"The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_.../dna_collection

The proposed regulation would allow the Federal Government to collect and store DNA samples of citizens who are arrested, whether they are found guilty or not. The estimate of the number of samples that would be added to the Government Database (CODIS) is over a million new samples a year. Those arrested but not convicted can request the Justice Department to destroy the sample.

Those supporting the new scheme argue that it will help police in their inquiries (as the Brits so nicely put it), and help them get violent criminals off the streets. The other side worry that this represents yet another invasion of privacy and see the potential misuse of the information gathered by the government, not to mention the lumping innocent people with convicted felons.

I am curious about our Members' opinions about this proposal.
Z

My quick response would be that it doesn't seem that much different than fingerprinting a suspect.

This is the first I have heard of this.... Initially I find myself asking is this any different than fingerprinting everyone that is arrested?

To me it 's always the Of course it'll save live,so you have to agree it's a good thing. Sort of the scenario when they say they want to fingerprint all the school children for their safety.
But to me if were limited to felons I may consider it fair.
On a side note this has been going on for years and at the local level. A friend of mine was arrested for DUI (Diving Under the Influence) alcohol. Now he had to do a six month program (required in NJ,USA). Well the program tests for all drugs with a oral swab, hence they get a DNA sample. Funny not once during the six months was he given a breathalizer test.
Anything they get they never get rid of.

I think there are several issues with the large increase in a federal DNA database. First, the Federal government is not known for its security technology, and concerns have been expressed about the ease with which it could be hacked and used for other purposes. Second, while DNA can, and is, used to identify individuals, it can also be used for a large range of other information (kinship or health status, for example) not strictly related to law enforcement, which makes the fingerprint analogy less-than-strong.

One could argue that the ability to track individuals by their cell-phone use is useful in law enforcement, but at the same time can open the avenue to keeping tabs on everyone.
Z

I really have to ask - what differance it would make if they had your DNA? They already have my finger prints, not that I was arrested but because I served in the Military.

DNA has been proven to be a valuable asset in identifying people who commit crimes. If they take your DNA, and are not sent to prison but keep your DNA, so what? Unless you have plans for future criminal activity this will never be a problem for you.

It will definatly cut down on the unsolved cases. You can't go anywhere without leaving your DNA behind. I guess if your totally paranoid, you could say someone could get a sample from your hair brush and "set you up". Who has an enemy who hates you that much?

Well Z, I find this to be one of those topics that needs to be fully regulated and overseen by other agecies besides the FBI.
Now with that in mind, the number of different organizations that could tap into this information brings up the possibility of DNA being missused.
The first to come to mind is the insurance companies and what they would do with this database.
Here in the U.S. insurance companies are almost imune to any investigation by our government, unless an investigation is called for by the Insurance companies themselves. So if they were able to get hold of a database as large as the one that would be collected by the FBI. They would then be able to use it for their own purposes to deny coverage to individuals who have DNA profiles that would point to future diseases these individuals might carry the "genes" for.
And as to the FBI itself.
This agency has been known to manafacture evidence in cases they have had trouble solving.
So what would stop them from using the DNA to build a case against an innocent individual?
I have already seen where in England they forced an entire town of young men to submitt to DNA testing under the pretense of eliminating the innocent from rape and murder charges.
Those who refused to submitt were immediately suspect.
Yesin the end one of those who refused,turned out to be the culprit, but what if the police had already had a suspect in mind, and then they had the DNA of that particular individual?
Who's to say the police wouldn't then just use "eveidence" to convict the guy they choose ?
It is my opinion that anytime the police want any part of my body they should have to get a warrant to collect such information, just to protect my individual rights to privacy.

Another point: it should be up to the citizen whether he or she chooses to give the government a DNA sample, unless convicted of a felony. What RIGHT does the government have to demand a sample just because they have arrested someone? This proposal, like so many other seeming worthwhile governmental security ideas, once again eats into what I see as the rights of citizens, which are being silently eroded bit by bit in the name of security and safety.
Think for a moment of the many abuses by government agencies (supposedly "self-regulating") with wire tapping conversations because they argue that they "have no time" to secure a warrant, and can manufacture all sorts of "findings" after the fact to cover up their intrusions into the life of citizens.
Think for a moment, too, of the potential for surveillance by all the cameras popping up in our streets, and the ability to track the movements of citizens through their cell-phones.

Even if the greatest of care about these things might be taken initially (yeah, sure!), and we applaud the immediate increase in safety they presumably cause, the potential for real abuse of liberties by a cold but efficient bureaucracy insulated from any outside checks--- or by deranged men in positions of power, or even Nixons let loose to Watergate any citizen or group of citizens they mistrust or fear ---is present both now and certainly as this trend is enhanced in the future.

We are in the position of a herd of sheep seeking protection from a wolf by running into an butchering plant.

Z

Well, it certainly will help identify the person. I've read about a lot of situations where someone is arrested, and released on bond a day later, only to ultimately determine that that person is wanted on a number of other charges. Positive identification would help eliminate that, I would think.

Just an observation.

Yes Z,
I have to agree, that in the name of safety we are being lead down a primrose path.
After thinking about this subject for an exteneded period of time, the logical side of me says;
"what's the harm?"
I have been arreseted in the past for driving under the influence, and therefore I got mug shots and fingerprinted.
So if I were to have been swabbed for DNA it would have been no-consequence.
Thinking even futher on this I came to the conclusion that; though even with the possibility of
mis-use by any law enforcement agency I would think that just knowing your DNA profile was in a data base, well it just may serve to keep some people from violating the law.
( I kind of doubt that ) Most violent criminals aren't worried about whether the cops have their DNA.
By the way I learned my lesson the one and only time I got busted drinking and driving.

I can tell you this, nobody wants my DNA anyway so I'm not worried

Anybody alive out there???

Lack of DNA evidence implies "no".

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/12/dna.da...ref=mpstoryview

Is this the specific piece of news you're referring to Z? For some reason, your link isn't working for me.

The Yahoo News reference has expired (all the news that's fit to print, but only for a week or so). Here is another link to the AP [4/17/08] item, Sphinx:

http://media.www.bgnews.com/media/storage/...s-3330595.shtml