[freedumb2003]

>>What a HUGE mistake this is.<<

I am so ambivalent — I think the analogy to fingerprints is accurate.

But since it is more than just a marker of who I am and can be used in broader searches, I feel a part of me is given to the public domain on a potentially arbitrary decision by some cop having a bad night is patently wrong.

I will follow this thread with great interest.

[OldDeckHand]

"I am so ambivalent — I think the analogy to fingerprints is accurate."

Genetic information is so much more potentially devastating than just an ordinary fingerprint. It contains the very road-map to our individual existence - who we are and what we will become, biologically. That's a tremendous amount of information to be in the hands of the state, especially when you haven't yet been convicted of anything, just arrested.

Incidentally, I would argue that keeping fingerprints and a mugshot on file just for an arrest is also a gross invasion of privacy. The gubmit shouldn't be able to maintain any of that information without a conviction, IMHO.

If you're convicted of a crime, then sure, I have no problems with the state maintaining a database that can help to solve other crimes or future crimes.

[matthew fuller]

"I am so ambivalent — I think the analogy to fingerprints is accurate. "

Hey, just think how much money the obama can get by selling the database to the insurance companies....

[driftdiver]

They do this in England and make arrests for the sole reason of collecting DNA.