To: michaelje
"DNA is to the 21st century what fingerprinting was to the 20th," says Deborah Daniels, assistant U.S. attorney general for justice programs. "The widespread use of DNA evidence is the future of law enforcement in this country." Exactly. The only "privacy" being protected here is the "privacy" to commit a crime without being caught using DNA evidence -- not the kind of "privacy" that the Constitution protects or our laws should protect.
9 posted on
04/16/2003 6:51:46 AM PDT by
kesg
To: kesg
No, not exactly. Fingerprints dont provide you with an individuals genetic make up.
You have a tremendous amount of faith in the government.
To: kesg
Exactly. The only "privacy" being protected here is the "privacy" to commit a crime without being caught using DNA evidence -- not the kind of "privacy" that the Constitution protects or our laws should protect. Care to expand on that?
44 posted on
04/16/2003 8:03:25 AM PDT by
thepitts
(Hell hath no fury like vested interest masquerading as a moral principle)
To: kesg
The only "privacy" being protected here is the "privacy" to commit a crime without being caught using DNA evidence It's not even about privacy. It is about preventing creeping incrementalism to where everyone in the country is treated as a suspect for crimes.
50 posted on
04/16/2003 8:20:30 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(United States 2, Terror-sponsoring regimes 0, waiting to see who's next in the bracket)
To: kesg
Your DNA can be copied like a xerox machine by a process called PCR. DNA is hardly foolproof evidence anymore. Even fingerprints are harder to copy than DNA.
To: kesg
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?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson