5 ms·

Are there any laws that would prevent the government from doing this to establish a crime database? They've already used DNA testing company databases to catch

Are there any laws that would prevent the government from doing this to establish a crime database? They've already used DNA testing company databases to catch people through their relatives. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, and the fact that the sample-takers claim to be from a private company leans me away from the government, but they could have contracted it out. And I wouldn't put anything past the current administration. The article doesn't say whether or not people are providing their ID along with the samples, but I'd presume that they are.

carbocation 8y ago
Far more valuable for the government to establish a relationship with a company that will do this for them, since our laws prohibiting the government from doing thing X seem to have no qualms with it contracting with company Y to do thing X...
dontbenebby 8y ago
Voluntary DNA sweeps have been upheld in the past. Especially if they're not stopping traffic, it's probably legal? (I am not a lawyer)
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Sure, but it’s not voluntary if it’s done fraudulently. Hypothetically, if the police or their agents were doing this and telling people it was a test for cancer, that might not hold up.
  - dontbenebby 8y ago
    >Sure, but it’s not voluntary if it’s done fraudulently. The police are allowed to lie to you to get you to consent to a search. (The most common example is claiming they could search w/o consent but you agreeing makes it "easier")
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      Violating the privacy of multiple non-suspects is a search? None of the people in the article seem to be under suspicion, yet their DNA is being collected under the pretense of a “cancer test.” Police can lie to suspects, but they don’t get to violate the rights of (presumed) innocent people.
caprese 8y ago
Government could use 5th amendment clause protecting against expropriation. It just establishes that the government has to give compensation to assume control of property, when no charges have been filed against the person or the person's property. With DNA being part of a human being, it wouldn't make sense for the government to circumvent that amendment with civil forfeiture as it does with non-human property.

carbocation 8y ago

Far more valuable for the government to establish a relationship with a company that will do this for them, since our laws prohibiting the government from doing thing X seem to have no qualms with it contracting with company Y to do thing X...

dontbenebby 8y ago

Voluntary DNA sweeps have been upheld in the past. Especially if they're not stopping traffic, it's probably legal? (I am not a lawyer)

pmiller2 8y ago
Sure, but it’s not voluntary if it’s done fraudulently. Hypothetically, if the police or their agents were doing this and telling people it was a test for cancer, that might not hold up.
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  >Sure, but it’s not voluntary if it’s done fraudulently. The police are allowed to lie to you to get you to consent to a search. (The most common example is claiming they could search w/o consent but you agreeing makes it "easier")
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Violating the privacy of multiple non-suspects is a search? None of the people in the article seem to be under suspicion, yet their DNA is being collected under the pretense of a “cancer test.” Police can lie to suspects, but they don’t get to violate the rights of (presumed) innocent people.

caprese 8y ago

Government could use 5th amendment clause protecting against expropriation. It just establishes that the government has to give compensation to assume control of property, when no charges have been filed against the person or the person's property. With DNA being part of a human being, it wouldn't make sense for the government to circumvent that amendment with civil forfeiture as it does with non-human property.