4 ms·

> The rapid growth of the FBI’s sample load is in large part thanks to a Trump-era rule change that mandated the collection of DNA from migrants who were arrest

> The rapid growth of the FBI’s sample load is in large part thanks to a Trump-era rule change that mandated the collection of DNA from migrants who were arrested or detained by immigration authorities. This detail makes a difference, IMO. It’s one thing to be doing DNA surveillance on citizens, quite different to use it to identify/correlate migrants, particularly undocumented ones. I don’t love the overall accumulation of Orwellian machinery that sooner or later can be turned on the citizenry, but I did leave the article with less concern than I entered with based on the title.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
black_13 3y ago
[dead]
skellington 3y ago
I don't want this level of surveillance either, but if the rapid growth is in 'large part' due to collecting illegal immigrant DNA, doesn't that go against the narrative that illegal immigration is a small problem? Have we caught and released 20 (?) million people since Trump was in office?
- cout 3y ago
  The 20M DNA samples is more than just migrants. Still, 100K encounters per month can add up fast: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-encounters-with-migrants-at-u-s-mexico-border-remain-near-record-highs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-e...
- dpifke 3y ago
  According to CBP, there were about 100,000 "encounters" on the southern border this past June, which is a 42% decline from the month before and the lowest since February, 2021: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-june-2023-monthly-update https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele... (It's not immediately clear to me whether an intercepted group counts as one "encounter," or if each individual in the group gets logged as a separate "encounter." My hunch is that it's the latter.) 100-150k/month * 36 months = between 3.6 and 5.4 million individuals since Trump left office, which would make up a significant chunk—but not the majority—of the 21 million DNA profiles. (For context, this is about the population of Dallas, TX or San Diego, CA entering the country illegally per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...)
- pessimizer 3y ago
  My guess is that it's responsible for a significant bump in the rate of growth over the last half-decade, but only for a tiny percentage of the 21M. The reason they mention it is to make conservatives more comfortable with mass DNA collection. The excuse that was used to start mass DNA collection was a serial rapist and murderer cop who himself was excused from having his DNA collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo
akira2501 3y ago
> quite different to use it to identify/correlate migrants, particularly undocumented ones. A persons status can change in their lifetime. Further, was there any problem with photographs and fingerprints? These have been successfully used for identification for a long time, what is DNA identification providing that we weren't able to achieve before? I understand the need to identify people. I do NOT understand the need to do it by recording my genetic code. There's a lot of private and exploitable information contained in my DNA.. much less so in my fingerprints.
- parineum 3y ago
  Photographs and fingerprints don't tell you who's kids are whose.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    You don't need to capture every persons DNA for that. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I presume there's quite a few without children at all. You also have no need to store the DNA after you've determined lineage. Who your parents are don't change later. So, a third party could perform individual verification in cases where required, and the DNA sequence itself could be destroyed afterwards by that same third party. No FBI database need exist for any of this.
    - parineum 3y ago
      All good points. All I was saying was why there is a need for DNA over photos and fingerprints.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ketralnis 3y ago
Pretty much every invasive thing starts out as a more acceptable less invasive and is stepped up one thing at a time. "Oh okay it's just non-citizens" "oh okay it's just criminals" "oh okay it's just people that have been arrested" "oh okay it's just people about to go through the TSA but they don't store it" "oh okay they do store it but they take real good care of it" ...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

black_13 3y ago

[dead]

skellington 3y ago

I don't want this level of surveillance either, but if the rapid growth is in 'large part' due to collecting illegal immigrant DNA, doesn't that go against the narrative that illegal immigration is a small problem? Have we caught and released 20 (?) million people since Trump was in office?

cout 3y ago
The 20M DNA samples is more than just migrants. Still, 100K encounters per month can add up fast: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-encounters-with-migrants-at-u-s-mexico-border-remain-near-record-highs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-e...
dpifke 3y ago
According to CBP, there were about 100,000 "encounters" on the southern border this past June, which is a 42% decline from the month before and the lowest since February, 2021: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-june-2023-monthly-update https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele... (It's not immediately clear to me whether an intercepted group counts as one "encounter," or if each individual in the group gets logged as a separate "encounter." My hunch is that it's the latter.) 100-150k/month * 36 months = between 3.6 and 5.4 million individuals since Trump left office, which would make up a significant chunk—but not the majority—of the 21 million DNA profiles. (For context, this is about the population of Dallas, TX or San Diego, CA entering the country illegally per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...)
pessimizer 3y ago
My guess is that it's responsible for a significant bump in the rate of growth over the last half-decade, but only for a tiny percentage of the 21M. The reason they mention it is to make conservatives more comfortable with mass DNA collection. The excuse that was used to start mass DNA collection was a serial rapist and murderer cop who himself was excused from having his DNA collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo

akira2501 3y ago

> quite different to use it to identify/correlate migrants, particularly undocumented ones. A persons status can change in their lifetime. Further, was there any problem with photographs and fingerprints? These have been successfully used for identification for a long time, what is DNA identification providing that we weren't able to achieve before? I understand the need to identify people. I do NOT understand the need to do it by recording my genetic code. There's a lot of private and exploitable information contained in my DNA.. much less so in my fingerprints.

parineum 3y ago
Photographs and fingerprints don't tell you who's kids are whose.
- akira2501 3y ago
  You don't need to capture every persons DNA for that. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I presume there's quite a few without children at all. You also have no need to store the DNA after you've determined lineage. Who your parents are don't change later. So, a third party could perform individual verification in cases where required, and the DNA sequence itself could be destroyed afterwards by that same third party. No FBI database need exist for any of this.
  - parineum 3y ago
    All good points. All I was saying was why there is a need for DNA over photos and fingerprints.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ketralnis 3y ago

Pretty much every invasive thing starts out as a more acceptable less invasive and is stepped up one thing at a time. "Oh okay it's just non-citizens" "oh okay it's just criminals" "oh okay it's just people that have been arrested" "oh okay it's just people about to go through the TSA but they don't store it" "oh okay they do store it but they take real good care of it" ...