House Votes To Expand National DNA Arrest Database 341
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the US House of Representatives on Tuesday. By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults 'arrested for' certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory. ... But civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes, and argue that if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted."
Re:Here we go (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I'm usually really strongly against any increase in government power at the expense of civil liberties. I'm having trouble coming up with how this is an infringement on them though. It's not like they're keeping your entire DNA sequence, just information on the frequency of some marker sequences. They won't be able to search your genome for any useful information. The analogy to fingerprinting is apt here:
Once the government gets a hold of your fingerprints:
* You will have no idea what it is used for, by whom, nor how often
* You will never really be able to get that data removed
* You will be put in a position to have to prove innocence instead of being assumed innocent
* You are giving up yet more control over your life and privacy to the government
* The data WILL be used to make assumptions about you
* Your fingerprint data WILL be unreasonably searched, every time a search is done, and without probable cause
* The data WILL be shared with other agencies- state and fed
* The data WILL be leaked in one way or another
Except for the last point you raise, this isn't really any worse than fingerprinting. Family members coming under suspicion because of partial matches would be pretty bad. But I think that's an abuse that can be dealt with. Since your closest relatives are unlikely to share more than 50% of your DNA, that should not amount to a finding of probable (>50%) cause. So that's a fairly limited case for abuse. What else makes this worse than fingerprinting?
Re:Just as we're getting rid of it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlike in the UK, we don't really consider it a new government the way you guys do. It's just changing who runs the government. I know it's mostly semantics, but it affects how we view our government, and the amount of change we expect.
We expect certain things to change, but we know the vast majority of things will stay exactly the same, or continue moving in the direction it has always been moving.
Re:The house needs more rebels (Score:1, Interesting)
I'll go further. Anyone taking any public position at all should have to "submit"; including (especially) all law enforcement types. Heck, if the census-takers had all been DNA screened against the criminal database, I'd worry a bit less about the possibility of my family letting them into the house.
All Census takers are fingerprint screened against the FBI's database. It's not taken lightly, either. Fingerprints are taken on the first day of training after the administrative paperwork is taken care of and the oath of office given.
The prints are Fed Ex'd that night, one copy to the Census and one copy to the FBI. If the prints come back as unreadable (and it's common that they do; the fingerprints are generally taken by other enumerators and the crew leader, who had one afternoon's training on it) the employee is hauled back up to the local census office for reprinting by an actual fingerprinter.
Just about any positive return, no matter how minor, gets the employee fired. There are, in fact, civil rights lawsuits pending on the grounds that this is unfair to minorities.
How would DNA testing augment this? It wouldn't do a better job of connecting census employees to arrest/conviction records, and I'm not sure what connecting an employee to an open crime would achieve. It wouldn't be legal to give that information to a law enforcement agency, and canning someone because their DNA happened to share a few alleles with a sexual assault kit from an alleged rape sounds like a great way to get sued.
Re:Not right (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>So, what are you going to do about it?
Organize patriots and pass this amendment to the Constitution in order to give Member States of the Union power to nullify Congresses' stupid laws. It may take 40 years but I think it will pass eventually, because it is the only way to provide "checks and balances" between the Union government and the State governments:
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. ----- SECTION 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.
.
With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional. ----- That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time in the courtroom.
Re:Here we go (Score:1, Interesting)
I hearby claim copyright on my DNA. Think I shall submit it to the copyright office tomorrow.
Works for the RIAA/MPAA right?
It is a work of my parents. I get a 95 year term on it right?
Re:Action: (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, it's like the TSA banned flyers list.
I'd like to know how the "no fly" list passes Constitutional muster, when the 5th amendment requires that due process be provided before one is deprived of life, liberty or property. It doesn't really seem compatible with the spirit of that amendment to deny people their rights and then provide them with an appeals process.
I'd also like to extend a big fat middle finger to the idiots that are whining about the "terror gap" and the need to prevent people on the no fly list from purchasing guns. One wishes that they could see past their hoplophobia long enough to realize that they are advocating for a policy that would allow the US Attorney General to deprive American citizens of their civil rights without needing to go before a judge or jury. Scary stuff.....
Re:Not right (Score:3, Interesting)
You get arrested, you get fingerprinted. Period. It stays in the database forever.
Actually that depends on the state. I got fingerprinted when I was arrested. When the Grand Jury refused to indict me I received a court order compelling the relevant police agencies to destroy any and all copies of my fingerprints, photograph, DNA, etc.
Of course I later had to give up my fingerprints to the state to get a pistol license, but there you go.....