White House Seeks to Expand DNA DATABASE...

USA Today ^ | 4/15/2003 | Richard Willing

[michaelje]

WASHINGTON

[Black Agnes]

It can be copied by more than just LEOs. Read all my posts and use your imagination. You leave your DNA *everywhere*. Literally. And anybody else has access to this. You shed skin cells, hairs, tinkle in public toilets, sneeze, cough, give blood samples at the doctors office, go to the dentist...use your imagination. Anyone in any of these places has access to your DNA. It's like identity theft...they don't steal *your* identity, they steal *a* identity. One that isn't theirs.

[Dan from Michigan]

DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted

That's unacceptable. I can go for CONVICTED criminals and CONVICTED Juvies, but NOT those that are NOT convicted.

Innocent till proven guilty. Time to call my reps again.

[mabelkitty]

And what about HIPPA? My right to my own medical records and treatments via my private cash contributions to my insurance companies.

Why should they government have a database on this?

You are willingly giving up freedoms to law enforcement. Why would you do such a thing?

[Black Agnes]

Government bureaucracies, once put into place, never go away. (Until the revolution). Databases, once created, never get deleted or truncated. Rules to live by and know well when these things are proposed.

[Black Agnes]

So he/she/it can be *safe* from all those nasty criminals! HIPAA aux. Why W supports it and didn't do anything about the nasty bits is still a mystery to me.

[kesg]

Well, then, why stop with just people arrested but not convicted? Let's have EVERYONE submit a DNA sample. And their bank records. And let's allow cops to stop cars and search our homes whenever they want, without a warrant or probable cause. I bet we could REALLY put a bite in crime then.

I can just as easily make the same equally fallacious slippery slope argument, this time in the opposite direction. Why have law enforcement at all? or government, for that matter? After all, abuses happen, and some of the worst abuses in history are committed by governments.

The truth of the matter is that our choice is not between anarchy and totalitarian government. Some government is good, especially when it is limited to securing the individual rights of its citizens. I see DNA databases as a means to this end, and we can certainly have them while also guarding against potential abuses (in much the same way that we can give policeman guns while making it illegal for them to use these guns for criminal purposes or to commit torts).

[mabelkitty]

Exactly. How in the world can you prove your innocence? You can't. You will now automatically be "guilty" until you can create different DNA.

[Black Agnes]

How would a DNA database secure your individual rights?

[mabelkitty]

Let's not point fingers at one - it's all!

The Ruling Elite (look it up) know that they will control this country no matter what. Democrats and Republicans are no different from each other, but they tell us that they are, so we split the electorate in two parts and keep handing over our power.

Until a large grassroots organization enacts an "Independents' Day" (voting for Independents ONLY), nothing will change.

Keep voting in those parties and handing over your power.

[inquest]

I see DNA databases as a means to this end, and we can certainly have them while also guarding against potential abuses

As long as you mean what you said earlier about allowing people to opt out, I won't disagree with you.

[Black Agnes]

Anyone who opts out will automatically be 'suspicious'. 'If you have nothing to hide...'

[Black Agnes]

The more I think about it the more I wonder...if HIPAA allows the government access to our DNA via medical tests/blood samples/urine samples.

[kesg]

The law being discussed makes it mandatory for people arrested. (suspects)

Well, if the DNA sample is taken from an arrested person because a law permits the government to do it, then by definition that's due process of law. The Fourth Amendment issue is separate -- a law that permits an unreasonable search satisfies due process but nevertheless still violates the Fourth Amendment -- but here as well Congress is entitled to determine whether such a search is reasonable in the cases of persons who are arrested. If the arrestee thinks that the search is unreasonable despite the law, he can ask a court to declare the law unconstitutional, either generally or as applied to him in the particular case. My guess is that he would lose, and deservedly so.

[mabelkitty]

Wait until you become the criminal.

Ever accused a company of discrimination?
Ever told a lie about another citizen?
Ever stole something?
Ever lied on your taxes?
Ever did recreational, yet illegal drugs?
Ever buy cigarettes at an Indian Reservation so you won't have to pay the high taxes?
Ever smoke in a non-smoking area?
Ever return something without a receipt?
Ever go to Canada to buy cheap booze?
Ever win money gambling that you don't pay taxes on?
Ever receive more change back from a store?
Ever send food back to a restaurant because you wanted to try and get a free dessert?
Ever drive home after having one drink?
Ever lapse any type of insurance coverage?
Ever been a witness to a car accident?
Ever verbally assault another person?
Ever make money in a garage sale?
Ever hunt?
Ever hunt and not eat what you kill?
Ever sell anything to a private person?

The list is endless. Think them through carefully, and try to imagine a scenario where you WOULD NOT be the criminal.

If you can't then you aren't very smart.

[APBaer]

What happens when the laws make everyone a criminal?

A good point and one made by the U.S. Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, later a Justice of the US Supreme Court, in a speech in 1940 in which he said: "With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some sort on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who committed it, it is a question of picking the man, and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."

[mabelkitty]

You obviously work for the government and you see this as a good career move. Lookin' to transfer departments?

[Black Agnes]

He's probably a database administrator looking for work.

[kesg]

"FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal."

This is another constitutional problem. The constitution does not give specfic authority to the federal government to compile such a database, therefore it is reserved to the states, or the people. They can do it if they like, and share it if they like.

However, the federal government does have broad law enforcement powers. The use of a national DNA database would be incident to these powers (i.e. they are tools of law enforcement) and, therefore, constitutional. By way of analogy, there is nothing in the constitution that specifically permits the FBI to use computers, but nevertheless no one seriously argues that the Constitution therefore prohibits the FBI from using computers. I would also think that they could constitutionally share this database with the states, under their power to regulate interstate commerce if nothing else.

[dirtboy]

I can just as easily make the same equally fallacious slippery slope argument, this time in the opposite direction. Why have law enforcement at all? or government, for that matter?

Because the Constitution mandates government and law enforcement. Nice try, but no stogie.

After all, abuses happen, and some of the worst abuses in history are committed by governments.

And that is exactly WHY we have a constitution and limited government. You would seek to undermine constitutional protections in the name of more expedient law enforcement. I was simply demonstrating that we could do even more to make law enforcement more effective - but where do we stop - better yet, where does the Constitution say we should stop?

The truth of the matter is that our choice is not between anarchy and totalitarian government.

No, but your approach is much more conducive towards the latter than mine is towards the former.

Some government is good, especially when it is limited to securing the individual rights of its citizens. I see DNA databases as a means to this end, and we can certainly have them while also guarding against potential abuses (in much the same way that we can give policeman guns while making it illegal for them to use these guns for criminal purposes or to commit torts).

Sorry, but someone who has been arrested but not convicted of a crime should not have their DNA in a criminal database. Period. That is basically labeling someone in defiance of due process.

[mabelkitty]

Yes, OJ showed us all how one can escape prison with DNA samples.

Besides that, it's a done deal. When you go to the doctor's office the next time, HIPPA will make certain they already sent your DNA to D.C.

Cheers!