Federal Agencies To Collect Genetic Info

protagoras writes "According to a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities may have their DNA forcibly collected for permanent storage in a central database. The bill is supported by the White House as well, but has not yet gone to the floor for a vote. Current law permits this only for those convicted of a crime. So even though completely innocent, should the Feds decide to detain you for any reason, your genetic data will grace their database beside that from murders, terrorists, and other miscreants." From the article: "The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved. Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics."

Its eugenics back again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this URL for some of the history of genetic and racial classification in America. This data is the health insurance companies wet dream. They want to be able to deny coverage based on your genetis background. So, for example, if you had an uncle who got cancer, or a parent who had a predisposition to a disease, you could become unemployable..

See http://waragainsttheweak.com/articles.php [waragainsttheweak.com], especially the article in Reform Judaism about this 'new kind of selection'.

This is the real reason behind the big push for medical IT, and its vert scary.

For profit health insurance and medical IT are not compatible..

Meh

[lxt]

Here in Britain, police already have powers to retain DNA of those who are innocent - there was a court case in the Lords a few years ago, where the police had retained the DNA of an 11 year boy accused (and found innocent) of a crime, which led to a 4-1 ruling in favour of the police keeping the samples. For example, sometimes in Britain the police will have a mass dna swab session, where they test say a large number of males in a town. The police can then keep the samples, and use them to link anyone who went on to commit a crime.

Yes, you could refuse to give a sample, but if the police really wanted to obtain your DNA samples they'd just obtain a search warrant for your house, and attempt to collect it from hair/nails etc.

Re:At it again

[van der Rohe]

Parent is correct in principle, of course. But it's important to understand that the Republican notions of "smaller government" and "freedom" only have to do with government's relationship with BUSINESS, not with individuals.

"Smaller government" means "less market intervention" and "freedom" only refers to freedom to earn.

Someone's going to mark this as flamebait or troll, but it's not a value judgement. It's just the way things are. In fact, once this is clear you realize that there's nothing contradictory or hypocritical about the Right's message at all.

Re:So?

[nwbvt]

No, its perfectly possible (though highly unlikely) for two non-twins to have DNA that tests to be identical (remember we are not comparing the stands nucleotide to nucleotide). Just like with fingerprints.

Anyways, all you are saying is that it is a more accurate test. Why should that make it worse?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you'll be hard pressed to find any fact or expert witness to testify that DNA found at a crime seen belonged to the defendent. Yes, they'll testify to the odds that it is the defendent, but never to it belonging to them. Have you ever testified as an expert or fact witness? This is one of those tricks lawyers use to show the jury that the witness is a complete fuckup.

I could tell you more about the joys of testifying to fingerprints, but something tells me you wouldn't care as it doesn't agree with your uninformed understanding of identification analysis.

Re:At it again

[Stalyn]

The Democratic Party's endorsement of the Civil Rights Movement caused many white southerners to move to the Republican Party. They brought along with them their ideas about small government and states' rights. The Republican party as it is now is really the old southern Democratic party. Also I'd like to mention there is some debate over whether or not Lincoln was gay. Which I find hilarious when you compare that notion to the Republican's stance on gays.

Re:This is especially troubling...

[doschie]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-5346 .html [arstechnica.com]

Chimerism Unaccounted For

[Ledgem]

Hopefully, they won't base things too heavily off of this. While DNA testing does work well in most cases, there are two cases where it doesn't. As people have brought up, DNA falsification (someone trailing evidence that would genetically lead to another person), and people with chimerism.

Chimerism, as I understand it, is a condition that forms when two zygotes fuse together in the womb. That is, what would have been two people - twins, perhaps - fuse back together and form a single embryo. What results is a person with two sets of DNA. For example, their skin, hair, and so on may have one DNA line, but their internal organs would have another. It's relatively rare, but just imagine the mixups that would be possible. I believe there have been cases where this came up, actually; where a single person committed a crime, but DNA sequencing led people to believe that two were involved. Quite interesting, really; at the same time, given that it's so rare, few people know about it. And I certainly don't expect the government to have it in mind, either, knowing their record with scientific matters...

A DNA print does NOT uniquely identify

[Alain Williams]

Typically, DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva. A DNA "profile" -- or unique numeric signature -- is generated, which can be stored without including private genetic information.

There is a mistaken belief that a DNA test will uniquely identify someone, that is not true. The technology is a sampling one, it does not compare everything in someone's DNA against the test DNA. The main value is in excluding people who cannot match the DNA profile.

The public belief is that these tests are 100% accurate and that when the police scientist says it is a match then it is an absolute match.

Fingerprints have similar problems, see this [newscientist.com] article.

Criminals already do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Police say car thieves have taken to dumping cigarette butts from bins in stolen cars before abandoning them." - TV teaching criminals about DNA evidence [lse.co.uk]