SCOTUS approves DNA swabs from arrestees

[Knight Rider]

At first I didn't like the idea either, but then I thought about something, and now I'm not so sure. People arrested (innocent or not) are fingerprinted. How is that different than DNA? In the context of modern times, a person's DNA is essentially their "fingerprint."

Finger prints and photo at booking are to confirm and document identity. I would even be fine with a retinal scan as a similar ID procedure. DNA contains tons more data than ID. At present we are still discovering new info contained in DNA. I for one have no interest in sharing that info with anyone without my permission or a warrant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Finger prints and photo at booking are to confirm and document identity. I would even be fine with a retinal scan as a similar ID procedure. DNA contains tons more data than ID. At present we are still discovering new info contained in DNA. I for one have no interest in sharing that info with anyone without my permission or a warrant.

Yes, but fingerprinting is used essentially the same way DNA is to track down "unknown" criminals. Different methods, but same purpose.

 

[Popeye81]

There is a lot of VERY BAD things that can be done with a large DNA database.I don't trust big .gov with that type of info. It is very possible that at some point they may try and sell their DNA database to the highest bidder. If big pharma EVER got a hold of the nations DNA database the power they could and would wield would be unmatched.Genetically engineered disease's that only THEY have the cure for and that they will charge a premium for.Wanna live...Pay your "health" tax or you die. It may sound pretty tin-foil but after speaking with people in the know at Eli-Lilly I now know why no major disease has been cured in 50 years...There's more money in treatment than there is the cure.Man has lost his drive to do for the better of all man kind.Man now would rather destroy man kind so that he can make a few bucks.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Finger prints and photo at booking are to confirm and document identity. I would even be fine with a retinal scan as a similar ID procedure. DNA contains tons more data than ID. At present we are still discovering new info contained in DNA. I for one have no interest in sharing that info with anyone without my permission or a warrant.

Ah, c'mon. I'm sure you've shared plenty of your DNA with the ladies over the years? Amirite?

Ah, what am I doing up at this hour? Going back to bed.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ah, c'mon. I'm sure you've shared plenty of your DNA with the ladies over the years? Amirite?

Ah, what am I doing up at this hour? Going back to bed.

Had a supervisor that was complaining about the other maintenance guys in our department. He asked if he could have my DNA to clone me. I told him to bend over and if give it to him.

 

[public servant]

He asked if he could have my DNA to clone me. I told him to bend over and if give it to him.

I had no idea you were a former Navy Seal.

So if you refuse they tie you down swab you anyways?

...

Of course not. They'll use the anal probe. See above.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Isn't it extremely easy to frame someone else using DNA (as compared to fingerprints)? Just drop a strand of hair at the scene (whether you be the perpetrator or anyone with nefarious intent) and count on the database to provide your conviction. I think juries believe in DNA evidence above all.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Isn't it extremely easy to frame someone else using DNA (as compared to fingerprints)? Just drop a strand of hair at the scene (whether you be the perpetrator or anyone with nefarious intent) and count on the database to provide your conviction. I think juries believe in DNA evidence above all.

I always collect bags of hair when I get my hair cut and keep them with me, just in case I need to to muddy the DNA scene somewhere

 

[hornadylnl]

Isn't it extremely easy to frame someone else using DNA (as compared to fingerprints)? Just drop a strand of hair at the scene (whether you be the perpetrator or anyone with nefarious intent) and count on the database to provide your conviction. I think juries believe in DNA evidence above all.

Don't leave a pube on a public toilet.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't get the big deal. Like fingerprints, what does matching my DNA against a database do to violate my privacy? Comparison to a tracking device is stupid. A tracking device shows where I go, when I'm there, etc, pretty easy to see how that can violate your privacy. "Does this DNA match crime scene DNA anywhere" violates your privacy how?

I've given DNA samples multiple times (real samples, not where your minds are going). The Army takes them in case you are dismembered in a blast they can match up which bits of goo are you. The police takes them so they can have it on file, and I was accused of a major felony once and voluntarily submitted a sample to help prove it wasn't me.

There COULD be violations of privacy with DNA. If it was used to check for medical conditions against your will, for example. Simply matching it up to a criminal database, I don't see a reasonable expectation of privacy there.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Obama's 2 nominees voted against this. 4 of the 5 who vote for it are "conservative" nominees, 2 of which are Roberts and Alito. The guys Romney said he wants to appoint people like.

Are for forced DNA collection? You do realize that the "conservative" justices, except for one, voted in favor of violating our rights.

 

[hornadylnl]

Are for forced DNA collection? You do realize that the "conservative" justices, except for one, voted in favor of violating our rights.

Just pointing out to those who told me I must vote for Romney because he will appoint conservative justices. They said Obama appointees would be the death low to the constitution. What's the point of putting conservative justices in if they don't care for the constitution any more than the liberals?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just pointing out to those who told me I must vote for Romney because he will appoint conservative justices. They said Obama appointees would be the death low to the constitution. What's the point of putting conservative justices in if they don't care for the constitution any more than the liberals?

The Republican Justices were on the wrong side of the drug sniffing dogs smelling for pot outside of someones front door too

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't get the big deal. Like fingerprints, what does matching my DNA against a database do to violate my privacy? Comparison to a tracking device is stupid. A tracking device shows where I go, when I'm there, etc, pretty easy to see how that can violate your privacy. "Does this DNA match crime scene DNA anywhere" violates your privacy how?

I've given DNA samples multiple times (real samples, not where your minds are going). The Army takes them in case you are dismembered in a blast they can match up which bits of goo are you. The police takes them so they can have it on file, and I was accused of a major felony once and voluntarily submitted a sample to help prove it wasn't me.

There COULD be violations of privacy with DNA. If it was used to check for medical conditions against your will, for example. Simply matching it up to a criminal database, I don't see a reasonable expectation of privacy there.

Do you see a problem with registering all guns and doing ballistic fingerprinting? It would only be used for solving crimes. Trust me.

 

[hornadylnl]

The Republican Justices were on the wrong side of the drug sniffing dogs smelling for pot outside of someones front door too

Don't forget Roberts and obamacare.

 

[rambone]

At first I didn't like the idea either, but then I thought about something, and now I'm not so sure. People arrested (innocent or not) are fingerprinted. How is that different than DNA? In the context of modern times, a person's DNA is essentially their "fingerprint."

I don't get the big deal. Like fingerprints, what does matching my DNA against a database do to violate my privacy? Comparison to a tracking device is stupid. A tracking device shows where I go, when I'm there, etc, pretty easy to see how that can violate your privacy. "Does this DNA match crime scene DNA anywhere" violates your privacy how?

There are some key differences from fingerprints. For one thing, DNA holds intimate medical/genetic information. Not only about the arrestee, but about their entire family. None of whom have been convicted of anything.

I wouldn't want that information in the hands of the government... not to mention all the 3rd parties who could potentially buy, hack, or steal the database.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

I always collect bags of hair when I get my hair cut and keep them with me, just in case I need to to muddy the DNA scene somewhere

It used to be that criminals wore gloves...this might be an effective new strategy!

 

[Sticky]

Looks un-Constitutional to me. It should fit in nicely with the Patriot Act and NDAA.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Looks un-Constitutional to me. It should fit in nicely with the Patriot Act and NDAA.

Constitution? What's that? Isn't that a ship in Boston? What's that have to do with anything? (Insert purple as needed)

 

[Lex Concord]

At first I didn't like the idea either, but then I thought about something, and now I'm not so sure. People arrested (innocent or not) are fingerprinted. How is that different than DNA? In the context of modern times, a person's DNA is essentially their "fingerprint."

Because, unlike DNA, the potential nefarious uses of fingerprints are limited to those related to identification.

Should the ability to harvest and store certain genealogical data or data from health care providers/insurers regarding health risks be available upon arrest, regardless whether the intent of the arresting body is limited to identification or not?

I say no.