Should DNA be kept for all of us?

[RedRyder]

Take it at birth. Set it up over the next century. Everyone else could give it volantarily, and we could take finger prints in schools.

That might not work so well. I remember when it was mandatory to have your child immunized to enter school. Now you can sign a paper to not do so based on religion, medical, and personal reasons.

I'm sure anyone who wants to opt out would find a way. If it were even mandated to begin with.

 

[Tim]

Take it at birth. Set it up over the next century. Everyone else could give it volantarily, and we could take finger prints in schools.

And what basis in law would require all doctors to take everyone's DNA? No such law would ever be constitutional.

 

[Accountable]

I think that at birth is exactly where they'll get the DNA. There or upon entering the school system. They'll claim it's for protection, just in case a kid gets abducted by one of the pedophyles they let roam the streets yet claim are still dangerous enough to track. With DNA information from your little darling, police will have an easier time finding and convicting a kidnapper. I've already heard calls to chip kids like we do our pets. The problem is that they can keep the DNA records long after the little kiddies grow up.

 

[Tangerine]

I think it might be hard to fight on a "privacy" issue. The fact is we leave our DNA all over the place. If the only way to get it was a bllod draw or something similar, it would be a tough case. But hell, it not much different than leaving fingerprints. They don't need a warrant to pick up a glass we were holding and lift the prints from it. Same could be said for straws etc or other places we inadvertently "leave" DNA behind.

 

[edgray]

This is once again ridiculous.

Have you heard of a thing called regulations?

We could just say that they can only test DNA for Jane/John does, crime scene investigation, etc. We could also say that only a few, high position (high risk to lose a high paying job they worked to get, to do something stupid like tamper with DNA or rest someone to see if they are real a guy or not), technicians have access to testing the DNA, not any police officer who wants to check it out.

There are also, many other, countless regulations we could place on this DNA system to prevent anyone from being able to take advantage of it--or for it to become a 'slippery slope' to total loss of rights or some other bs.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

We could say all sorts of stuff but the police and the govt will use the information as and when they see fit. They are above the law when it comes to this kind of thing.

As soon as the next 9/11 happens, you watch them change the rules on how they can use this DB. Look at the UK - the "terror" laws brought in have been used to arrest protestors and dissidents that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We could put in as many regulations as we want but the govt will do as it pleases and people such as yourself will be apathetic enough to let it happen.

 

[Natasha]

I would have no problem w/ my DNA being on file. Hell, I work for the county government...my prints are already on file, why not my DNA, too???

 

[Accountable]

I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

We could say all sorts of stuff but the police and the govt will use the information as and when they see fit. They are above the law when it comes to this kind of thing.

As soon as the next 9/11 happens, you watch them change the rules on how they can use this DB. Look at the UK - the "terror" laws brought in have been used to arrest protestors and dissidents that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We could put in as many regulations as we want but the govt will do as it pleases and people such as yourself will be apathetic enough to let it happen.

Excellent point. When I lived in Nevada in '03, I think, prosecutors tried to use the new anti-terrorism laws to bust some local politicians for some kind of unethical acts (I forget the exact details). Tried to use unwarranted wiretaps. Pissed enough people off that they had to drop the charges and go back to following the rules. But if it hadn't gone public they damn sure would have misused the law to reach their ends.

 

[edgray]

Excellent point. When I lived in Nevada in '03, I think, prosecutors tried to use the new anti-terrorism laws to bust some local politicians for some kind of unethical acts (I forget the exact details). Tried to use unwarranted wiretaps. Pissed enough people off that they had to drop the charges and go back to following the rules. But if it hadn't gone public they damn sure would have misused the law to reach their ends.

Exactly. In the UK, they used 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks in London to put into practice stuff they've wanted to do for a long time, one of which being they've made it so difficult to protest now.

People's apathy and fear (created by the govt and it's agencies) drives this sort of maneuver. Like it or not, this is how totalitarian states happen - by the people agreeing to policies like this. The UK for example has had the govt and media scare people into making it the most surveilled country in the world, yet this hasn't really altered any crime levels.

We're sleepwalking into a totalitarian police state through apathy and ignorance.

 

[Accountable]

 

[Peter Parka]

As soon as the next 9/11 happens, you watch them change the rules on how they can use this DB. Look at the UK - the "terror" laws brought in have been used to arrest protestors and dissidents that have nothing to do with terrorism.

This is true, we've even had them using "terror" laws to spy on people not picking up their dog's shit, for christ sake!