Posted on 03/26/2009 11:53:26 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Sloppy idiots!
I can’t believe the naivete you’re displaying in regards to the government and it’s ability to to misuse ANYTHING.
Justifying the building of a national data bank of DNA info just because it can help catch criminals, falls into the same category as the *it’s for the children* argument.
Will DNA ever be misused by the government? Count on it.
Good grief. We’re already seeing what’s going on in the way of eugenics with DNA. Babies are being selectively aborted now by the choice of the parents.
You don’t foresee that once the government establishes socialized medicine, that genetic testing is going to be mandatory and that babies are going to be selectively aborted by the dictum of the government?
You don’t see that the government would not even decide who ought to be allowed to reproduce based on genetic testing?
Forced sterilizations for those whose genetic material is too risky?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well, it's still good to leave your options open, isn't it?
Thanks for the ping!
I actually performed that function.
Is anybody going to take the stand that it shouldn't have been done?
I can understand if taking the job and having your own DNA entered wouldn't be a personal option, but it, like getting a Top Secret Clearance; was my own choice in furtherance of professional and admirable goals.
Not all felonies are murders, rapes, and kidnappings, so no, not all felons should have their DNA taken. It should not be the default option for anyone simply arrested or taken into police custody for any reason, and it should not be kept for *long term* storage (just in case).
There is not enough justification for building a DNA data bank of the citizens of this country. It is too vulnerable to abuse and anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world, dare I say a dream world.....
However, that’s still not enough to deflect the attention away from the fact that you don’t seem to have a problem with recording everyone’s DNA and naively believe that the government is trustworthy in this area.
The government does NOT NEED this information on people. It cannot be trusted to not abuse it, it cannot be trusted to have it destroyed when it’s supposed to.
This case of the incompetence of the authorities in figuring out what the problem was with the widespread nature of the DNA is a perfect example. That should have been their FIRST consideration, not one after wasting tons of taxpayer monies on a wild goose chase.
Surprised?
There ought to be. Whether there is or not, is another matter.
Oh I see, It is really all about you isn’t it.
Its not to big a stretch to envision corrupt governments inventing ‘criminal markers’in dna records to use against citizens inorder to silence them in one form or another.
“Talk about a wild goose chase!”Except there was no goose...
That depends. Under the original federal law, “qualifying federal offenses” included limited but selected felonies, such as murder, kidnapping, and sexual exploitation.
Now it has been expanded to all felonies. It has been expanded, expanded, expanded.....
The camel's nose under the tent is now all the way in.
Federal tax code is over 17,000 pages, I bet there are hundreds of ways to become a felon in there.
Federal criminal code is a couple thousand pages.
The federal registry has over 75,000 pages, with the force of law, I'm sure there are thousands of ways to become a felon in there.
We haven't even hit the myriad of ways that one can run afoul of the law in all 50 states.
Bottom line, there are thousands of crimes that aren't violent or have a victim, look at Scooter Libby. So, no, in most cases I guess I can't support the collection of DNA for convicted felons, because the felony laws have been adulterated to the point that "felony" doesn't mean what it used to.
If they want to get back to the basics, I'd reconsider.
I DO see a problem with recording everyone’s DNA and do not believe the government is absolutely trustworthy in this matter.
I am against unreasonable search and seizure. I feel that being a convicted felon is probable cause to collect DNA identification, and many of my fellow citizens agree, and a court has yet to say it is Unconstitutional.
My question was, do you think that being a convicted felon is not probable cause for the government to collect DNA data?
Do you?
I know submitting your own DNA is not for everyone, nor am I advocating it for everyone. It was my own choice to give up my privacy in order to further a laudable goal; just as I did when I got cleared for Top Secret in service to the USAF.
From a strictly legal standpoint, no. The DNA collection laws have not been upheld on "probable cause" issues. They have centered around the 4th Amendment and rely upon the "reasonableness" doctrine.
"Under modern Supreme Court precedent, a further complicating factor is that reasonable expectation of privacy depends not only on the type of evidence gathered, but also on the status of the person from whom it is gathered. The inquiry is not simply a yes-or-no determination, but appears to include a continuum of privacy expectations. For example, in United States v. Knights, the Court held that the “condition” of probation “significantly diminished” a probationer’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This diminished privacy expectation did not completely negate the probationer’s Fourth Amendment right; however, it affected the outcome under the Court’s Fourth Amendment balancing test."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003674052_dna20m.html
DNA collection from felons upheld by state high court
The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the practice of taking DNA samples from convicted felons for the purposes of identification, saying it's no different from fingerprinting them.
The justices’ 7-2 ruling upheld a Court of Appeals decision and existing state law that allows DNA typing of criminals to help in prosecution and identification.
The law prohibits the use of DNA samples for research or other purposes.
Six prisoners — whose cases ranging from second-degree murder and child rape to burglary and cocaine possession were consolidated into one — had argued that compulsory collection of DNA amounted to unreasonable search. Further, they said it constituted an invasion of their privacy, and as such, required justification, such as a search warrant.
But the justices said the statute violates neither state nor federal constitutional protections against invasion of privacy and unreasonable searches, pointing out that convicted felons have diminished right to privacy.
The Washington court did not use "probable cause" as the legal theory for allowing it. It is a "reasonableness" test along with a "balancing" theory for the 4th amendment. Probable cause has nothing to do with it. Diminished privacy expectations of prisoners and parolees do. Probable cause deals with warrants.
"and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"
They do not get a warrant before taking DNA samples of convicts, and now even people merely arrested, so nobody has to submit an affidavit requesting a warrant listing the probable cause for its issuance to a magistrate.
The expansion of taking DNA from people who are only arrested will eventually make it's way to the Supreme Court where I imagine they will have to find that that is not Constitutional, since people who have not been convicted do not have a diminished expectation of privacy.
And I agree with you that collecting DNA ID from anyone arrested is an unconstitutional infringement of our right to be free in our persons papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.
However I also agree with the Courts that upheld the law and the State Legislatures that passed the laws that a convicted felon needs to have their DNA ID taken.
A Michigan man is being prosecuted for using a cafe's free WiFi... from his car. Sam Peterson was arrested under a Michigan law barring access to anyone else's network without authorization, according to Michigan TV station WOOD. Since the cafe's WiFi network was reserved for customers, and Peterson never came into the cafe, he was essentially piggybacking off of the open network without authorization.
The arrest came about because Peterson apparently showed up to the Union Street Cafe to use its free WiFi from the comfort of his car, and he did so every single day. A police officer grew suspicious of Peterson and eventually questioned him as to what he was up to. Peterson, not realizing that what he was doing was (at least) ethically questionable, told the officer exactly what he was doing. "I knew that the Union Street had WiFi. I just went down and checked my e-mail and didn't see a problem with that," Peterson told a reporter.
Under Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, Peterson's actions could result in a five-year felony and a $10,000 fine. However, prosecutors do not plan to throw the book at him, as they don't believe that Peterson was aware he was even breaking the law. Instead, he will pay a $400 fine and do 40 hours of community service, and the arrest will not go on his record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.