4 ms·

Yuck. I have no issue with collecting DNA from those convicted and sentence of a major crime. I do have serious issues with collecting from people for traffic

Yuck. I have no issue with collecting DNA from those convicted and sentence of a major crime. I do have serious issues with collecting from people for traffic stops or similar. If anything I think it should be unlawful to ask for such consent without a representation present and it should in no means be considered probably cause to arrest or detain if consent is not given. Simply put the general public is not versed enough in the law to give a good response. I could see a system whereby you give a one time use consent to clear you of suspicion, requiring the authorities to destroy the sample and record after it fails to match. Even then I would suggest a court order being required to force anyone to provide a sample and not providing a sample does not give them probable cause or the like. The sad part is far too many are willing to hand over much of their life and responsibilities to government in return for free stuff and are willing to see you are forced to give up the same. be wary of any politician who tries to frame this as moral duty or requirement because some will

renholder 8y ago
>I have no issue with collecting DNA from those convicted and sentence of a major crime. While the justice sysem still has gross lapses, I do mind - for the most part. A guy who gets released after 20 years, because he was proven innocent, is still going to be in the database. There are no protections for the accused in that scenario. So, let's assume that the manufacturing of a specific genome sequence becomes much easier and much cheaper. What's to prevent a police office, with a justice boner and who infallibly believes that the guy is guilty - despite evidence to the contrary, from abusing the information and "discovering" this individual's DNA at another crime scene? While it might seem like a far-fetched idea, there's been a history (though it may be seldom) of people abusing the "solid science" position to frame people. There's another comment[0] in this thread that demonstrates that this is not only plausible but it has happened. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997702

renholder 8y ago

>I have no issue with collecting DNA from those convicted and sentence of a major crime. While the justice sysem still has gross lapses, I do mind - for the most part. A guy who gets released after 20 years, because he was proven innocent, is still going to be in the database. There are no protections for the accused in that scenario. So, let's assume that the manufacturing of a specific genome sequence becomes much easier and much cheaper. What's to prevent a police office, with a justice boner and who infallibly believes that the guy is guilty - despite evidence to the contrary, from abusing the information and "discovering" this individual's DNA at another crime scene? While it might seem like a far-fetched idea, there's been a history (though it may be seldom) of people abusing the "solid science" position to frame people. There's another comment[0] in this thread that demonstrates that this is not only plausible but it has happened. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997702