1 Given all the stolen missing laptops/employees taking confidential information home when they're not supposed to--I don't think the idea that private individuals or companies might get hold of it and misuse it is just a scare tactic.  It should be logistically impossible, but I think the government is capable of that.   And family ties covers things like the biological family of adoptees--which is supposed to be confidential--and family medical history.  Moreover, I don't think it's as useful a tool against violent crime as it may sound, unless you send a forensics team out to the site of every convenience store robbery, and even then there probably would not be that much evidence.  Where DNA is most useful is in showing that a person (victim or villian) was or was nor present in a particular place, or handled particular objects that  later became evidence.  Which means it's not so important for any crime that is, for instance, recorded on a security camera.

2 Just having a DNA profile on hand is much different than doing an analysis of genetic abnormalities or familial relationships. There's just no possible way to get that deep into the information of a significant number of people.

Also, despite the well-publicized cases of laptop- and storage media-related security breaches, has there been anything shown to have come from them? I can't recall a single case of identity theft from one of the mass-breaches... only low-tech gathering of personal data (garbage-picking) or isolated individuals selling information they stole.

3

Considering that DNA labs are tremendously overburdened --- tests take months --- the logistical impossibilities most certainly exist. Forensic scientists are in high demand, especially those working the labs. The industry is so overburdened that mixups have already been reported in some labs, according to some news program somewhere I saw this one time on some channel about crime labs.

Regarding stolen laptops, just because we don't know of a specific ID theft case from a stolen laptop doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Often, the perpetrator isn't caught, so it's impossible to trace how the information was stolen, whether by dumpster diving, from your Eddie Bauer online account, or from Experian itself. I manage a series of books on this topic . . . the only area you can't protect? the databases that hold your information. I don't want my genetic code linked to my SSN, or Eddie Bauer account number, for that matter.

 

4

California passed a similar law some years back; it was, I think, a ballot proposition. I’m sure I voted against it. It hasn’t proved all that effective.

More troubling though is your assertion that every citizen should surrender, at birth, his or her genetic material to the state. The federal government needs this information why? Constitutionally speaking, I doubt that it would pass muster.

I want the state to know as little as possible about who I am and what genetic disorders I may possess-especially with national health care on the horizon.

JBHood

5 JBHood,

There's just no way that anyone, including the government, is going to be able to do that detailed an analysis of everyone's DNA.  We already take baby footprints at birth.  What's wrong with the government being able to positively identify citizens?  I think people are too concerned with the potential use by a fascist government because of media hype.  It's not a realistic concern, no matter who gets elected.

The government already has enough information and power to screw up the life of anyone they choose, so what's stopping them now?  The fact that we're the government and will correct those who abuse their power.  What do you think is going to happen?  A National Health Care System that identifies genetic potential abnormalities and denies healthcare to those people who may develop a particular disease?  What abuse potential are you concerned about?

I'm also unsure of what Constitutional objection would be raised.  If we can take a baby's footprint and have mandatory testing (PKU for one), why would DNA be against the Constitution?

6

Stash,

And the last shall be first. The 4th Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. DNA is different from a fingerprint or a photograph or a footprint. A DNA sample cannot be obtained without violating my person-without taking something from me. Now, if the govt wants to follow me or my child around in some cat/mouse game, with the intent of snagging errant DNA when a loose hair falls off my head, or I toss a used diaper in the trash, then I guess they can have at it. Otherwise, the 4^th Amendment protects my privacy. Unless they have a warrant; or unless Im convicted of a crime, or as is the case now under federal or state law, if Im arrested, or as you noted, a member of the military. Im sure there’s more exceptions……..

 

Moving up……Yes, the government does have plenty of power. And I would argue, they already do plenty to screw up the lives of plenty of average citizens without really trying all that hard. And generally when the government screws up, they aren’t held accountable in the same fashion as they hold us average citizens. An NHS that used DNA samples originally collected for crime prevention purposes to dole out health care-I don’t find that farfetched. With the data there, with the technology there, is it a stretch that in the future it wont be used for something else? Im not a fan of the ACLU, but I noticed this cite in one of their papers: “Some states have also explicitly allowed their databases to be used for a variety of nonlaw-enforcement purposes. For example, Massachusetts law allows for the disclosure of DNA records for “advancing other humanitarian purposes.” Alabama’s statute allows its database to be used to “provide data relative to the causation, detection and prevention of disease or disability” and to “assist in … educational research or medical research or development.” Allowing research in law enforcement databanks for other purposes is deeply troubling. An association found between a genetic mutation and violence – whether real or perceived –could be used as a means for attempting to screen out violent offenders before they strike.”

 

And firstly. What’s right with the government being able to positively identify every citizen? What’s right with the government making the assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent-hence we want your DNA on file so that when you commit a crime we’ll know exactly who you are? Do they want to prevent crime or solve crimes?

Sorry, but my DNA is mine. It doesn’t belong to the state and I have no intention of voluntarily surrendering it.

 

JBHood

7 I'm afraid I must agree with JBHood on this one. It is already illegal in some areas not to have identity papers (talk about an old joke come to life) if I recall correctly. You may not work for anyone in any capacity without government approval and on government dictated terms. You may not travel without submitting to a strip search and the government claims the right to decide what and where you may drink, eat, smoke, weigh, pray, speak, read, assemble, and contribute to a political party. Just as gun registration has always led to confiscation this will be abused. Our government has declared that they will allow us those freedoms IT feels we can be trusted with without bothering anyone or getting in their way. This is not the attitude of a government of the people. Our rulers have gotten tired of us interfering with their plans and have become more open about taking control. Over ten years ago an administration used confidential FBI files for political blackmail in violation of the law and walked. The same party tapped the cell phones of the leadership of the rival party and paid no price. The government can not say "trust us!" and expect to be believed.


In the 90s there were over 5000 government databases with information about citizens. I suspect there are a few more now.

This is the anniversary of the  deaths at Waco because a government agency wanted to stage a PR stunt to justify their paramilitary budget which was under scrutiny because they got caught abusing them at Ruby Ridge.  Scores of people including over a dozen children were murdered and no one in that agency was even demoted. This is all too common on a smaller scale. (John Riadi bragged about how Bill Clinton was giving him a VIP tour as the building burned on monitors all around the Whitehouse.

Power does not corrupt, immunity corrupts, and this government is no longer accountable to the people.

8 I did not mean to imply that JBHood shares my views. He may well think I wear a tinfoil hat. I just meant I think he is right on this issue.

I have to be careful about the "stance" I take around Stash.

9 Just stay away from the toe-tapping Mac.

We can't have it both ways folks. If we want truly want government to enforce laws against illegal aliens, they have to have a definitive way to determine if someone is here legally. If an illegal alien is using someone else's identity, it's almost certain to screw up the impersonated victim's life in some way.

JBHood, if hospitals are already taking blood from newborns the second day after they're born (for PKU testing), using that sample to also enter a DNA profile is no additional invasion. This could easily pass Constitutional muster as reasonable (the key word in the Fourth Amendment is "unreasonable" seizure.) There is no search involved, nor warrant issued, and the "right to privacy" is an inferred one. I agree there should be an explicit right to privacy, but there isn't. Even if there was, none of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute.

Mac, where are travel papers required? Where am I required to submit to a strip-search in order to travel there? If you're talking about airline travel, that's a mode of travel... not a destination. If I travel by a different mode, no papers or search are required. I do all kinds of work without government approval, on my own terms. My guns have not been confiscated despite being registered. Some of the restrictions you name are good examples of what I would consider government over-reach, but I largely live as I wish without much interference.

Getting biometric data, including DNA, for identification purposes is one of the best ways to stop identity fraud and ensure illegal aliens are identified as such and deported swiftly. The idea that everyone's DNA would be used so intrusively is not realistic. There is just no way to do that many detailed screenings with cross-references to make them useful for health screenings or a comprehensive criminal database. The samples would get initial screens at best, then sit there unless needed for identification purposes in an investigation.

The examples of the FBI files, cellphone taps, and Waco actually support what I am saying here. The only reason they occurred was because there were specific targets involved. I agree that there should have been more accountability in the FBI files and cellphone cases, but sometimes the bad guys get away with it. I've just now been hearing some of the Waco stuff for the first time and remain skeptical for that reason. Why is it all coming up now? Because it reflects poorly on Clinton and Hillary is running for President. Since she is no longer the chosen candidate of the MSM, we get this stuff pushed on us. Given their record for presenting false stories in order to influence elections (Dan Rather and the Texas NG documents for example), I am suspending any judgment about Waco until more information comes to light.

10 I don't know what Waco material is coming out now. I have been following it for years. I listened much of the live coverage of both the Waco hearings and the Ruby Ridge hearings. I had my own shop then and could follow it.

They are beginning to use scanners at the airports now that see through clothes. The metal detectors and pat downs are already intrusive. I have read of searches being conducted on some train and bus systems. You must go through scanners and searches to enter government buildings in California (at least many of them).

Technology progresses quickly and what is an impossible data flow now may be easy in a few years. The ATF at one point wanted to set up a computer database of purchase data that would in effect be national gun registration. When congress told them they had no authority the head of the agency said the project would be put on hold until a more receptive congress came along. The congress had to remove the funds they had planned to use from their budget to bring them to heal. This was an unelected bureaucrat  openly defying congress on a major breach of  the constitution.

We are considered guilty until we prove ourselves harmless or the government decides they can safely let us off the leash in a restricted environment.

As far as papers I am not certain but I was under the impression that some areas now require ID and of course there are proposals for a national ID card. I don't think the problem is finding illegals, it is taking action. The police and social agencies identify illegals all the time but may not act on it. A DNA database on all citizens will not change this.

You can not work without proof of identity (unless illegal) and you must have various government documents to be hired. Your compensation, benefits, working conditions, and hours are all regulated by the government. All of your financial affairs must be reported and documented to the government. What you wear, say, listen to, look at or read are all subject to government interference. Who you rent to, sell to, hire,or do business with are all subject to government regulation. Our founding fathers took up arms for far, far less.

11

Good morning,

Off-topic, but Im not aware of any new information related to the Waco fiasco. However, Mac and I apparently share the same tinfoil hat. The ATF’s name for the Waco operation was Showtime and the evidence indicates it was a publicity stunt designed primarily out of budgetary concerns.

As far as a DNA database being useful for resolving the illegal alien mess-the govt already has shown its unwillingness to deal with the situation with the current tools; with a new toy in its closet it would be more willing to do so? I doubt it. The will is lacking, not the means.

12

Ontopic-

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/proving-innocence-solving-cold-cases.html

“Perhaps unsurprisingly, Jim McLaughlin of the Texas Police Chiefs Association told the crowd that in an ideal world, he'd like to see every infant DNA swabbed at birth. (Why not just tag our ears like cattle, Jim, or inject a RFID chip under our skin and be done with it?)”

 

13 The chips in modern cars combined with GPS technology is a plumb the government will not long be able to resist. I have already heard suggestions about this. Think of the potential for abuse in the government knowing where you are, where you've been, how long you stopped and where, and how fast you went. Of course the rational I've heard was to decide how much mileage tax we should pay but you know this would be expanded. I already recall issues with a rental car that showed a short period of excessive speed.

How long before we can put this capability into the National ID card everyone will be required to carry, along with audio feed. It's for your own good!

14 Hey! To save us from muggers so we don't need self defense means we can eliminate cash and just use our ID cards for all purchases. This will stop theft, you know like ATM and credit cards have stopped theft, and the government can "help" you to avoid bad things like candy, soda, bottled water, or whatever else is considered to not be halal at the moment. You would not have to fill out all that nasty IRS paperwork as the government would know every penny you have and can just decide how much you deserve to receive.

15 Reynold's wrap rules!

16 Much of the information in the news this last week concerning Waco is new to me.  I mostly remember the tactical guys getting shot at through the wall as they tried to go through the window.  Reading through the Wiki entry shows how much of the controversy I was unaware of.  It's never been a topic of interest to me before, so I'll have to do a lot more reading to have any kind of an informed opinion.

As far as the other concerns expressed, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now.  If we're that oppressed already, it's strange that someone could move so easily from say, California to Texas.  Being aware of potential power-abuses by government is understandable.  I just don't think we're even close to heading in the extreme directions that have been described.

17

congratulations and good luck with your blog, stashiu.  i'm afraid i have to disagree with your post though. 

just as our founders did, patriots today fear and distrust further aggregation and consolidation of central government power, without needing to articulate specific risk scenarios.  i don't see any benefit to innocent people from the government possessing their dna, and we're all presumed innocent until convicted of a crime. 

18 Thanks ada,

I'm apparently in the minority here and will definitely have to think on this further. The original post concerned collecting DNA from those who were arrested and the samples would be discarded if they were cleared. I haven't seen any opposition to that so far and I respect the commentators above a lot. They've made several points that are very persuasive.

Coming from a population where everyone has DNA on file (the military), which to the best of my knowledge has never led to any of the abuses about which concerns were voiced, may skew my perception of why this is such a potential problem. I will certainly acknowledge that things that seem to concern others are routinely taken for granted in the military culture.

For example, wiretapping is not a huge issue for me because I've always assumed that my phone was monitored (many places even have stickers on the phones about them not being secure and disclaimers in the phonebook that your calls may be monitored) as well as computer use. Many other areas are similar, such as drug testing, mandatory immunizations and medical treatments, restrictions on speech and dress, etc... I take most of these things for granted because while you're in, you have to accept them or get out.

19 As you research this you may want to keep in mind that the FBI was caught in so many lies that the DOJ had federal marshals do a surprise raid on FBI headquarters to seize evidence. The MSM has shown a distressing but unsurprising willingness to abet the FBI and ATF in pushing their lies. I recorded a Frontline documentary that played a clip from a surveillance tape fed by microphones planted in the compound. Two men were pouring kerosene into buckets. Frontline played this as proof of the FBI's contention that the Branch Davidians had set the fire to kill themselves. The problem is I had recordings of that clip that were longer and a few seconds after it was cut off in the Frontline clip one of the men tells the other not to use it all, to save some for later. If you are using kerosene lamps for light because the power has been cut off or you are setting up buckets of kerosene to fight the tank that is breaking holes in the upwind side of your building you "save some for later". If you are about to set a fire to kill all of your people as the FBI claimed you do not. Pravda, anyone?

I highly recommend the documentaries, "Waco, Rules of Engagement" and "Waco, the New Revelation". Even if you dismiss or question everything you consider has a pro-Davidian point of view they are compelling as the most powerful parts are film clips and interviews with nonpartisan figures. "Waco, Rules of Engagement"is the original and the most informative. The second one deals with the evidence the Texas Rangers found that the FBI had lied about the munitions they used and their targeting. (Pyrotechnic Ferret rounds and shooting where they knew the children would be).

I have not seen anything on Waco for years. I shall try to find the stories you mentioned.

20 The military has always accepted having less rights than civilians. Our government is based on the concept that power must lie in civilian hands and our political leaders and CinC are civilians. The politicians today have decided that they are a class above and civilians are little people they must rule instead of their "bosses" who they are to represent and serve. Imposing marshal law on citizens is supposed to be a temporary and extreme response to an extraordinary circumstance. Military personal also accept having the government telling them what and when to eat, what to wear, when and were to sleep, what medical care to submit to and who shall administer that care. I do not want the government trying to impose their will on civilians this way, though they seem to be moving in that direction. Being from California has not helped my views on these matters as the California politicians are among the worst.

I am not one who expects the black helicopters to swoop in tomorrow but lose of rights and expansion of power is very much a camel's nose under the tent thing. Look at how the legislature has twisted the Interstate Commerce Clause. I do not see myself as some patriot keeping watch to prevent government abuse. I am afraid I think it has already gone too far to reverse. There may be setbacks like the 94 revolution or Reagan's administration and local victories like right to carry laws may be forced on the politicians but I don't think we will be able to stop the rot. The government is too big, too many people are suckling at the state teat, education has been too subverted for too long and the media is too indoctrinated. They don't need to stage some kind of coup, we will submit as a society to being ruled, with a whimper. I don't know if it will be in my lifetime but I fear it is going to happen within a generation or two.

I hope that at some time in the future mankind is given another chance at freedom and remains more vigilant and avoids complacency. Now that sounds far fetched.

21 This has some interesting quotes I had not heard. I wish the government had not blown it's credibility with the obvious lies earlier.

22 Doh!!

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/17940579.html

23

Mac mentioned Waco: The Rules of Engagement. This is a documentary film from Michael McNulty-an interesting and controversial look at the Waco siege; it’s readily available online or possibly even from your local video store. I first saw it at a Skeptic’s Society forum in Pasadena. McNulty though, obsesses over whether the FBI fired on the Davidians on April 19^th forcing them to remain inside the burning buildings. The primary evidence for this is FLIR footage and is iffy at best. To me, this is a small detail when examining the totality of the event. But overall, the film is quite good. McNulty went on to produce two other films about Waco.

One of the better books on Waco is by Dick Reavis; The Ashes of Waco, published in 1995. For a good inside view from the Davidians perspective, A Place Called Waco by David Thibodeau. Thibodeau was there for the entire siege and was one of the few to survive on April 19.

24

Stash, what happens when the gov't gets  more adept at doing stuff with DNA?
It'll be too late as they'll already have the ability to take the samples.

 And what happens if we combine it with gov't provided healthcare? They're paying the bill, so those with a genetic proclivity to getting heart disease will no longer be able to eat pork rinds.

25 And what happens if we combine it with gov't provided healthcare?

Like the military?

26

Well, no. I'm talking about when DNA can give them much more information about us and it's not so hard to diagnose.

But then again, yes. If the military finds that you have a proclivity toward heart disease, I would bet a dollar that they would try to keep you from eating pork rinds and they would probably be within their rights to do so, but what works for the military doesn't always work for civilians.

Americans fought a revolution for far less intrusive actions by the British than a soldier takes for granted. We used to be able to sell cars to soldiers who were only marginally capable of paying the loan because certain banks knew they could call the soldier's officer and payment would not be a problem as the officer would make sure the soldier would pay his payments.
I worked at one dealer far from a base (5-8 miles) and an E-3 had no chance. I worked at another dealer (used cars on a new Honda lot in both cases) that was on Rt 1 not far from Fort Belvoir and we could put an E-3 in a car right away if he had anything to put down.

Imagine if I called your boss and he gave you a hard time about paying off your loan. I know I would tell my boss to mind his own damn business and I would really go after the bank for pulling a stunt like that.  

 

27 Soldiers are sworn and bound to obey their superiors. Who are civilians superiors? There are not supposed to be any. Got aristocrats?

28 The President of the United States can issue me an order and I am legally and constitutionally entitled to tell him to pound sand.

Shall we sent civilians to prison for insubordination? Who anoints the rulers? There are no elected offices with this authority under the constitution. Laws effecting civilians are passed by representatives that civilians elect and can impeach, and they are supposed to be restrained by the constitutional restrictions on their power.

29 I always was an insubordinate piece of.........

30 As soon as we accept that civilians are not at the top of the food chain then we are ruled, not governed, and freedom is a fantasy and an illusion to keep us docile.

 "You can't get by on your own so you need Master to take care of you".

31

You know, it'd be just my luck that the government would take a saliva swab from me, mislabel it, and land me in a tangle of red tape trying to prove I'm not "that other guy."

Putting government employees (or any group of humans) in charge of such an important data-entry task scares the bejesus out of me.

As far as data retrieval, the technology is already mostly there. It's even there for voice recordings, I believe.

32 As far as data retrieval, the technology is already mostly there. It's even there for voice recordings, I believe.

But not practical to do en masse and routinely.  There's just no way to even do that level of analysis on a large number of people, much less the cross-referencing and correlation that would be needed to use as people fear.  With new births and deaths requiring updating, it's going to be a long, long time before the technology reaches a level where that would even be possible, much less practical.

Maybe by then the Human Race will have grown up enough that the useful aspects would be beneficial and the potential abuses unnecessary (yes, that far in the future). 

33 I'm with Mac.  I realize the gov't is not efficient enough to really use such a data base.  However, it is not in the gov'ts purview; it is not their business until such time as they have a warrant specific to me and to a crime; and it is a huge waste of taxpayer money.  I will gladly put up with some violent criminals escaping justice to keep the innocent from being treated like criminals.

On a side note, I have become convinced that within my lifetime every American over the age of 12 will have been arrested or cited for some crime or infraction of the ever increasing laws.  My motto is " No.  There ought NOT be a law!"

1 Wankers? No.  More fellatio-ists.  Err, whatever the formal term is.  I'm sure you understand the meaning.

1 What is the prognosis with a reemergence like this? 

2 Since they caught it early, they should be able to knock it back down.  It's not unusual for it to reemerge.  That's why survival rates are typically expressed as 5 year percentages and frequent follow-ups are the standard-of-care.

1 Ferrara: "... how do you sort out who is the bad guy and who is the heroic student with a permit?"Oh, I dunno. How about doing it the same way you do when responding to a backup call with plainclothes officers already on the scene?

1 Thanks again, I'm glad the links are proving useful.