4 ms·

If only there was a way to do this without compromising privacy. Sexual assault would become a guaranteed prison sentence if a DNA db existed.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Also could put an end to false paternity. Obviously some people would be very much against it for that reason.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  honestly they should just implement an automatic paternity test law. If the father finds out its not his, he should be able to walk away, and be granted an instant divorce. No child support, no alimony. Fair division of marital assets.
  - lazide 3y ago
    What makes you think anyone but the ‘father’ would want that? The state (or the mom) sure isn’t going to volunteer to pay to raise the child if it can avoid it!
    - breather 3y ago
      > The state (or the mom) sure isn’t going to volunteer to pay to raise the child if it can avoid it! Really makes you wonder what the point of the state is
      - lazide 3y ago
        The math is simple, albeit no one wants to think about it because if they do then most people aren't interested in playing - and if people aren't playing, then Society has a big problem. 1) raising a kid is very expensive, both in time and money. 2) no one wants to pay if they don't get something out of it - or if they can get away with not paying. Which, perfectly rational. Do you decline the standard deduction when you do your taxes? Same idea. 3) the bio father in these situations is well aware he won't get anything out of it except pain and suffering from the Mom (or just flat out isn't interested), or he wouldn't have bailed. 4) the bio mother already is going to do the child raising - so she is going to put in a lot of time (and will have control). It would be pretty stupid for her to also do a ton of work to make money on top of it if she's going to do that, unless she really has no choice. 5) If someone doesn't pay/end up on the hook convincingly, then the taxpayers will end up dealing with a criminal child, or a dead/starving child, and/or a bunch of emotionally manipulative 'but he was such a good kid!' crying after someone ends up dead, which taxpayers ALSO don't like. So the state is there to make SOMEONE pay, ideally the person most easy to convince is responsible and able to do so, or alternatively whoever can pay/afford the most that they can force to do it. Because if the State ends up paying, then that means the taxpayer ends up paying. I don't know about you, but I don't want to end up paying for some idiots kid if I don't have to. I didn't even get laid! Talk about a shitty deal. Maybe that's better than the resulting crime and heart string pulling, but honestly it depends on the day. Especially if the crime and heart string pulling ends up happening ANYWAY. And if you think I'm a heartless bastard, check the budgets for these kinds of programs vs law enforcement. Near as I can tell, I'm the EMPATHETIC AND KIND ONE in the equation. It's also why in many cases, the state is actively avoiding things like making abortions more accessible, mandatory birth control, etc. etc. They need more bodies. And that.... is why large scale DNA databases are also becoming popular. Also catching 'hard' criminals, of course. The state is trying to identify 'the one who got away'. The state doesn't particularly care if the person pinned is actually responsible, as long as it can convince itself and ideally them that they are the one responsible - and can make them pay. Such is bureaucracy. Have to keep those stats looking good. The other 'big' options - no State, or an ineffective State is arguably even worse for everyone except dudes trying to get laid without the consequences. Because women will want to have sex, on average, and many will have babies even if it involves self sabotaging their birth control or the like. Same with men. Women trying to get laid without consequences usually get a pass of course (unless they get abortions or are on birth control), until after the kid shows up and they're stuck, then shame on them, tsk tsk. That way the guilt hopefully means they'll actually take care of the kid instead of pawning them off on the grandparents or abandoning them at an orphanage to go have fun. You're welcome. Now ideally, the Mother has enough emotional regulation and self control to only have sex with men who are responsible, loyal, provider types - or that can be convinced they are the only ones she is having sex with anyway. Since birth control is not perfect, and 'surprises' are exactly what lead into this type of situation. Dudes will of course do their damnest to have sex with her anyway if they can. And can integrate him into the experience so he can see that he IS getting something - someone he can help mould, that will care about him in his older age and help him succeed, that will be loyal, carry his line forward, etc. And can use that to get him to not only support the child, but work hard to support everyone while she spends the time and energy necessary for the child to grow healthy, and succeed. And support her later when she's less sexy and life is harder, and his 'value' is now higher than hers. Easier said than done. But that's been the ideal 'deal'. Sometimes, it even happened (or happens).
    - wonderwonder 3y ago
      That's the thing with a paternity test, easy to just pin it on the real father now. Not to mention, half of the population is male so I could see a pretty decent amount of people being pro this legislation. Plus from a moral perspective, not that anyone really cares, cheating on someone is reprehensible and then putting over a child as theirs is as close to the worst crime imaginable that I can come up with short of murder and pedophelia. I would argue that it even warrants jail time as its life stealing.
      - lazide 3y ago
        I’m guessing you’re a man?
- buran77 3y ago
  You can do that very easily right now without the need to store the DNA. So it seems like the least consequential thing you could "win" from a system that stores DNA data from every single citizen. If we're to dig to find some upsides, you could at least come up with something like "we'd know if someone has a major genetic disorder".
  - rib3ye 3y ago
    Right, why couldn't everything just be associated with an anonymous hash? Is that how 's CSAM matching tech works?
    - zamadatix 3y ago
      Heads up: to anyone viewing your comment on a non-Apple device this looks like "Is that how □'s CSAM matching tech works?" because the Apple logo character uses a private character, not one actually assigned in Unicode. HN also filters "real" emoji so the only reliably working way is to spell out Apple.
      - ummonk 3y ago
        Also for anyone who, like me, is viewing it with an Apple device with lockdown mode enabled.
        tonyarkles 3y ago
        Or… just on a plain 2-year-old iPad here.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  It just takes a little bit of subterfuge/social engineering to get that now, but yeah, it'd be better for the collection to be above board. Genetic test should obviously be a first step for paternity liability. I've got loads of mega-hyper-liberal dude/lady/inbetween friends, and I can't think of a single person who would argue against that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
buran77 3y ago
Intrinsically any system that keeps tabs on whole populations and allows you to identify a bad person will allow you to identify any person. I'll go out on a limb and say that in the history of humanity not a single system that was used to keep tabs on a good chunk of populations did so without extensive abuse. If we had a system to read all your messages, see all your pictures, listen to all your conversations, and check all your locations it would only be used to stop terrorists and pedophiles.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > it would only be used to stop Are you missing a "not" in there?
  - eecc 3y ago
    More likely an /s
nwiswell 3y ago
> Sexual assault would become a guaranteed prison sentence if a DNA db existed. It would be proof of sex, but not proof of assault.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  DNA would've "proved" this case for an example of this: https://nypost.com/2023/10/04/media-lynch-mob-was-way-off-in-ex-mlb-star-trevor-bauers-rape-case/ https://nypost.com/2023/10/04/media-lynch-mob-was-way-off-in...
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    Was this written by AI? It all seems to make sense and then it jumps the shark on the 3rd from the last paragraph and then starts talking about politics Nothing’s free It’s a poisonous world for a young man with fame and fortune. Let them learn the lesson that there is no such thing as free sex. There are always expectations. Meanwhile, the day after Bauer’s vindication video, Hill was yukking it up on comedian Alex Stein’s show. The self-described recovering alcoholic smeared Bauer, saying “several different women” had accused him. She played the victim: “I just didn’t know that it would reach this level of hate for me.” She claimed bad lighting was to blame for the absence of injuries in her morning-after video. “That video was taken with no lights on in the room … So a lot of differences between natural light and all that stuff … If you zoom in, the scratches are all there. You can’t see if there’s a shadow on my face.” It will never end until there are penalties for making false allegations that ruin a man’s life. Hill needs to be charged, like Jussie Smollett was for faking a hate crime. Without consequences, malignant behavior only proliferates. Nancy played a fool Silly Kevin McCarthy. He trusted Nancy Pelosi. In his valedictory speech, the vanquished speaker casually let slip how his Democratic predecessor stiffed him. “It’s interesting. It was in this room after we had won the majority, and I became speaker and Nancy Pelosi came to me and was speaker at the time on the way out. I told her I was having issues with getting enough votes. She said, ‘What’s the problem?’ ” McCarthy confided in Pelosi that the holdouts wanted him to agree to a rules change that allowed any single lawmaker to file a motion to oust the speaker. “And she said, ‘Just give it to them. I’ll always back you up … because I believe in the institution.’ I think today was a political decision by the Democrats.” No kidding, Einstein. If for no other reason, McCarthy’s naivete disqualified him for the job. At least he got in a final swipe when he had Pelosi thrown out of her Capitol office. Nun stuns at UN I was lucky enough to see a preview recently of a brilliant, uplifting movie that opens Thursday, “Mother Teresa & Me,” which I highly recommend. Interestingly enough, the preview was at the United Nations headquarters, where the film’s theme that all life, from conception to death, is precious, seemed wonderfully subversive. Let’s hope the good nun’s legacy has a purifying effect on the Turtle Bay complex.
bsder 3y ago
DNA db's are terrible ideas. Most of the problematic sexual assault cases are "he said/she said" and not "identify a complete stranger". Running any experiment with rare outcomes almost always results in far more "false positives" than "true positives". And this is before we even get into discussing what happens when the db gets compromised.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

Also could put an end to false paternity. Obviously some people would be very much against it for that reason.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wonderwonder 3y ago
honestly they should just implement an automatic paternity test law. If the father finds out its not his, he should be able to walk away, and be granted an instant divorce. No child support, no alimony. Fair division of marital assets.
- lazide 3y ago
  What makes you think anyone but the ‘father’ would want that? The state (or the mom) sure isn’t going to volunteer to pay to raise the child if it can avoid it!
  - breather 3y ago
    > The state (or the mom) sure isn’t going to volunteer to pay to raise the child if it can avoid it! Really makes you wonder what the point of the state is
    - lazide 3y ago
      The math is simple, albeit no one wants to think about it because if they do then most people aren't interested in playing - and if people aren't playing, then Society has a big problem. 1) raising a kid is very expensive, both in time and money. 2) no one wants to pay if they don't get something out of it - or if they can get away with not paying. Which, perfectly rational. Do you decline the standard deduction when you do your taxes? Same idea. 3) the bio father in these situations is well aware he won't get anything out of it except pain and suffering from the Mom (or just flat out isn't interested), or he wouldn't have bailed. 4) the bio mother already is going to do the child raising - so she is going to put in a lot of time (and will have control). It would be pretty stupid for her to also do a ton of work to make money on top of it if she's going to do that, unless she really has no choice. 5) If someone doesn't pay/end up on the hook convincingly, then the taxpayers will end up dealing with a criminal child, or a dead/starving child, and/or a bunch of emotionally manipulative 'but he was such a good kid!' crying after someone ends up dead, which taxpayers ALSO don't like. So the state is there to make SOMEONE pay, ideally the person most easy to convince is responsible and able to do so, or alternatively whoever can pay/afford the most that they can force to do it. Because if the State ends up paying, then that means the taxpayer ends up paying. I don't know about you, but I don't want to end up paying for some idiots kid if I don't have to. I didn't even get laid! Talk about a shitty deal. Maybe that's better than the resulting crime and heart string pulling, but honestly it depends on the day. Especially if the crime and heart string pulling ends up happening ANYWAY. And if you think I'm a heartless bastard, check the budgets for these kinds of programs vs law enforcement. Near as I can tell, I'm the EMPATHETIC AND KIND ONE in the equation. It's also why in many cases, the state is actively avoiding things like making abortions more accessible, mandatory birth control, etc. etc. They need more bodies. And that.... is why large scale DNA databases are also becoming popular. Also catching 'hard' criminals, of course. The state is trying to identify 'the one who got away'. The state doesn't particularly care if the person pinned is actually responsible, as long as it can convince itself and ideally them that they are the one responsible - and can make them pay. Such is bureaucracy. Have to keep those stats looking good. The other 'big' options - no State, or an ineffective State is arguably even worse for everyone except dudes trying to get laid without the consequences. Because women will want to have sex, on average, and many will have babies even if it involves self sabotaging their birth control or the like. Same with men. Women trying to get laid without consequences usually get a pass of course (unless they get abortions or are on birth control), until after the kid shows up and they're stuck, then shame on them, tsk tsk. That way the guilt hopefully means they'll actually take care of the kid instead of pawning them off on the grandparents or abandoning them at an orphanage to go have fun. You're welcome. Now ideally, the Mother has enough emotional regulation and self control to only have sex with men who are responsible, loyal, provider types - or that can be convinced they are the only ones she is having sex with anyway. Since birth control is not perfect, and 'surprises' are exactly what lead into this type of situation. Dudes will of course do their damnest to have sex with her anyway if they can. And can integrate him into the experience so he can see that he IS getting something - someone he can help mould, that will care about him in his older age and help him succeed, that will be loyal, carry his line forward, etc. And can use that to get him to not only support the child, but work hard to support everyone while she spends the time and energy necessary for the child to grow healthy, and succeed. And support her later when she's less sexy and life is harder, and his 'value' is now higher than hers. Easier said than done. But that's been the ideal 'deal'. Sometimes, it even happened (or happens).
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    That's the thing with a paternity test, easy to just pin it on the real father now. Not to mention, half of the population is male so I could see a pretty decent amount of people being pro this legislation. Plus from a moral perspective, not that anyone really cares, cheating on someone is reprehensible and then putting over a child as theirs is as close to the worst crime imaginable that I can come up with short of murder and pedophelia. I would argue that it even warrants jail time as its life stealing.
    - lazide 3y ago
      I’m guessing you’re a man?
buran77 3y ago
You can do that very easily right now without the need to store the DNA. So it seems like the least consequential thing you could "win" from a system that stores DNA data from every single citizen. If we're to dig to find some upsides, you could at least come up with something like "we'd know if someone has a major genetic disorder".
- rib3ye 3y ago
  Right, why couldn't everything just be associated with an anonymous hash? Is that how 's CSAM matching tech works?
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Heads up: to anyone viewing your comment on a non-Apple device this looks like "Is that how □'s CSAM matching tech works?" because the Apple logo character uses a private character, not one actually assigned in Unicode. HN also filters "real" emoji so the only reliably working way is to spell out Apple.
    - ummonk 3y ago
      Also for anyone who, like me, is viewing it with an Apple device with lockdown mode enabled.
      - tonyarkles 3y ago
        Or… just on a plain 2-year-old iPad here.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
It just takes a little bit of subterfuge/social engineering to get that now, but yeah, it'd be better for the collection to be above board. Genetic test should obviously be a first step for paternity liability. I've got loads of mega-hyper-liberal dude/lady/inbetween friends, and I can't think of a single person who would argue against that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

buran77 3y ago

Intrinsically any system that keeps tabs on whole populations and allows you to identify a bad person will allow you to identify any person. I'll go out on a limb and say that in the history of humanity not a single system that was used to keep tabs on a good chunk of populations did so without extensive abuse. If we had a system to read all your messages, see all your pictures, listen to all your conversations, and check all your locations it would only be used to stop terrorists and pedophiles.

justinclift 3y ago
> it would only be used to stop Are you missing a "not" in there?
- eecc 3y ago
  More likely an /s

nwiswell 3y ago

> Sexual assault would become a guaranteed prison sentence if a DNA db existed. It would be proof of sex, but not proof of assault.

willcipriano 3y ago
DNA would've "proved" this case for an example of this: https://nypost.com/2023/10/04/media-lynch-mob-was-way-off-in-ex-mlb-star-trevor-bauers-rape-case/ https://nypost.com/2023/10/04/media-lynch-mob-was-way-off-in...
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Was this written by AI? It all seems to make sense and then it jumps the shark on the 3rd from the last paragraph and then starts talking about politics Nothing’s free It’s a poisonous world for a young man with fame and fortune. Let them learn the lesson that there is no such thing as free sex. There are always expectations. Meanwhile, the day after Bauer’s vindication video, Hill was yukking it up on comedian Alex Stein’s show. The self-described recovering alcoholic smeared Bauer, saying “several different women” had accused him. She played the victim: “I just didn’t know that it would reach this level of hate for me.” She claimed bad lighting was to blame for the absence of injuries in her morning-after video. “That video was taken with no lights on in the room … So a lot of differences between natural light and all that stuff … If you zoom in, the scratches are all there. You can’t see if there’s a shadow on my face.” It will never end until there are penalties for making false allegations that ruin a man’s life. Hill needs to be charged, like Jussie Smollett was for faking a hate crime. Without consequences, malignant behavior only proliferates. Nancy played a fool Silly Kevin McCarthy. He trusted Nancy Pelosi. In his valedictory speech, the vanquished speaker casually let slip how his Democratic predecessor stiffed him. “It’s interesting. It was in this room after we had won the majority, and I became speaker and Nancy Pelosi came to me and was speaker at the time on the way out. I told her I was having issues with getting enough votes. She said, ‘What’s the problem?’ ” McCarthy confided in Pelosi that the holdouts wanted him to agree to a rules change that allowed any single lawmaker to file a motion to oust the speaker. “And she said, ‘Just give it to them. I’ll always back you up … because I believe in the institution.’ I think today was a political decision by the Democrats.” No kidding, Einstein. If for no other reason, McCarthy’s naivete disqualified him for the job. At least he got in a final swipe when he had Pelosi thrown out of her Capitol office. Nun stuns at UN I was lucky enough to see a preview recently of a brilliant, uplifting movie that opens Thursday, “Mother Teresa & Me,” which I highly recommend. Interestingly enough, the preview was at the United Nations headquarters, where the film’s theme that all life, from conception to death, is precious, seemed wonderfully subversive. Let’s hope the good nun’s legacy has a purifying effect on the Turtle Bay complex.

bsder 3y ago

DNA db's are terrible ideas. Most of the problematic sexual assault cases are "he said/she said" and not "identify a complete stranger". Running any experiment with rare outcomes almost always results in far more "false positives" than "true positives". And this is before we even get into discussing what happens when the db gets compromised.