CA's Prop 69 (the DNA samples from lawbreakers) pays off!

[Liberal]

@I don't care about your cat

I thought you were some kinda Libertarian, Bricker. A DNA database kept by the government seems pretty antithetical to Libertarianism.

There would be nothing wrong with it if it were kept solely on those who had been convicted of coercion, since coercers waive their own rights in the usurpation of the rights of others. It would also be necessary that the government fully restore anyone whom it had damaged wrongly, whether intentional or not.

[Harborwolf]

@John Mace

No, we can’t “read” DNA at this point and tell much about a person, but what about 20 years from now? But my main objection is simply that one is presumed innocent until found guilty.

In all honesty I expect that in twenty years we will have an army of super police robots that will eradicate all crime through their lethal enforcement of littering laws.

I see your point about swabbing the charged vs. swabbing the convicted, but to me the chance of a false match on someone is so insanely low that the old “the innocent have nothing to fear” chestnut actually applies rather favorably.

I simply can’t see the danger in this. Am I missing something?

[John_Mace]

@Mtgman

It is not practical to store the entire genome of every individual in the database.

You wouldn’t have to. The DNA in humans is about 99.9% identical. You’d only need to store that .1% that defines the individual.

[pravnik]

Fingerprints are taken from arrestees, but the DNA is taken from convicts. Okay…if your conviction for the felony is overturned, do you get your DNA back, or can they still use it in a subsequent investigation? If your felony conviction for possession of marijuana is overturned due to an illegal search, is your DNA then a fruit of that illegal search in your subsequent murder trial?

[Mtgman]

@John Mace

You wouldn’t have to. The DNA in humans is about 99.9% identical. You’d only need to store that .1% that defines the individual.

True enough, but not enough to make a difference, for a couple of reasons. Firstly you have to scan the whole in order to identify and isolate the .1%. Secondly, that .1% is still a metric assload of data. Consider there are roughly three billion base pairs in the human genome. Divide by 1000 to get down to .1% and you get three million base pairs that you have to keep in sequence, paired, and you have to store metadata about where on which chromosomes they each come from.

The latter issue is easier to overcome than the former, however both represent significant barriers to storing the entire set of unique DNA patterns from each individual.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Yeticus_Rex]

@rjung

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that if someone could show that a crime was prevented by having the government track everyone’s whereabouts with GPS locators implanted our ass, Bricker would be the first to sign up?

That was totally uncalled for.

[Bricker]

@rjung

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that if someone could show that a crime was prevented by having the government track everyone’s whereabouts with GPS locators implanted our ass, Bricker would be the first to sign up?

[ul]
[li]Strawman. No one is advocating GPS locators planted in asses.[/li][li]Slippery slope. There is no showing that DNA database will lead to GPS beacons implanted in asses.[/li][li]Prejudicial language. You invite the reader to conclude that my support of DNA databases is flawed because of my supposed willingness to accept other, more intrusive plans.[/li][li]*Argumentum ad hominem[/]. You invite the reader to infer that I’m foolish, and therefore supporting DNA databases is flawed.[/li][/ul]

Stripping away the logical fallacies from this post leaves something on the order of two consonants and a lonely vowel.

[Cervaise]

And a spoon.