3 ms·
> quite different to use it to identify/correlate migrants, particularly undocumented ones. A persons status can change in their lifetime. Further, was there
by 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 agoPhotographs and fingerprints don't tell you who's kids are whose.
- akira2501 3y agoYou 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 agoAll good points. All I was saying was why there is a need for DNA over photos and fingerprints.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]