Maryland v King Ruling

I think we have two sets of hypotheticals going here:

1) What if this group of people doing their jobs has access to a larger pool of data with which to do their job?

2) What if this group of people with access to copius amounts of personal information acts outside the realm of their job duties in an attempt to serve the "greater good" while invading the rights of others?

The first example is what happens if people are swabbed for DNA at serious crimes. The second is what happened when people at the IRS increased scrutiny over conservative non-profit applications. Can I see an honest threat to personal information by allowing increased DNA swabs? Yes. Is the trade off worth it? I give that a hesitant yes, but it needs to be overseen very strictly, perhaps even included under HIPPA. I work in mental health, and the fears of the consequences of HIPPA keep me on the straight and narrow (i.e. loss of license, unemployment, essentially making me unemployable in my field for a very long time).
 
It's not like the police (or anybody else) will be able to see if you will have cancer or heart disease. It's a yes/no code. Match-No match.
Click to expand...

There are some very big assumptions here. Mostly wrong, I think.

I think Scalia has it right on this one. ...and you're right. This is appeal to authority. I'm having no luck getting past the sci-fi film to the underlying argument. I don't get why you think ridiculing an argument is a rebuttal.

Bottom line is that I believe I have a privacy interest my genetic information, no less than any other medical privacy interest. Fingerprints are not as worrisome simply because their use is generally limited to identification by their nature. Limiting the use of DNA to identification relies not on the nature of the data, but on the integrity of the data collector and miner.

Of course, I didn't like the x-ray peep show run by the TSA and don't support the national electronic medical record database either, so there you go.

In general, I am loath to relinquish such interests to my government in exchange for promises of improved safety, health, or care.
 
Limiting the use of DNA to identification relies not on the nature of the data, but on the integrity of the data collector and miner.
Click to expand...

[emphasis mine]

Exactly. I don't trust them with a firearms registry, why would I trust them with my genetic information? Which, to me, is much more valuable. All one has to do is open a MSM website to read about all sorts of abuse of power articles. Politicians and bureaucracies have historically demonstrated poor discipline in this regard.
 
Musher said:
I don't get why you think ridiculing an argument is a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Since your claim has presented no facts, I have nothing to rebutt. The only evidence presented is a historical narrative of the oldest DNA database in the world, wherein none of your fears have come to fruition.

It's 100% Sky Is Falling, Government is going to get us, they're buying all the ammo, conspiracy theory. All fear, no facts.

Would I oppose a database that gave every agency access to my entire genetic code? Yes, I would.

I see no evidence, NONE, that a law-enforcement DNA database is, has ever been or ever will be that and there's really no reason believe that it would be any more than a yes/no matching system.

The facts are that law-enforcement DNA sampling doesn't even get into specific gene information in the sense that "Ooh! This guy will have heart diease!" DNA profiling is NOT genetic sequencing. DNA profiling returns what could be compared to a binary code. (It's not "binary" but the idea is the same.) The result is a string of 010010111001011001. Every person produces the same code all the time. Nothing in that code tells them you have heart disease. It tells them little (if anything) more than a fingerprint.

In any case, the DNA database already exists and we're off the topic of the thread, which is whether or not the police should be able to "take" DNA samples from someone arrested on suspicion of a major crime.
 
Last edited:
I am not worried about a "law enforcement database". The information goes to law enforcement today, but what about 2 years from now when the .gov passes a law that allows the ACA or CDC to access the info? I grant that this seems far fetched, but so did 5-4 that we have a right to posses a firearm. In the future, could the Patriot act be used to find out if you're of a certain ethnic descent or related to a suspected terrorist?
It's not how the law is now, it's how it can be changed, manipulated, gamed in the future.
Don't look at a law by how it will help you, but rather how your "enemies" can use it against you.

Rick
 
In any case, the DNA database already exists and we're off the topic of the thread, which is whether or not the police should be able to "take" DNA samples from someone arrested on suspicion of a major crime.
Click to expand...

Well, actually I think the topic is whether we have (or should have) a privacy interest in our DNA that is significant enough to require 4th amendment protection.
 
To have an informed opinion on that question, folks need to understand the difference between Gene Sequencing and DNA Profiling, what "markers" are searched and what information is stored in the databases.
 
Since your claim has presented no facts
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that collection of DNA has been misused. I'm arguing that the nature of DNA is such that it contains vast quantities of information about the individual that can be used to determine all sorts of things about them not related to their identity.

I am arguing that these data deserve the strongest protections of privacy, or at any rate at least as strong of protection as is given to one's personal papers or the contents of one's dresser drawers.

I am arguing that abandoning this privacy protection opens the door to misuse--potential examples of which I have given. Not examples of what has happened, but the kinds of things that current technology enables if our society determines there's no significant privacy interest in our genetic information.

I'm arguing the risk outweighs the benefit.

You seem to be arguing that there is nothing to discuss unless and until there are actual examples of abuse. Shouldn't we consider possibilities as well as actualities? It seems better to me to argue over the decision to get in the pot rather than how hot the water has gotten.
 
Shouldn't we consider possibilities as well as actualities?
Click to expand...

Yes we should. See my post #27. We need to consider the ACTUAL possibilities, not the fear and/or ignorance (ignorance being lack of facts, not "stupid") based possibilities with no basis in reality.
 
To have an informed opinion on that question, folks need to understand the difference between Gene Sequencing and DNA Profiling, what "markers" are searched and what information is stored in the databases.
Click to expand...

Yes, but my point is that conceptually abandoning or limiting a privacy interest in our genetic code opens a door.

Once police take the sample(s), do we have the ability to affect whether they are destroyed rather than preserved?

Do we have any right to determine or influence the type of analysis done on the sample once taken?

Do we have any right to constrain the uses to which these data are put once taken?
 
Well, my opinion:

1)The information gleaned in DNA Profiling is no different, privacy-wise, than a fingerprint.

2)I don't believe they're going to store the actual physical samples. They have to be cryogenically preserved. Police aren't going to do it and no lab is big enough to store hundreds of millions of samples. Regardless, a law making it illegal to store the samples would solve that problem.

3)The type of analysis the police use is DNA Profiling. They don't care about Genetic Sequencing. No reason why they would. They care if the perp raped a woman, not if he's pre-disposed to heart disease. It doesn't make for better matches, no reason they'd ever want that information.

4)There's only one use for the sample, #3 above. Even so, another simple law specifying that only basic DNA Profiling is allowed would also solve that issue.

5)With those two legal stipulations, there's really no concern about further use of the data. It can't be used for anything more than a fingerprint can be used.
 
Last edited:
To add to what Brian said, "DNA typing" looks at changes in 13 specific regions or "loci" of nuclear DNA. These are coded in an alphanumeric manner and stored. When compared to see if one sample "matches" with another, these alphanumeric sequences for each of the 13 loci are compared. As more and more loci have the identical alphanumeric identifiers, the greater statistical correlation that the two came from the same person --- or identical twins. It is not uncommon for there to be "matches" where only one in a quintillion or more people would possess this DNA profile.

The primary database in the U.S. is run by the FBI and is known as CODIS. The CODIS database itself simply stores a string of these alphanumeric identifiers. They do not store any DNA as part of this database. When collecting DNA samples through the swabbing inside of the mouth, multiple swabs are used. Some DNA testing labs may retain one or more of the untested swabs used to collect the DNA. That's so they can be tested by a different laboratory on proper request such as a criminal defendant who wants independent testing.

IIRC, the FBI requires that DNA submitted to CODIS be either from a convicted felon or a crime scene sample entered for comparison purposes. Some states have a separate/supplemental database.

This DNA typing is in no way similar to the type of testing done to screen for physical traits or genetic medical conditions.

Frankly, I don't see collecting a DNA profile of this type to be any more intrusive or unsettling than fingerprinting. It is a heck of a lot more accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top