3 ms·

> Ethnic Discrimination Concerns: The collection of DNA is particularly concerning as this information can be used to identify an individual’s ethnic identity.

> Ethnic Discrimination Concerns: The collection of DNA is particularly concerning as this information can be used to identify an individual’s ethnic identity. Given Kenya’s history of politicization of ethnic identity, collecting this data in a centralized database like NIIMS could reproduce and exacerbate patterns of discrimination. Imagine promoting a system so prone to abuse that you're really only one election away from an inescapable genocide whose detractors can be silenced perfectly.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
You really don't need DNA information for a genocide. It may not even make a genocide or racial violence worse. After all, racism is rarely fact-based.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > After all, racism is rarely fact-based. But the impression that they know people's race, whether the DNA gathered are used in that determination or not (I vote not, since it's more expensive than a machete), is likely to help the case of whatever regime thinks it up. Also, my emphasis was more on the detractors can be silenced perfectly bit. You can see the accompanying legislation coming, requiring social media and other communications infrastructure to be authenticated with the state id.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    In my opinion it is much more viable to stop a government from abusing data than to stop the government having access to the data. Some biometric modalities like fingerprints, DNA and face images are quite literally "broadcast" by everyone. In many cases, government access to certain data is not a problem if you can trust the government. If you can't trust the government, you have a bigger problem. In the case of knowing who is which ethnicity and lives where in the African context, you can easily construct a scenario where they could round up a particular ethnicity. Or they just ask the locals. In another scenario, if Group A is directing violence towards Group B, the government instantly knows where to send forces to stop it.

bayesian_horse 8y ago

You really don't need DNA information for a genocide. It may not even make a genocide or racial violence worse. After all, racism is rarely fact-based.

microcolonel 8y ago
> After all, racism is rarely fact-based. But the impression that they know people's race, whether the DNA gathered are used in that determination or not (I vote not, since it's more expensive than a machete), is likely to help the case of whatever regime thinks it up. Also, my emphasis was more on the detractors can be silenced perfectly bit. You can see the accompanying legislation coming, requiring social media and other communications infrastructure to be authenticated with the state id.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  In my opinion it is much more viable to stop a government from abusing data than to stop the government having access to the data. Some biometric modalities like fingerprints, DNA and face images are quite literally "broadcast" by everyone. In many cases, government access to certain data is not a problem if you can trust the government. If you can't trust the government, you have a bigger problem. In the case of knowing who is which ethnicity and lives where in the African context, you can easily construct a scenario where they could round up a particular ethnicity. Or they just ask the locals. In another scenario, if Group A is directing violence towards Group B, the government instantly knows where to send forces to stop it.