I believe that the means to engage in insurrection should remains in the hands of the people.

so what? Doesn't hurt them in any way unless they commit a crime later

With-Hatred

By a later crime, do you include, engaging in revolution?

What if the British Crown had access to DNA and biometric information back in the days of the American Revolution? Would those that took part in the Boston Tea Party have been able to remain enonymous and slip back into the general population to the dismay of the British Crown?

With DNA and biometric information available, the British Crown would have been able to identify the conspirators by name. The conspirators would have been arrested, tried, and hung as traitors to the crown. Their lands and wealth would have been seized by the crown and turned over to the Tories. The result would have been a chilling message to the revolutionary-minded population of the American colonies that would have lessened their morale and made organizing the insurrection much more difficult, if not impossible.

The American Revolution began with secret conspiracies hatched in the basements of pubs. The conspirators carefully hid their identities until the right moment when they could show their faces as true American Patriots. The revolution started with anonymous pamphlets posted using pseudonyms and men in disguises sabotaging British economic interests. It took secrecy and anonymity to get the Revolution started.

Uncovering anonymity is a tool of governmental oppression. Case & point: Why do you think that the Nazis insisted that the Jews be made to wear identifying insignia and be tattooed with serial numbers?