WASHINGTON - The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people.
ADVERTISEMENT
Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab, Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons.
Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information, such as family ties and genetic conditions.
Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.
Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.
There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.
Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from committing more crimes.
A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.
"Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.
Thirteen states have passed similar laws.
But the new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Now innocent people's DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said.
If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample.
The Homeland Security Department — the federal agency charged with policing immigration — supports the new rule.
"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.
The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.
The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oh, and who cares about cost to support this and improper "tagging and bagging".
Anyone that has served since '90 or 91 has been tagged. Should they add those that are "psychologically unfit" and therefore fail screening to carry a firearm? So many categories could fall into this "what if".
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is taking a DNA sample from people that are arrested different than taking a mugshot and fingerprints? The purpose is to identify the person arrested and to see if they are linked to other crimes. Do you think they will use the DNA for some purpose other than law enforcement? If so, what?
I just renewed my concealed carry permit last week. Part of that renewal was having my fingerprints and picture taken by the sheriff's office. Was that an invasion of my privacy? Many people on this forum have advocated keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those that are mentally ill. How can the government determine who the criminals and mentally ill are without running a fingerprint check and background check? I think that's reasonable.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Property you havr a good and valid point. I myself think that its just one step closer....more more more. Kind of like vietnam and the adding of troops....more more more. Iraq..more troops, more more. Now the ones who were extra are stuck their for a full deployment! They were lied to and told it was just temporary for the surge last summer and they would all be home for winter. Nope...slapped them with a full Army issued 15 month tour.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: How is taking a DNA sample from people that are arrested different than taking a mugshot and fingerprints? The purpose is to identify the person arrested and to see if they are linked to other crimes. Do you think they will use the DNA for some purpose other than law enforcement? If so, what?
I just renewed my concealed carry permit last week. Part of that renewal was having my fingerprints and picture taken by the sheriff's office. Was that an invasion of my privacy? Many people on this forum have advocated keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those that are mentally ill. How can the government determine who the criminals and mentally ill are without running a fingerprint check and background check? I think that's reasonable.
read the dang post, son:
. . . who are detained, whether they have been charged or not.
Now, not saying I've verified the article, but at first blush it's disturbing.
Just another domino in the path toward having chips implanted at birth...so you can be tracked, billed, jailed, whatever.
Actually? what this trend will eventually produce is the super-criminal.
lol...indulge me for a moment:
Growing up when I did, where I did, we learned to be vary wary of law enforcement. As kids will, we drank beer and smoked some pot.
Problem was, in Texas at the time...you could go to the pen, the BIG HOUSE, for a s-i-n-g-l-e seed.
As a result, my generation--here--was scarified into becoming quite...careful.
Now, you ramp that up? From relatively harmless kid-stuff to adults that routinely lay low...
They keep pushing, they'll catch the stoopid ones (who most likely would get caught anyway...by leaving their wallet at the crime scene), but they'll create a new class of "stealth criminal."
posted
Part of that renewal was having my fingerprints and picture taken by the sheriff's office.
that's called voluntary. you are doing that voluntarily?
sorry you will be, if some politician ever gets in there and needs a list to work off of to begin removing guns from the general population. and don't tell me it can't happen. all it will take is a really bad flu or a storm say like Katrina.
Monday, April 16, 2007 Katrina inspires bans on gun seizures By Pauline Vu, Stateline.org Staff Writer
In the days after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police went door to door and confiscated guns from citizens in an effort to counter chaos and crime in the wrecked city.
But gun advocates saw the seizures as an infringement on constitutional rights and said never again.
The actions of the New Orleans police have inspired 13 states, including Louisiana, to enact laws to keep state and local officials from taking guns during a state of emergency, such as after a natural disaster or terrorist attack. President Bush also signed a bill in October that would penalize states financially for illegally confiscating guns during an emergency.
Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R) signed an emergency weapons bill on April 12 to become the 13th state with such a law on the books, joining Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. A measure also is on the desk of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D).
Similar bills were introduced in at least 14 other states this year.
i watched Hillary do her usual doubletalk tonight... sportsmen blahblah, machineguns killing cops blah blah assualt weapons bans needs to be reinstated blahblah...
Hard Times In The Big Easy Law-abiding citizens were subject to confiscation of their firearms during the Katrina catastrophe. By John Hay Rabb
Last August, Hurricane Katrina flattened New Orleans and cut a wide swath of destruction across several other southern states. Millions were left dead, injured, hungry or homeless. In the chaotic aftermath of the storm, New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced that all privately owned firearms would be seized. "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken," Compass declared. "Only law enforcement [will be] allowed to have weapons."
Louisiana, like many other states, issues concealed carry weapons permits to law-abiding individuals. Compass's order did not distinguish between stolen guns and legally owned guns; therefore, he was in violation of Louisiana statute.
The governor can temporarily suspend state laws, but only after a state of emergency has been declared. Under his emergency powers, the governor may specifically authorize a senior law enforcement official to confiscate legally owned firearms. To the best of my knowledge, the governor of Louisiana never authorized Superintendent Compass to confiscate legally owned firearms.
quote:They keep pushing, they'll catch the stoopid ones (who most likely would get caught anyway...by leaving their wallet at the crime scene), but they'll create a new class of "stealth criminal."
In my experience, almost ALL criminals are stupid. In fact, most of them are complete idiots - that's why they are criminals to start with.
In my dealings with tenant applicants, I see criminals everyday. I can tell you for a fact that in most cases, I can tell who the criminals are as soon as they drive up. When a guy gets out of the car wearing baggy pants; a skull-cap, with a tattoo on his neck - he's a CRIMINAL (and a 30 second background check will verify that)! Of the remainder, who have an IQ in the double digits, I can usually tell that they are criminals within the first two sentences. One of the first things I ask applicants are what criminal record they have. A typical response is "I don't THINK I have anything on my record". In 99.9% of the cases, this really means "I have a lengthy criminal record but I don't think you will really check". An honest citizen will say "I don't have a criminal record". YES, criminals are INCREDIBLY STUPID! No DNA test required!
quote:"Part of that renewal was having my fingerprints and picture taken by the sheriff's office."
that's called voluntary. you are doing that voluntarily?
Yes, I did it voluntarily. That's the procedure for obtaining your concealed carry permit. Since I'm not a criminal, I do things the legal way.
quote:sorry you will be, if some politician ever gets in there and needs a list to work off of to begin removing guns from the general population. and don't tell me it can't happen. all it will take is a really bad flu or a storm say like Katrina.
They might try that crap in a big city or in the slums of New Orleans, but they might get a fight in a more rural state like Ohio. In addition, the people in New Orleans started acting like animals only a few hours after the storm. People in in more rural areas don't act like that - they pull together in a crisis - not start looting TVs! In addition, honest citizens in more rural areas know how to deal with looters during a crisis.
It's a more difficult task to take guns from people in more rural areas than in some left-leaning city where only a few law abiding citizens have guns. Here in Ohio (outside the lefty cities) almost everyone has guns (usually several guns). In fact, I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't have at least one gun. Honest citizens here won't give up their guns easily.
Finally, during a real crisis (and I'm not talking about a storm), people may decide to FIGHT rather than give up their guns. Why not? I'm not giving up my guns during a real emergency so that I can be victimized by the scum of the earth (criminals)!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
I hear what you guys are saying but DNA (properly processed) is of HUGE benefit in fringe cases...especially crimes like rape that end up he-said/she-said.
My only real fear belongs in the processing lab. There are standards to be accredited but they are voluntary. Down Tex's way they have had some major goof-ups in DNA identification due to lab error.
I would want to see uniform regulation and accreditation of processing labs signed in with this bill if it is going to be a reality.
And no...taking away guns after issued should only happen if the owner has been proven too irresponsible for the duty.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
YES, criminals are INCREDIBLY STUPID! No DNA test required!
LOL... you mean criminals that can't afford decent housing are stupid. right? i've known quite a few that have become millionaires. and they didn't pay taxes either.
In addition, the people in New Orleans started acting like animals only a few hours after the storm. People in in more rural areas don't act like that - they pull together in a crisis - not start looting TVs!
you been watching too much TV. one of those illegal searches i went thru was in a rural area and they were looking for people looting after Katrina which definitely happened. and no i was NOT one of 'em. the difference is? there were no TV cameras in the rural areas.
moreover? here in MS? we still have several hundred contractors with warrants out on 'em for taking cash and leaving on people after Katrina without doing any work. your view of the world is almost a caricature.
Finally, during a real crisis (and I'm not talking about a storm), people may decide to FIGHT rather than give up their guns. Why not? I'm not giving up my guns during a real emergency so that I can be victimized by the scum of the earth (criminals)!
this probably the most important thing many of us here have been trying to tell you, pay heed. the minute you tell them no? you are a criminal, you become "one of them" and you and i agree on this. except the part about what a real emergency is. even a storm would not compel me. and trust me that was real emergency.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is trust. Some implicitly trust government and think it is great that government wants as much information as they can get about "civilians". The rest of us know that throughout history the single biggest threat to life and liberty has always been government. The government has no right to take DNA samples from us. The claim that it will help solve crimes is just the bait they are using. Same thing as that get tough on crime BS they've been pushing for years. It's all a trick to get us to vote our rights away. Fewer and fewer of us are smart enough to see it. Thanks to public education. Where did you go to school PM?
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, exactly. This is the reason the constitution was written the way it was. John Stewart said something the other night that really drove home what's happening now in government. The constitution wasn't meant to be thrown away during the tough times. It was meant to get us through the tough times. Right now... and this has been true for many years, but lately it is more obvious... The government is making a huge power grab, and they are conning the dim witted among us to vote for it. They use the 24/7's to blast the messages of fear. I find it truly hilarious that it's the liberty loving smaller government is better government conservatives that are the ones parroting this BS.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i don't think it's a coincidence Bush invited the Pope before he left office either. i'm not against the Pope in particular but at one time the Pope ruled the whole western world. Bush envies that. Bush also went to visit the Pope a few years back as i recall. i beleive thats more interest than any other president has shown.
actually? Bush has vistied the Pope more than once. he was there in '07 and '04 this besides the funeral visit in '05
Mr Bush later said he felt "awe" in the presence of the Pope, who urged him to seek "regional and negotiated" solutions to Middle East conflicts like Iraq the '07 visit...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard what the pope said about illegal immigration... Pretty sure that's why Bush was so eager to great him. Probably why Pelosi was so eager as well.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experience, almost ALL criminals are stupid. In fact, most of them are complete idiots - that's why they are criminals to start with.
That's cuz you're dealing with petty criminals & street thugs...and don't recognize or choose to ignore the serious criminals. Of course, common criminals are stoopid...
example: look at all the hackers they *don't catch...
posted
When I lived in Tampa my base required us to live within a certain radius of the base... Which meant I lived pretty much in cracktown. One of the things I noticed after a while, was that many of the crack dealers had business skills most CEO's would be jealous of. Fundamentals that just can't really be taught. Not all crooks are stupid... Just big risk takers.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
for instance, consider a gel strip...something like breath fresheners or teeth whiteners already on the market: except these are cleverly inserted when you get braced by DNA-cops.
When they swab, they get someone's DNA--but not yours...
posted
EDMONTON - Edmonton saw its first four Nexus kiosks unveiled this afternoon at the international airport.
The technology, which scans a traveller's retina to verify his or her identity, is designed to speed the passage of Americans and Canadians crossing their shared border.
The eye-scans and a wallet-sized white card with the traveller's name and picture are speedier alternatives to using a passport to cross the border. More than 160,000 Canadians have enrolled in the program so far, shelling out $80.
_________________________________________________
This has been around for awhile but i just heard some guys talking about using it in the US and skipping all the security lines at the airports.
They thought it was great i think it's scary.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the first question that I think must be answered to unravel the mess that surrounds the issue. Is the right to privacy tantamount to a right to anonymity?
When it comes down to it eye scans, DNA, and digital fingerprints are all only new generation identification tools.
If we have a right to anonymity then we have a right to opt out of these but if privacy and anonymity are two different things then this is just new technology that enhances the identification policies laid down with drivers licenses, birth certificates, social security numbers, selective service registration, VISAs, green cards, passports, etc.
Indeed...once the new tools are in place and used effectively how many of these old devices could be discontinued or incorporated?
I don't mean to advocate here...looking to unravel the threads and see the patterns of logic behind the opposing points.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I think the big key to me is the history behind implementing these policies.
It sounds great to slip through those long lines at airports especially if your a businessman traveling all the time.
Just like those self check outs look great at the stores when the check out lines are long, because they have cut back help.
They get us conditioned then all the sudden we realize who is benefiting and why.
Pretend I'm stupid. (shuddup Tex ) Tell me who is benefiting and why.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it can be worse... Instead of "criminals".. sure it could be ALL infants. No that won't happen. Who would even suggest a thing?
AAPS News of the Day April 28, 2008
Passing the House of Representatives on a voice vote, S. 1858 has been sent to President Bush for signature. The Newborn Genetic Screening bill was passed by the Senate last December. The bill violates the U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Code, writes Twila Brase, president of the Citizen’s Council on Health Care (CCHC). “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research,” she states. “It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota ‘DNA warehouse’ have been subjected to genetic research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”
The federal government lacks the Constitutional authority as well as the competence to develop a newborn screening program, states Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (R-TX). He states that all hospitals will probably scrap their own newborn testing program and adopt the federal model, whatever its flaws, to avoid the loss of federal funding.
“Drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure that these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children,” Dr. Paul noted.
Ms. Brase has called on President Bush to veto the bill.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is the realm of hospitals and medical researchers. Not the Fed.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database. Described as a "national contingency plan" the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of "public health emergency."
The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".
Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.
Read the full bill here.
One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.
Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:
* Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested. * Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide. * Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait. * Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families. * Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent. "Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes. "The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."
"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research."
In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens' Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.
Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called "DNA Warehouse" from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.
DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.
The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is already being collected.
In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.
Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:
"I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it."
Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, "S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …"
"Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children," Paul continued.
"In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a 'public health' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of 'emergency," he concluded.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Tell me who is benefiting and why.
