FBI and States Vastly Expand DNA Collection, Databases 203
Mike writes "Starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial, and will also collect DNA from detained immigrants. For example, this year, California began taking DNA upon arrest, and expects to nearly double the growth rate of its database (PDF), to 390,000 profiles a year, up from 200,000. Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts, however law enforcement officials are expanding their collection of DNA to include millions of people who have only been arrested or detained, but not yet convicted. The move, intended to 'help solve more crimes,' is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent."
GATTACA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happens when, like all other biotech information, someone plants it or finds a way to copy it?
Re: (Score:2)
Reliance on any of these thing is probably a bad idea. BUT. Since reality is not a movie I think 99% of the time it would be a good thing. Think about a crime like rape. The girl says it was a tall white guy and that is it. With DNA on hand you have a good chance of getting the guy. Just check the database. If she identifies him from a lineup AND you use the
Re:GATTACA (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at your UID number, close to 1.5 million people joined slashdot before you did. There is a huge variety of people here. Some go apeshit when the NSA are mentioned, but the scary thing is that a good number have the attitude that any invasion of privacy is OK if it means catching the bad guys.
Personally this kind of shit scares me. Not only is DNA testing very unreliable but it may also make it easier to catch me, a political dissenter. I'll admit it here, I grow plants that are illegal and ingest them. I should probably stick to the legal deadly water hemlock but that is scary. Anyways I'm going to roll a joint and ingest it and go to bed.
Hmmm. (Score:2, Troll)
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
If your DNA is at the crime scene you're guilty until proven innocent. Duh.
How is that insightful? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because your DNA is at a crime scene, does not mean you are considered guilty. It doesn't even make you a suspect.
It does mean the police may have questions for you, if you were not quite a long ways away and the DNA just happened to be there from a long ago visit.
DNA collection is one of those things that sounds scary but I have trouble seeing what the real problem is. Police have an easier time finding people to ask questions about a crime and get to the solution? That's not all negative, and the
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone up to a rational non-fear based debate to talk about the true negatives of DNA collection?
How about "The government should fear the people, not the other way around."
Oops - wait - you wanted a non-fear based debate. Um, okay, well nevermind then. I'm sure everything's going to be alright.
Exactly. (Score:2)
Because people have some strange belief in the infallibility of:
#1. The people taking the DNA sample at the crime scene.
#2. The database keeping the DNA tags.
#3. The people taking the DNA sample to enter it into the database.
#4. DNA samples being completely unique.
Instead, DNA should be used to clear suspects. Not to find them. It just isn't reliable enough.
But that's not how it is shown on TV. And TV is where most people get their education.
Re: (Score:2)
As well as the tools they are using. As was recently the case in Germany.
#4. DNA samples being completely unique.
Identical twins have the same complete genome, someone who has received a transplaned organ may in some cases show the genome of the doner. The big problem is that what gets compared is a tiny piece of the genome. Which can produce a match between people who are not close
Re: (Score:2)
Right, like Germany's Phantom Serial Killer (Score:2)
The Phantom's list of accomplices showed no pattern, ranging from Slovaks to Serbs, Albanians to Romanians, and her territory stretched throughout Germany and into Austria and France. No one had ever seen her, no security camera had ever captured her image. But when witnesses described her, they sometimes said she looked like a man.
Yeah, sure as hell police knows that you can't trust DNA samples right? Which is why dozens of police officers searched for the phantom for years despite these obvious contradictions. Even a 100.000 Euro bounty was offered...
It turned out to be some DNA pollution on the q-tips the police used: the DNA came from an employee of the cotton-wool tip manufacturer the police used. By the way, the q-tips (which are Germa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cotton Swabs are the Prime Suspect In 8-Year Phantom Chase
Posted by samzenpus on Thursday March 26, @12:10AM from the mom-always-said-to-wash-your-hands dept. Biotech
matt4077 writes "For eight years, several hundred police officers across multiple European countries have been chasing a phantom woman whose DNA had been found in almost 20 crimes (including two murders) across central Europe. It now turns out that contaminated cotton swabs might be responsible for this highly unusual investigation. After being puzzled by the apparent randomness of the crimes, investigators noticed that all cotton swabs had been sourced from the same company. They also noted that the DNA was never found in crimes in Bavaria, a German state located at the center of the crimes' locations. It turns out that Bavaria buys its swabs from a different supplier." biotech slashdotted csi weird swabdotted science biotech story
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, apart from that I
Re: (Score:2)
Resources which could have been put to better use
no investigator ever thought about the possibility that eventually the DNA evidence might be void. So, your point is moot, investagtors obviously take a DNA sample for as the perfect evidence and stop every logical reasoning as soon as DNA evidence is present.
This implies that these investigators may be capable of making other funder
Incorrect lead in (Score:2)
For example, This year, California began taking DNA upon arrest and expects to nearly double the growth rate of its database, to 390,000 profiles a year, up from 200,000. Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts, however law enforcement officials are expanding their collection of DNA to include millions of people who have only been arrested or detained, but not yet convicted.
Err... They have been collecting DNA from the Military for a while now...
Just sayin
Re:Collecting by the Military (Score:2, Informative)
Scary stuff (Score:2, Funny)
If I'm arrested can I just show them my teabag to avoid having my DNA put in the system?
This is how it is in the UK now (Score:5, Informative)
The much maligned European Court is protecting our liberties by declaring this illegal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/04/law-genetic [guardian.co.uk]
Such a shame that the mother of democracies should come to this.
Be warned by our bad example
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fingerprints are taken on arrest, how is this so much worse?
Re: (Score:2)
I do think the UK has some privacy issues but people in the US shouldn't laugh as they always end up following the UK's lead.
First CCTV and now DNA databases. Combine with with the new US passports and it's not looking too good.
Re: (Score:2)
So how long before filming police officers breaking the law is illegal in the US. As part of what Bruce Schneier has called "The War of Photographers".
Also the move towards authoritarianism appears to be endemic throughout the "first world".
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the fact CCTV already came to the US before I moved out, I was luckily in an area with no cameras, so moving to the UK did freak me out where even villages and small towns could have CCTV cameras through out the area.
Admittedly I don't think about them as much now but I'm glad I've got my citizenship now and will be voting at the next opportunity and I take extra ordinary steps to keep my work life se
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is whether they are kept on file when you are subsequently found innocent.
Or do you suppose that the police never arrest the innocent?
Perhaps in your country
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprints are a match or not, period
Hardly. [livescience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprint identification is a statistical match, not an identical match, especially the way it is implemented and searched. Skin is elastic and fingers are prone to injury, without a good degree of fuzziness in the search, you might not even match yourself. Both techniques are better at positive exclusion than positive identification.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually much the same issues come up. Since a match is likely to be made with the prints of only some fingers and possibly only partial prints (even without knowing which fingers).
Just a few months age a researcher in the US noticed two identical samples, one was from a black man, one from a white man.
DNA testing uses bits of DNA, not the whole genome.
I know th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fingerprints contain very minimal medical data about you. DNA is a CODE, its a huge repository of the information that makes you what you are physicaly. The two things are not analogous AT ALL.
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprints contain very minimal medical data about you. DNA is a CODE, its a huge repository of the information that makes you what you are physicaly. The two things are not analogous AT ALL.
I wonder if fingerprint cards pick up sufficient skin cells to be DNA sequenced?
---
An unobtrusive ad is a non-functional ad. It is a non-sustainable business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Your finger prints can not be used against your children and grand children. DNA can and will be used for whatever the market will bear.
Once they have the database, health cost containment will be the excuse for accessing the information for use by non-judicial agencies and then later by non-governmental agencies. This is the ultimate privacy violation, using DNA to grant or withhold medical treatment will just be the beginning... how about getting a permit to start a family, in order to "clean up" the gen
Re: (Score:2)
As well as your parents, nieces, nephews, etc.
Once they have the database, health cost containment will be the excuse for accessing the information for use by non-judicial agencies and then later by non-governmental agencies.
In the case of the British Government it will likely be put on DVD or USB drive and "lost" before any such official handover...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Greece called from 500 BC and wanted that title back.
Yeah, a real mother (Score:2)
Mother of democracies? Hmmmmm. Perhaps I've been mistaken about England. I always thought England was a monarchy, that had spread an empire around the world by force of arms. Liberties, rights, and democratic freedoms have been wrested FROM that monarchy by force of arms. Maybe I should google the Magna Charta again, and see how that really went down. Yes, I see. The King decided that it would be a good thing for his subjects to exercise some freedoms, and to be secure in thier persons, so he unilat
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, those proctections only applied to nobles.
DNA upon arrest and those awaiting trial (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless it's for rape/murder, does anyone else find this extremely disturbing?
And what if you're innocent, do they erase this data out of the system?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it *extremely* disturbing. DNA evidence should be used to exclude, and with consent. You should need probable cause to search someone's DNA for a match. The rights of the victim *are* more important the rights of the criminal, but the rights of the innocent are at least equivalent to the rights of the victim. This process causes a violation of the rights of millions of non-criminals (imo).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but they have to have already collected your DNA in order to compare it and figure out that it didn't match. And then they keep it anyway.
That's what's not right!
Re: (Score:2)
But if you are innocent your DNA is not very likely to be there.
Actually this database by definition will be nothing BUT innocent people.
If you are convicted as guilty by a court, they already have the right to take your DNA sample before incarcerating you. The guilty ones already are in a database.
The only reason to change and expand the law at all on this is to collect the DNA of non guilty people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple, you're innocent. They should be destroyed because fingerprints of the guilty should only be retained.
Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
All records should be destroyed when the person is proven not guilty and released. WIth this ability they can just randomly detain people for questioning about some random crime that has no connection, get their DNA, and release them.
For *innocent* people this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. ( and perhaps others )
As always ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
Re:Unconstitutional... except.... (Score:2)
I am saddened more by your comment than any other I've seen on /. in a long time. To find you moderated Insightful actually scares me. I'll paste the text of the Fourth Ammendment below and ask you to find the Exception clause. You know, that one that provides for contravention of the ammendment when the person is guilty. (I feel dirty having typed that last phrase).
You do remember that a person is not guilty u
Proven not guilty and released? (Score:2)
Oh boy, do you got a LOUSY understanding of the legal system. You are convicted when it is decided that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NOBODY claims it is proven you are guilty except the prosecutor perhaps. It is presumed, beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a difference.
Proven not guilty? Sorry, that only happens on tv. Not guilty really means, there is reasonable doubt. Although often it could also mean we don't doubt it, but we can't present the evidence that would nail you to the wall becau
DNA is only as good as you handle it . . . (Score:4, Informative)
. . . a search for a female serial killer, whose victims were in Austria, France and Germany, was ended recently, when police discovered that the DNA of the suspect belonged to a women who packaged the cotton swabs used for testing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEPt22F_xcWatGRrX5ludZOsSM5AD976HRM00
So, how reliable will these databases be?
It's a hoot and a half to read all the different crimes associated with this case, and think how all those police profilers were totally baffled by this killer.
It won't be too funny, if a lab mix-up incriminates you.
Except nothing happened to that woman did it? (Score:2)
So, what exactly are you saying? That techonology fouled up but the people using it realised it and did NOT arrest this woman whose only crime is to contaminate sterile materials (would you want her in charge of handling medical equipment used on you) and break down her door or start a case against her?
The system, slowly, worked is what this story really is about.
Ethics and Errors (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, the UK, who has the largest DNA Database in the world, is having some problems with accuracy [edri.org]. And the Germans spent 15 years hunting a serial killer who didn't even exit [independent.co.uk].
Furthermore, juries are lead to believe that DNA is perfect evidence. While in theory the probability of two non-twins matching is very low, the issue is there is absolutely no way to prove how exactly that material got there. What if you were in a car, and two weeks later someone else is shot in it? Or worse, what if you and your girlfriend did some dirty business in the back? Your DNA will be in the back, and it's going to be hard fighting that off in court, because the Jury believes that DNA is full-proof evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The Other Hand (Score:2)
If you were accused of a crime but your DNA record could clear you, would you want it on record? Many people have been cleared of crimes after having been found guilty, due to DNA evidence after the fact. In some of these cases wrongdoing by law enforcement was found and itself prosecuted or at least corrected.
If someone committed a crime against you or yours, and having their DNA on record would help catch and prosecute them, would you want it done?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
How hard do you think it is to plant DNA evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
how much are we paying (Score:2)
Fiendish Feds Filched my Follicles (Score:3, Interesting)
I flew United, Milwaukee>Ohare>Austin for the Netroots Nation bloggers convention last July.
Landing, 2 bags out of 66 passengers were not on the carousel, mine and agnostic's, another raucous Dailykos poster. We were told they'd been mistakenly sent to Scranton, would be delivered to out hotel around midnight. Actually arrived 4:00 the next afternoon, with 2 pieces of tape, one from TSA, and another from Homeland Security. Missing, my hairbrush, and Ms. Agnostic's scarf.
As I connect the dots, when our dossiers were run, an alert HSA drone noticed empty datafields for our DNA. No longer empty.
(I have history, going back to the Nixon enemies list.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The DNA you leave behind is no longer yours (Score:4, Interesting)
It's only 1 in 36 billion if DNA is randomly distributed. In reality, your DNA is passed down from your parents. The odds of a match go up if the perpetrator has your ethnicity. They go up even more if the perpetrator is in your family. They go up yet again if the perpetrator is a sibling.
Re:The DNA you leave behind is no longer yours (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because DNA trace is found at a crime scene doesn't mean that you have been there at the time of the crime, it may be that you were there moments before or did unknowingly have a brush with someone involved. This is especially important in areas where public transportation systems are frequently used.
It's important to consider how the DNA was collected and the conditions at the time to determine how relevant it is.
More interesting would be if DNA is missing when it would be expected.
Re:The DNA you leave behind is no longer yours (Score:4, Informative)
Mistakes happen. If the woman in this story [slashdot.org] had been in that database, she'd be in prison for a crime she didn't commit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he apparently is using/spelling the word correctly. [wiktionary.org]
From the link:
Etymology
From Middle English *voluntarie - Old French volontaire - Latin voluntarius ("'willing, of free will'") - voluntas ("'will, choice, desire'") - volens, ppr. of velle ("'to will'"). [...]Derived terms
* voluntarily
That one also tripped my grammar flag and my spel czekker, so I checked. :-)
BTW, I was going to reply to an earlier post of yours when that side tracked me.
LOL! That was well done, sir. [see below]**
From earlier...It made me think. *ouch!*
**
Funny how all three of
Re: (Score:2)
"Voluntary" would be an innocent member of the public turning up spontaneously to the police station to give a DNA sample.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is trolling through a large enough database will randomly create some false positives. Even if you assume the DNA data is reliable, which it isn't, then you still have the problem of "I bumped into this person, and through some strange series of events my skin cells contaminated the sample." There was already a case of the police desperately sea
Re: (Score:2)
This:
In my country it is voluntary or forced for certain crimes...
and this:
There is definitely no coercion or strong selling, but having said that, the lure of cigarettes turn hardened criminals in to teddy bears.
...make me have to ask which country are you live in. It is not obvious to me from either post where you are from. :-)
I'm just curious, no troll or flaming intended. Really, just curious.
BTW, I also wondered about 'Voluntary' as did 'bargainsale (1038112)', but you are completly [slashdot.org]on-target, and correct [wiktionary.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Just be aware that your choice may lead to an ever greater violation of your privacy.
Then it's not really a choice, is it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Victims rights should always be more important than that of criminals, who are often scum.
You're horribly naive. The difference between a victim and a criminal is who did what; they're still human, they're still breathing, and there's still a few slips of paper in the framework of most nations that say that rights are something called unalienable. You're born with rights and you die with rights. Such harsh punshments, not only are cruel and unusual, but also fling themselves against probability issues. What if you were wrongly convicted of (for sake of example, et cetera) murder and sentenced
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent a methamphetamine addict for example, is no longer exactly on the right emotional level to really be classified as human by the way you explain it.
Dehumanizing [wikipedia.org] is the first step on the road to atrocities.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, WTF?! Do the idiots running the BK somehow think they're not felons while they're still in jail?!
Re: (Score:2)
Arrested people are often innocent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Victims rights should always be more important than that of criminals, who are often scum.
What about the rights of innocent people who are victims of the state?
Re: (Score:2)
Victims rights should always be more important than that of criminals
What about the rights of an innocent person who was arrested and later cleared? Should their DNA remain in the system in perpetuity?
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is the system isn't perfect in distinguishing said criminal from an innocent bystander.
People get arrested by mistake all the time.
And giving carte blanche to DNA collection at arrest instead of conviction will give jerks an incentive to then plant your DNA.
Yes...the "random asshole who wants to fuck with the system to get you in trouble" routine. Jealous lovers do it routinely, and would do so all the more if they knew they could pull it off.
1. Make up a bullshit report to get someone ar
Mods STOP sniffing paint thinner. (Score:2)
Why the fuck is this modded Troll?
Re:Presumed innocent?? (Score:5, Insightful)
So go ahead and collect DNA. You may eventually have everyone on record, but that's no big deal for most of us.
Who decides that it is no big deal? Who decides if you are a criminal or not (or me, or the guy down the street)? When government is allowed to take even the smallest step, it never stops and only uses that small step to build a long path to no rights for the People and more power for government.
If a person is found guilty of a felony, then and ONLY then can ANY of their rights be forfeit. In addition, the loss of rights must fit the crime.
PGA
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...in no way removes the rights of the individual being arrested...
Great! I want my time back after I have to prove their accusation is false.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)
Real safety is teaching your wife or daughter to protect herself. Protecting herself is a multi-stage process: Knowing where she is, and th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Runaway makes a great deal of sense. The single greatest deterrent to violent crime is an armed and/or empowered victim. No after-the-fact police officer is going to make a difference, and prior performance does not necessarily indicate future action - in other words, identification helps very little in crime prevention.
Re: (Score:2)
The more comprehensive the database the more innocents will be prevented from becoming victims.
Or the more innocents will become victims of invalid DNA tests.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/268.php [innocenceproject.org]
I bet you're the type who just sucks it all right up when the prosecutors' expert witnesses tells you just how tiny the chances are that the DNA test might be wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The true victims are those that believe all these "security" measures are indeed that.
Take DNA after convicted. Take fingerprints after conviction. Otherwise, leave them alone.
PGA
Re: (Score:2)
We could also imprison every Muslim on terror charges just IN CASE they blow something up. How many innocent live would have been spared at this point?
Give me a break!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DNA holds several orders of magnitude more personal information then a fingerprint. The 2 things arent even comparable. A fingerprint is a physical imprint of the pattern on your fingertip, DNA tells every single genetic medical fact about you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They only test 13 markers on the DNA, not the whole genome, in fact 99.9% of your DNA is the same for every person. While everybody is unique genetically, they only test a small subset so the identification is statistical, what I'm waiting for is a proven false match using DNA profiling.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think that Mendel called and wanted his genetics back.
DNA misses many genetic facts about you, identical twin obesity, Mitochondrial DNA, Gene Imprinting, your body can turn on and off genes, etc
Ergo I would say "DNA tells every single genetic medical fact about you." is a bit of a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
Ergo I would say "DNA tells every single genetic medical fact about you." is a bit of a stretch.
Tell that to the judge.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ergo I would say "DNA tells every single genetic medical fact about you." is a bit of a stretch.
You clearly don't watch enough TV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DNA sequencing is very error prone, particularly when performed by the minimally educated techs working in crime labs. Furthermore the whole system of using "DNA markers" is flawed. To speed the workflow the fewest markers possible are tracked and this has been shown to be not enough to positively identify someone.
It is entirely possible for a your DNA to be wrongly sequenced or contaminated to produce false match to a criminal already in the database. Every entry in current DNA databases is also suspect of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as well as details about one's ancestry (potentially revealing infidelities, for example).
The UK is already making use of this - so-called "familial searching". Even if the criminal's DNA isn't in the database, chances are one of their relatives is thanks to the UK police routinely taking DNA on arrest and keeping it on the database forever. (Especially if the person in question is black - 27% of black people, and 42% of black males are on the database according to TFA.) This includes arrests of kids and arrests for minor crimes.
Looks like the US is heading in the direction of the UK already,
Re: (Score:2)
Then they offer new tests and people think wow progress in the private sector is so amazing and fast.
Public off the shelf DNA testing units are like buying Dell or Macs.
Its lets you do what the gov could do in the past on your desk.
"US isn't at a point of running a full genome screen" i
Re: (Score:2)
I am still not seeing any downside
"flawed" in the respect of more innocent people in jail?
First they came for the ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember folks, it's okay as long as it's happening to someone you don't care about.
And by the time it's happening to someone you DO care about, it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've misunderstood the reasoning at work here.
This is in preparation for a continental biometric identity database, not to track alleged terrorists. The goal is to track everyone, regardless of who they are or what they've done.
The federal government is still pushing for it's Real ID program, and it has a few states on board. Most of the states want nothing to do with this, but I'm not sure how long they'll hold out.
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying pretty soon everyone will be "them" if they got their way.
Re: (Score:2)
But you are not guilty until the court finds you so (or you confess).
Why should people be punished and have their rights abused just because someone accuses them. Lets go back to witch burning while were at it.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you REALLY worried about then?
False positives with my name on it.
Why? (Score:2)
False positives with my name on it.
Right, a "false positive" on some DNA collected somewhere that there's also other evidence of you being, or even within a 100 mile region of.
Do you live deep underground in fear of meteorites as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you live deep underground in fear of meteorites as well?
No, he probably lives in Houston [chron.com].
If he did he'd want the database (Score:2)
Note that in the case you report, it's actually the DNA typing showing the suspect was NOT THE ONE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. So a DNA result would HELP, not HURT, those people.
It's exactly the opposite of a false positive. You don't need DNA to have police cover up inconvenient evidence.
Drug War (Score:2)
The problem (Score:2)
The problem is that a lot of people are afraid that one day, the nature of crime changes. Should rapist be caught by their DNA being recorded. Sure. But what if someday, they outlaw being a halfblood. Should then these people be rounded up by their DNA being on file and gassed? Oh godwin, you sneak, got yourself into another discussion.
But that is the point. In nazi-germany being the wrong race was outlawed. Suddenly the "harmless" census database became a tool for prosecution people who well actually were
Re: (Score:2)
Also, i'm glad you're so optimistic about american society. those GOP people had me worried last year when they started whining about mexicans.
That's progress [wikipedia.org]. The trend in America is towards tolerance.
Not a reasonable expectation (Score:2)
The point that applies here is Reasonable Expectation (of Privacy).
That to me is far more specious.
You leave DNA everywhere. The fact someone identifies something you leave all over, like footprints in a snowstorm is hardly "private" data. And the only people accessing these databases are doing so as part of an investigation, giving them just as much right to correlate DNA as to examine phone records.
True expectations of privacy rest more in terms of you giving someone something else you expect to be kept
Re: (Score:2)