President Obama backs DNC test in arrests

[Voegelin]

President Barack Obama’s embrace of a national database to store the DNA of people arrested but not necessarily convicted of a crime is heartening to backers of the policy but disappointing to criminal-justice reformers, who view it as an invasion of privacy.

Others also worry the practice would adversely affect minorities.

Read more: President Obama backs DNA test in arrests - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
​

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Take a shot folks.

Heaven forbid the President support a way to solve crimes and prevent new ones.

 

[mont974x4]

Consitution anyone, as opposed to ignorant emotionalism?

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Constitution anyone, as opposed to ignorant emotionalism?

The Constitution is curiously silent about the storing of genetic data.

 

[Blackguard_]

Heaven forbid the President support a way to solve crimes and prevent new ones.

How would this help solve crimes and prevent new ones? If the arestee gets charged with something, they can get the DNA during the course of the investigation if they need it.

How would this prevent crimes? Do they plan on DNA check-points? "Your papers, err.. DNA sample please"?

Fox also said he wouldn’t recommend DNA-upon-arrest to Obama as a priority. “I’d much rather see him deal with ballistic fingerprinting and repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment,” which limits gun tracing, Fox said.

Does not, liar(note: not refering to anyone in this thread). Even the ATF doesn't support repealing the Tiahrt Amendment. What that amendment actually does is prevent non-law enforcement personel form getting the trace data from the ATF. It doesn't limit gun tracing at all.

And ballistic fingerprinting is a total failure as an anti-crime/crime solving measure.

​

 

[DeathMagus]

It depends on how the DNA is stored and used. If the data is hashed, then it could be used for comparison with DNA found at future crime sites. Essentially, that would make it no more an invasion of privacy than fingerprinting.

If the data is kept raw, however, then specific genetic information about a specific person could be extracted, which I'm not too keen on.

 

[Willtor]

I don't like the idea of the government storing it if a person is not convicted. This is a bad call on Obama's part.

 

[DeathMagus]

I don't like the idea of the government storing it if a person is not convicted. This is a bad call on Obama's part.

Do you not like the idea of the government keeping fingerprints on file from everyone who has been arrested?

 

[Blackguard_]

If the data is kept raw, however, then specific genetic information about a specific person could be extracted, which I'm not too keen on.

Would you trust them to get rid of the raw data? I sure don't. The government has been caught before with records they were supposed to have gotten rid off.

But you might be right, that hashed it could be no worse than fingerprints.

 

[DeathMagus]

Would you trust them to get rid of the raw data? I sure don't. The government has been caught before with records they were not supposed to have.

If you arrest someone suspected of a crime, and you have DNA evidence from the scene, you're going to need a DNA sample from the suspect to compare. Unless we want to throw out DNA analysis as a crime-fighting technique, that data needs to be taken.

The only question, then, is what is to be done with it afterward. Keeping it in raw form is, in my opinion, an invasion of privacy, especially if the individual is innocent. Keeping it hashed in a database, however, is extremely helpful to law enforcement, and doesn't reduce an individual's privacy in the slightest.

 

[Willtor]

Do you not like the idea of the government keeping fingerprints on file from everyone who has been arrested?

No, I don't like that either. If someone is exonerated, the police shouldn't be keeping tabs on them in case they eventually do something.

 

[Blackguard_]

If you arrest someone suspected of a crime, and you have DNA evidence from the scene, you're going to need a DNA sample from the suspect to compare. Unless we want to throw out DNA analysis as a crime-fighting technique, that data needs to be taken.

Agreed, I have no problem with that. But not all arrests are of suspects in crimes involving DNA evidence. I said if they need the DNA they should get it as part of the investigation(as opposed to a standard part of booking).

The only question, then, is what is to be done with it afterward. Keeping it in raw form is, in my opinion, an invasion of privacy, especially if the individual is innocent. Keeping it hashed in a database, however, is extremely helpful to law enforcement, and doesn't reduce an individual's privacy in the slightest.

I suppose you're right about the second part, hashed it's no worse than fingerprints, but as I sad, I don't trust them to not keep the raw data. How could we be sure all the data was hashed?

 

[Wayte]

Depends how they do it, of course. As stated, if it's simply used for comparisons, that could be fine. I have to agree I wish they wouldn't collect without a conviction, but it could be much worse. Wire taps anyone? oh wait....we already have those xD

 

[Willtor]

Depends how they do it, of course. As stated, if it's simply used for comparisons, that could be fine. I have to agree I wish they wouldn't collect without a conviction, but it could be much worse. Wire taps anyone? oh wait....we already have those xD

One problem with keeping it even for comparisons is that you significantly increase the chances of false positives. In Britain, they already keep it around for matches, and there is concern that there have already been people wrongly matched.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't like the idea of the government storing it if a person is not convicted. This is a bad call on Obama's part.

I agree.

 

[LightHorseman]

I'm with Voegelin on this one (shock horror). I am against the continuing encroachment of the nanny state, of which the mandatory compilation of large population spanning DNA data bases are the next obvious step.

First person to pull the "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" argument has to post their entire medical history online for all future employers and insurers to access freely.

 

[Antigone]

I don't like the idea of the government storing it if a person is not convicted. This is a bad call on Obama's part.

+1

I like Obama. I also like privacy.

 

[Mystman]

First things first: what kind of DNA testing are we talking about? Actual sequencing of (parts of) the genome? Or methods that just look at the length of certain fragments? If the latter: those are kind of vulnerable to false-positives, afaik. Which is why the "racism!1!" argument can actually make sense: if you have a pool of 2000 black and 500 white people who've had their DNA taken, random DNA from a crime scene is more likely to coincidentaly match that of a black person. Meaning that more black people are going to be arrested (and possibly tried and maybe even convicted..) for crimes they didn't commit. With small DNA databases the chance of a false positive isn't that large. With large DNA databases...

That said, if they just do a full sequence of the genome (should be economically feasable in the near future), then the chance of false positives is basically 0, so thne it's time for other arguments..

Storing the raw data is out of the question. Storing a hashed version may still sound like an invasion of privacy, but I think I'm in favor of it. (just for those who don't know what that is: you generate a unique number based on the genome, but it's impossible to go the other way; you can't determine the genome based on the number.). I just can't think of any ways in which storing a hashed version is objectively bad. Just "it feels icky" doesn't weigh up to the chance that some child molester can commit some more crimes because his DNA wasn't stored.

edit: it might even be an idea to sequence everyone's DNA in this way. Sure, it sounds creepy, but all citizens are already assigned a bunch of numbers (social security number etc). Giving everyone a number that's encoded in their DNA somehow seems more "elegant" (that's the scientist in me speaking ), and it should certainly help with solving a whole bunch of crimes.

 

[rambot]

If Bush had done this, there'd be explosions. I really have to go against 'bama here....

As a sidenote, there's a big difference between DNC tests and DNA tests...

 

[DaisyDay]

If Bush had done this, there'd be explosions. I really have to go against 'bama here....

As a sidenote, there's a big difference between DNC tests and DNA tests...

Can you explain what the difference is and why it matters?