by Glander 27 Replies latest social current
WASHINGTON -- A narrowly divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can collect DNA from people arrested but not yet convicted of serious crimes, a tool that more than half the states already use to help crack unsolved crimes.
This DNA sample will of course go into a huge database similar to fingerprints.
I think its wrong. It treats innocent citizens as potential criminals.
Unless a person is convicted of a crime their DNA should not be stored without their consent.
I can't see the difference between this and fingerprints, it's part of determining who you are. I'm trying to find out if the collection of fingerprints was ever challanged in court. It seems fingerprint evidence decided a case in 1911, but I can't locate any evidence that there was a similar court challange to routine collection of fingerprints.
It is invasive. The policeperson who pulls you over for a speeding ticket and runs your DMV license knows within minutes a whole lot about you.
I would not be opposed to providing a stool sample if asked.
Rub a Dub
I don't like it and think it's an invasion of our citizens' rights... but those have recently changed, so I don't know what's what anymore.
On the other hand, I can see the benefit of solving cold cases. I'm not a criminal so I won't let it worry me worry me... much.
A DNA sample can tell Law Enforcement if they have the right person as opposed to who it says you are on a Passport or DL.
This can be good to make sure that the correct person is the criminal or not.
DNA is a powerful tool in detecting crime and is used to prove innocence as well as guilt.
The ethical problem is with retaining samples and creating a permanent database of citizens who have never been convicted.
Unlike fingerprints, DNA reveals a huge amount of information about the person, and that body of information will grow exponentially in coming years.
Should the state have that much personal knowledge of its citizens? I think not.
and now this -
Parents are up in arms in Polk County, Florida, because their children were subject to an iris scan without getting acceptable parental permission. The iris scans are part of a new security program being put in place in an elementary school, grade school and high school by Stanley Convergent Security Systems, reports Reuters’ Mike Blake.
Daniel Jenkins Academy, Bephune Academy and Davenport School of the Arts parents received a letter in the mail informing them of the new EyeSwipe-Nano Program. The letter stated that if parents would prefer their child not be a part of the program they should contact the child’s principal.
I remember some sci-fi from fifty years ago about id chips being implanted in every newborn. Seems a short step from just gathering the newborns DNA at birth.
