3 ms·

> Its an interesting (if controversial) theory, that your DNA is no more private to you than your fingerprints, and they already fingerprint you when you are ar

> Its an interesting (if controversial) theory, that your DNA is no more private to you than your fingerprints, and they already fingerprint you when you are arrested and put those fingerprints into a national database. I find that argument entirely disingenuous. The only way they are equivalent is if the DNA information is stored in their DB as a cryptographic one-way hash. This would remove all additional information from the DNA and only use it for unique identification. Let alone the fact that swabbing your mouth should be a violation of your privacy (and blood tests).

ChuckMcM 13y ago
I don't think disingenuous means what you think it means :-) But that aside, if I understand what I think you mean the analogy of fingerprints doesn't work for you (and for me either btw). Historically the court has held that your right to privacy diminishes as you get closer to being convicted of a crime. And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  I find it disingenuous because the people making that argument don't really care about protecting people's rights -- they only want it to make their own jobs easier. If they really thought that fingerprinting was the same, they'd be championing having their own children DNA swabbed, just like they get their children fingerprinted in case they need to be IDed. The fact that none of these same people have tried to "save the children" tells me they don't really believe that argument. > And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. That makes sense though. Having judicial oversight of law enforcement is a compromise that protects people from the police (at least in theory), while granting LE the ability to do their job. DNA swabs used to have the same judicial oversight -- i'm not sure what is wrong with having to get a warrant to swab someone. > There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example. I have no problem taking away some rights of convicted felons, since we already take away their liberty by locking them up.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I don't think disingenuous means what you think it means :-) But that aside, if I understand what I think you mean the analogy of fingerprints doesn't work for you (and for me either btw). Historically the court has held that your right to privacy diminishes as you get closer to being convicted of a crime. And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example.

darkarmani 13y ago
I find it disingenuous because the people making that argument don't really care about protecting people's rights -- they only want it to make their own jobs easier. If they really thought that fingerprinting was the same, they'd be championing having their own children DNA swabbed, just like they get their children fingerprinted in case they need to be IDed. The fact that none of these same people have tried to "save the children" tells me they don't really believe that argument. > And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. That makes sense though. Having judicial oversight of law enforcement is a compromise that protects people from the police (at least in theory), while granting LE the ability to do their job. DNA swabs used to have the same judicial oversight -- i'm not sure what is wrong with having to get a warrant to swab someone. > There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example. I have no problem taking away some rights of convicted felons, since we already take away their liberty by locking them up.