4 ms·

“Nearly every baby born in the U.S. has blood drawn in the immediate hours after their birth, allowing the baby to be tested for a panel of potentially life-thr

“Nearly every baby born in the U.S. has blood drawn in the immediate hours after their birth, allowing the baby to be tested for a panel of potentially life-threatening inherited disorders. This is a vital public health program, enabling early treatment of newborns with genetic disorders; for them, it can be the difference between a healthy life and an early death. But recent news suggests that police are seeking access to these newborn blood samples in criminal investigations. Such use of this trove of genetic material — to hunt for evidence that could implicate a child’s relative in a crime — endangers public trust in this vital health program and threatens all Americans’ right to genetic privacy.” All of our new babies had heel stick blood drawn, won’t the government be the eventual competitor of 23 and me (since Americans don’t care too much about privacy). https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-are-using-newborn-genetic-screening https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-are-usin...

LarsDu88 2y ago
Not necessarily. Just because the government is collecting everyone's DNA doesn't mean they're gonna create a slick web app for showing you your ancestry results. That's like asking why the DMV isn't competing with Google for revenue...
CSMastermind 2y ago
My most radical political opinion is that we need a right to privacy enshrined in a constitutional amendment. And it needs to be robust enough to prevent the government from subpoenaing data collected by private companies.
- typeofhuman 2y ago
  The 4th Amendment should already do that.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tikhonj 2y ago
    I am very much not an expert, but my understanding is that the third-party doctrine[1] means that it (mostly) doesn't. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
  - sophacles 2y ago
    The traditional favorite game of the supreme court is reducing the bounds of the 4th amendment. At this point its easier to list the things that the 4th protects than it is to list all the exceptions and "well actually not this..." situations the court has carved out.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Should, but doesn't as construed by the SCOTUS and the appeals courts below them. I think their reading of the 4th Amendment is in fact mostly right, especially as interpreted in the context of 1789. We could use an amendment to strengthen privacy, but it's hard to write such a thing considering that almost everything we do nowadays is between "somewhat public" and "public".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

LarsDu88 2y ago

Not necessarily. Just because the government is collecting everyone's DNA doesn't mean they're gonna create a slick web app for showing you your ancestry results. That's like asking why the DMV isn't competing with Google for revenue...

CSMastermind 2y ago

My most radical political opinion is that we need a right to privacy enshrined in a constitutional amendment. And it needs to be robust enough to prevent the government from subpoenaing data collected by private companies.

typeofhuman 2y ago
The 4th Amendment should already do that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tikhonj 2y ago
  I am very much not an expert, but my understanding is that the third-party doctrine[1] means that it (mostly) doesn't. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- sophacles 2y ago
  The traditional favorite game of the supreme court is reducing the bounds of the 4th amendment. At this point its easier to list the things that the 4th protects than it is to list all the exceptions and "well actually not this..." situations the court has carved out.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Should, but doesn't as construed by the SCOTUS and the appeals courts below them. I think their reading of the 4th Amendment is in fact mostly right, especially as interpreted in the context of 1789. We could use an amendment to strengthen privacy, but it's hard to write such a thing considering that almost everything we do nowadays is between "somewhat public" and "public".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]