DNA databases

[TeddyKGB]

I'm not sure if this is totally accurate, but I read that it's very easy to make mistakes when, for example, there's a mixture of DNA at the crime scene, which means that people can be charged even though it wasn't their DNA.

It was explained as if there was a mixture ABCD because an AB and a CD had left DNA there, then there's no way of telling if the DNA is a mixture of AB and CD or AC and BD. Which means that if you are BD and happen to live in the area then you're likely to be suspected though you'd never been to the scene.

Anyone know if this is true?

I don't think that's quite right. Mixtures of DNA will return nonsensical results.

In any case, DNA alone is not sufficient to charge someone let alone convict.

 

[TeddyKGB]

my DNA (blood saliva on a swab) IS my personal effects. Sorry.

It's not clear what makes you an authority on this matter. As I have noted, it's up to the court what constitutes a 4th amendment violation.

In any case, you do not reserve privacy rights on hair left lying about or saliva deposited on a glass in a restaurant.

if you want to collect it otherwise, steal my trash.

That's kinda the point - discarded hair and saliva are constitutionally equivalent to trash.

 

[Meshavrischika]

It's not clear what makes you an authority on this matter. As I have noted, it's up to the court what constitutes a 4th amendment violation.

In any case, you do not reserve privacy rights on hair left lying about or saliva deposited on a glass in a restaurant.

That's kinda the point - discarded hair and saliva are constitutionally equivalent to trash.

they aren't asking for discarded saliva for these types of database, but collecting swabs from anyone that comes in contact with the police (either justly or unjustly). no one has a right to stick a swab in my mouth or draw blood without me having done something to justify a warrant. I'd venture to say exploration of case law will back this up.

 

[TeddyKGB]

they aren't asking for discarded saliva for these types of database, but collecting swabs from anyone that comes in contact with the police (either justly or unjustly). no one has a right to stick a swab in my mouth or draw blood without me having done something to justify a warrant. I'd venture to say exploration of case law will back this up.

That's how it works now. I don't think, however, that voluntary sampling will be an obstacle if the government really wants a DNA database.

 

[Meshavrischika]

That's how it works now. I don't think, however, that voluntary sampling will be an obstacle if the government really wants a DNA database.

that's why I say this government strays too far from the original intent of it's founding into "majority rule" - it's disgusting.

 

[Hnefi]

my DNA (blood saliva on a swab) IS my personal effects. Sorry.

if you want to collect it otherwise, steal my trash.

It's no more a personal effect than your facial appearance - which is recorded everytime you walk through an area monitored by camera. Or your phonecall habits, which are recorded by your phone company. Or your surfing habits, which are recorded by your ISP (and the servers you visit). Or your dentals, which I believe (though I could be mistaken) could be on record as we speak.

The point is, a DNA database is no more an invasion of privacy than a dozen other things which are already in effect. Any danger does not depend on the database itself, but rather on what kind of safeties are built around its use. You should oppose opaque governmental control of all data, personal or otherwise - including that which occurs today - instead of staring yourself blind at the menacing ghost which doesn't even exist and even if it did, would be a lot less scary than what you are already accepting.

 

[Lisa0315]

that's why I say this government strays too far from the original intent of it's founding into "majority rule" - it's disgusting.

Can you clarify? Do you think the US is majority ruled?

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

DNA on file is no different than having a social security number except it is impossible to forge.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks. I would like to change my vote from only those the police question to everyone.

Lisa

 

[NailsII]

A drug offense is a different matter because generally you're not infringing upon the rights of others by possessing cocaine or heroin.

But it is still illegal, and that is the point.

It depends on the government. I would trust my government with that information, but I'm not entirely convinced I'd trust yours.

That can be done just as easily, if not even more so, without a DNA database. It's important to remember that having been at the scene of a crime is not enough for a conviction. You must have been there at the time of the incident, which DNA alone can not prove.

Indeed. As we concluded in another thread a month or so ago, it's not the technology that is the problem - it's the system in place to restrict who is using it, and for what. Transparency is, IMHO, key; everyone needs to know what is in the database, who has access to it, what they can do with it and even who accessed what entries when. All this - all information about the database except the contents of the database itself - should be easily obtainable by any citizen at any time. Then and only then could abuse be completely safeguarded against.

And this, of course, applies to all forms of control excersized by the government.

But what can the government do with this information?
They don't hold copies of your genes, only a scrambled barcode.
Basically, your DNA is chopped up by an enzyme at specific places, where ever a certain group of bases appear. This will leave pieces of varying length which, when subjected to gel electrophoresis will seperate the long chains from short chains.
By using radioactive markers, the pattern can be imprinted onto photographic film.
Note the very important point - we share 99% of our active genes with each other; it is the junk in between that varies more and this is what is looked at. Because DNA is inherited, we often share common junk strands with our families more than strangers - hence the more related we are to someone, the more bands we have in common.

I'm not sure if this is totally accurate, but I read that it's very easy to make mistakes when, for example, there's a mixture of DNA at the crime scene, which means that people can be charged even though it wasn't their DNA.

It was explained as if there was a mixture ABCD because an AB and a CD had left DNA there, then there's no way of telling if the DNA is a mixture of AB and CD or AC and BD. Which means that if you are BD and happen to live in the area then you're likely to be suspected though you'd never been to the scene.

Anyone know if this is true?

I think it is a lot more compicated than that. I know that DNA sampling can seperate out two different patterns from mixed sperm or blood.

DNA on file is no different than having a social security number except it is impossible to forge.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks. I would like to change my vote from only those the police question to everyone.

Lisa

I agree.
The benefits (which are massive - an improved police efficiency and better chance of catching bad guys) outway any civil liberties (which I think is almost zero as I cannot see any other use for a DNA pattern, other than a bar-code label).

 

[Steezie]

I think the DNA of all citizens should be kept on file for criminal purposes only, taken and cataloged at birth.

Assuming you are suspected of a crime, it would make sense to have police looking to acquire samples of your DNA by whatever means. But do you really want the government to have a national database of everyone's DNA? What happens when, for example, insurance companies buy that data from the government in order to preselect clients for denial on the basis of genetic markers for all kinds of predispositions to disease?

Indeed, you don't know what's in your DNA. An increasingly budget conscious and interfering nanny state is quite capable of having you 'blacklisted' from being permitted to purchase everything from fast food to guns on the basis of what might be revealed by your DNA. Got an extra X chromosome? No guns for you, and a mark by your name in police computers, as you may be genetically predisposed to violence. Genetically predisposed to accumulate bad cholesterol deposits in your arteries? No fried chicken bucket for you.

Which is why I think that this database is for criminal use only

 

[Vene]

DNA on file is no different than having a social security number except it is impossible to forge.

I like that analogy.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks. I would like to change my vote from only those the police question to everyone.

Lisa

Pretty much. I'm trying to figure out exactly what the government can actually do with DNA that would be an invasion of privacy.

Assuming you are suspected of a crime, it would make sense to have police looking to acquire samples of your DNA by whatever means. But do you really want the government to have a national database of everyone's DNA? What happens when, for example, insurance companies buy that data from the government in order to preselect clients for denial on the basis of genetic markers for all kinds of predispositions to disease?

There is a huge difference between the government having it and insurance companies.

Indeed, you don't know what's in your DNA. An increasingly budget conscious and interfering nanny state is quite capable of having you 'blacklisted' from being permitted to purchase everything from fast food to guns on the basis of what might be revealed by your DNA. Got an extra X chromosome? No guns for you, and a mark by your name in police computers, as you may be genetically predisposed to violence. Genetically predisposed to accumulate bad cholesterol deposits in your arteries? No fried chicken bucket for you.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. This information is completely irrelevant for the type of database being addressed in the topic.

 

[NailsII]

IThis is a slippery slope fallacy. This information is completely irrelevant for the type of database being addressed in the topic.

Agreed.
It's a little like expecting to have a totally wrecked car repaired without adding new parts, complete and back to its original shape.