3 ms·
> there's a rush by law enforcement to create a DNA database. True, But this has nothing to do with that (at least at this point). TFA specifically stated tha
by toss1 8y ago
> there's a rush by law enforcement to create a DNA database.
True,
But this has nothing to do with that (at least at this point). TFA specifically stated that no data would be retained, they are just looking for results in 90 minutes, evidently to verify if someone claims parenthood of a child, they really are the parent.
If it is actually used to make human trafficing more difficult, it is a good thing.
(Don't ask me whether I trust this administration to do anything good, for the right reasons, within reasonable bounds, with proper controls, or merely act with sanity and respect -- that is a whole other conversation likely unsuitable for this forum)
- savethefuture 8y ago>(at least at this point) Everything is incremental
- mindslight 8y ago"If <policy> makes <bad thing> harder, it is a good thing" is the wax on the runners of the sled flying down the slippery slope. It's fallacious to frame handing more power to centralizing entities solely in terms of the good they may (possibly) do. There are always downsides, even in addition to direct misuse - eg 1000 lifetimes lost every year to the TSA alone. It's always a trade off, and politics (aka willful ignorance) practically guarantees it won't be made for the right reasons.
- toss1 8y agoTrue. Which is why I put the disclaimers in the last two paragraphs ("If it is actually used" and "Don't ... trust this administration...") The restricting scope, application purpose, and effective oversight are the anchor points and crampons that enable us to not slide down the slippery slope, but get to the top.
- Rebelgecko 8y agoI don't think it will make enough of a difference to justify the totalitarian aspects. I imagine relatives are already complicit in a decent amount of human trafficking cases.