Supreme court DNA ruling

[Dadtodabone]

Y'all realize this is really a moot point now, right? Thanks to Obamacare, the feds will have your DNA next time you have blood drawn for a routine cholesterol exam.

Aside from that, I'm on the fence with this ruling. In many ways, a DNA sample is not that much different from fingerprints. It's very different from drawing blood given that a swab is much less invasive and carries much less risk of cross-infection, pain, etc. What I find problematic about collecting DNA is that it's much more than just a uniquie identifier. You can't measure someone's genes from a fingerprint. A DNA sample contains vast amounts of private data that I don't want to give away. Also, fingerprinting is much more transparent since the entire process is conducted right in front of you. With a DNA swab, they have to send the sample off to a lab where they do who-knows-what with it and may potentially mix it up with someone else's sample.

That's were a verifiable chain of custody is an imperative for law enforcement. Any break in the chain should preclude the use of the tainted evidence at trial.
As Houston PD found out:
http://hpdlabinvestigation.org/reports/ ... ations.pdf
Record keeping at outside labs has to be just as meticulous, or again, the evidence would be tainted.

[rotor]

When you are arrested the police can photograph you and fingerprint you right now. Is that acceptable? I believe it is. So, you can be identified. This is not stopping people on the street forcing a specimen. These are people arrested. If we can accept that people that are arrested can have their fingerprints taken for id purposes why not accept that it is ok to have something more than the genetics of the swirls of their fingers to the genetics of the dna that made those swirls assuming that it is not invasive and a buccal swab is not invasive. Now if you don't think fingerprinting is acceptable, turn in your chl and give your guns to someone else as you have already agreed to that form of id.

There are an awful lot of people in jails right now that have been released because of these dna tests. I think there needs to be controls on how the info is used but I don't think that a definitive id of someone by a buccal swab taken from someone that has been arrested and will be photographed and fingerprinted is an unconstitutional thing. Can the info be used the wrong way by our government. No doubt, look at the IRS. If you want to make sure that Bin Laden is dead though and not a look alike you need positive id and I don't know anything better than dna. If the LA police had done things right OJ would be in jail in California (or executed) instead of being in jail in Nevada. We all want the police arresting the right person and not putting the wrong person in jail. DNA makes that possible. Fingerprints are just not that good. Uncle has multiple sets on me from TSA passes and my time in the service yet my CHL set had to be repeated several times.

Ready for the flames.

[clarionite]

When you are arrested the police can photograph you and fingerprint you right now. Is that acceptable? I believe it is. So, you can be identified. This is not stopping people on the street forcing a specimen. These are people arrested. If we can accept that people that are arrested can have their fingerprints taken for id purposes why not accept that it is ok to have something more than the genetics of the swirls of their fingers to the genetics of the dna that made those swirls assuming that it is not invasive and a buccal swab is not invasive. Now if you don't think fingerprinting is acceptable, turn in your chl and give your guns to someone else as you have already agreed to that form of id.

There are an awful lot of people in jails right now that have been released because of these dna tests. I think there needs to be controls on how the info is used but I don't think that a definitive id of someone by a buccal swab taken from someone that has been arrested and will be photographed and fingerprinted is an unconstitutional thing. Can the info be used the wrong way by our government. No doubt, look at the IRS. If you want to make sure that Bin Laden is dead though and not a look alike you need positive id and I don't know anything better than dna. If the LA police had done things right OJ would be in jail in California (or executed) instead of being in jail in Nevada. We all want the police arresting the right person and not putting the wrong person in jail. DNA makes that possible. Fingerprints are just not that good. Uncle has multiple sets on me from TSA passes and my time in the service yet my CHL set had to be repeated several times.

Ready for the flames.

As far as I know, finger prints can't be used to tell if you're predisposed to medical issues. Submitting DNA gives someone else way more information than I'd like to disclose. And they've said it's allowed without being convicted. I'm not entirely opposed to a database of convicted criminals being set up. But I've got an issue with this ruling. Some of the arguments I've heard for this sound a lot like "If you're not guilty, you've got nothing to hide." I'd suggest that the past few months worth of scandals disprove that theory.

[n5wd]

...There are an awful lot of people NOT in jails right now that have been released because of these dna tests.

OR

...There are an awful lot of people in jails right now that have been arrested because of these dna tests.

There, I fixed it for you, both ways!

[rotor]

Thanks

[VMI77]

But the DUI and even the possible arrest of a CHL after a shooting bring the DNA gathering into a different light. It would not be beyond imagination to be held overnight in jail even after a completely justifiable shooting, While I personally have nothing to fear from a DNA comparison, the act of collecting DNA from someone who hasn't been convicted or possibly even charged with a crime still seems shaky at best.

You sure about that? You should watch the film Gattaca for some insight on how DNA data can be abused. Especially now, with Obamacare, law enforcement should be the least of your worries.

[VMI77]

When you are arrested the police can photograph you and fingerprint you right now. Is that acceptable? I believe it is. So, you can be identified. This is not stopping people on the street forcing a specimen. These are people arrested. If we can accept that people that are arrested can have their fingerprints taken for id purposes why not accept that it is ok to have something more than the genetics of the swirls of their fingers to the genetics of the dna that made those swirls assuming that it is not invasive and a buccal swab is not invasive. Now if you don't think fingerprinting is acceptable, turn in your chl and give your guns to someone else as you have already agreed to that form of id.

There are an awful lot of people in jails right now that have been released because of these dna tests. I think there needs to be controls on how the info is used but I don't think that a definitive id of someone by a buccal swab taken from someone that has been arrested and will be photographed and fingerprinted is an unconstitutional thing. Can the info be used the wrong way by our government. No doubt, look at the IRS. If you want to make sure that Bin Laden is dead though and not a look alike you need positive id and I don't know anything better than dna. If the LA police had done things right OJ would be in jail in California (or executed) instead of being in jail in Nevada. We all want the police arresting the right person and not putting the wrong person in jail. DNA makes that possible. Fingerprints are just not that good. Uncle has multiple sets on me from TSA passes and my time in the service yet my CHL set had to be repeated several times.

Ready for the flames.

Or we could just put video cameras in everyone's home, station a police officer on every block, and conduct periodic searches of homes and businesses. We can probably just about eliminate all crime. Fingerprints tell the government who I am...that's it. It doesn't tell them who my children are, who my nephews and nieces are, who my brother is, what diseases I'm susceptible to, my family genetic history, or anything else that science will eventually be able to determine by genetic analysis. Make sure you give your DNA to your insurance provider and get it on file with Obamacare. And no, DNA doesn't make arresting the right person any more possible than fingerprints on an empty shell casing. The main thing that makes arresting the right people possible is the stupidity of criminals. I'll go ahead and keep my DNA private, thank you.

We probably agree on a lot of things, I think the basic difference is that you have a lot more trust in government than I do, and I think we're seeing less and less reason to put ANY trust in the Federal government as time goes on.

[sjfcontrol]

We probably agree on a lot of things, I think the basic difference is that you have a lot more trust in government than I do, and I think we're seeing less and less reason to put ANY trust in the Federal government as time goes on.

A few years back, when they were conducting the census, I had a couple of census workers come to my house. I believe it wasn't the normal census, but something dealing with my business. Anyway, they wanted to ask me questions, which I told them I would not answer.

The female worker tried and tried to make be answer, but I insisted that i didn't want to discuss private information. At this point, the male worker spoke up (I believe he was a trainee), he looked up at the American and Texas flags flying in my front yard and asked, "Even for the Government?"

I looked at him rather dumfounded and stated, "Especially for the Government!"

They went away unfulfilled. (Though she did come back a month or two later and tried -- unsuccessfully -- again.)

[bdickens]

As far as the "if you're not guilty, you've got nothing to hide" mentality, guess what: you are guilty, you just don't know of what yet. http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rotor]

We probably agree on a lot of things, I think the basic difference is that you have a lot more trust in government than I do, and I think we're seeing less and less reason to put ANY trust in the Federal government as time goes on.

Believe me when I say I have no trust in the government either but my point is that we already are giving them our identification when we are fingerprinted and I think the only way to give them dna is to make sure that it is only used for id purposes and nothing else. Similar case recently where police wanted to access a traffic cam video because they thought they might be able to identify a murderer and the courts said no. DNA only for id purposes and not any of the other medical issues mentioned. And when a BG is arrested and they find a DNA match on a 20 year old rape case they should be able to use it. And if the wrong guy is in jail for the crime he should be released.

[gigag04]

I'm for this.

[VMI77]

We probably agree on a lot of things, I think the basic difference is that you have a lot more trust in government than I do, and I think we're seeing less and less reason to put ANY trust in the Federal government as time goes on.

Believe me when I say I have no trust in the government either but my point is that we already are giving them our identification when we are fingerprinted and I think the only way to give them dna is to make sure that it is only used for id purposes and nothing else. Similar case recently where police wanted to access a traffic cam video because they thought they might be able to identify a murderer and the courts said no. DNA only for id purposes and not any of the other medical issues mentioned. And when a BG is arrested and they find a DNA match on a 20 year old rape case they should be able to use it. And if the wrong guy is in jail for the crime he should be released.

It's the camel's nose under the tent. The laws won't matter, the government doesn't obey the law now, and doesn't enforce the law except on the little guy. Have you Gattaca? It depicts far better than I can explain what is very likely to happen.