Posted on 03/26/2009 11:53:26 AM PDT by LibWhacker
You certainly glossed over and minimized b), and also your hypothetical d).
I worship Jesus the Christ, not a molecule. Are you a mind reader that you can tell me what my religious beliefs entail?
What does the presence of disease associated genes have to do with evolution?
Do creationists reject the notion that genes can and are associated with diseases?
Not exactly expecting a RATIONAL answer considering your posting history; but what does my knowledge and acceptance of the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation have to do with the fact that DNA can be used to assess your likelihood of disease?
What do you need the first amendment for??? Or are you afraid you might say something unpopular???
My DNA is not on file anywhere, and I will fight to keep it that way. The government is a monster that must always be kept at bay at all times. Just because you think something is unlikely to happen in our lifetime, or is now to expensive, does not mean that it won't happen, or become really cheap like RFID chips.
Government power and intrusion is damn near unstoppable these days because of people like you who take a "well if you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" mentality. Screw that.
I don't trust my government. Neither should you. Government is a necessary evil. But evil nonetheless because it allows an all powerful government to come down on a single citizen who does not have the resources to fight back anymore. Given unlimited power, what do you think the likes of Obama and Barney Frank would do with it?? That ought to scare you.
The big fear behind b) is that health insurers might accurately assess your risk.
I have no fear behind d). They have my height weight hair and eye color and fingerprints from my time in the US military. They know that any sample of my DNA is me, because I am in the database.
If they really want to amplify and sequence my entire genome to find that I am a white guy (they knew that), that I am over average in height and intelligence (they knew that), and have a risk adverse and non novelty seeking personality (they probably don't know that, but I see little risk in someone having the potential to find out).
But if you feel I have “glossed over” the inherent risks and fears behind an interested party using DNA information to identify biological samples (a), identifying genetic risks (b), telling who is related to you (c), or getting a detailed map of your genotype (d); please expound upon them at your leisure.
WOW - anyone taking bets on how long until DNA convictions are being challenged based on contaminated materials stateside. Some enterprising young lawyer will claim that ALL DNA evidence must be suspect based on methodological faults.
I am not for the wholesale collection of DNA identification.
The Constitution provides for “reasonable search and seizure” and I feel that the state has a compelling interest in the search and seizure of DNA identification for convicted felons.
So far you have tried to raise DNA information as some sort of bogeyman; but have not identified what exactly it is you are afraid of if the FBI had your DNA identification.
As I said all they could do with it presently is...
a) Identify biological samples
b) Assess health risks
c) Tell who you are related to
d) Identify genotypic traits.
Which exactly is the one that raises your ire or fear?
None particularly frightened me, and as such I took the job, it payed well and was doing good work, we got an update from the sheriffs department on all the cold cases we solved monthly (all rapes and murders from what I saw).
Your amazing lack of imagination of what they "will be able to" do in the future is not a matter of solace to me. 20 years ago people would be amazed at the internet and modern computers. 20 years from now, we will be amazed at the amount of progress in computing power. I expect to be around for another 40-60 years. There's no telling what will happen technologically in that time frame.
Your obtuseness to the ever forward marching scientific advances of mankind has to be a contrivance to further your arguments here.
I want you to tell me what that “something” you fear is.
And I am a biologist, in my imagination we may soon be able to cheaply and efficiently figure out the genotype of any given DNA sample (i.e. this is a half Puerto Rican half Norwegian guy with blue eyes and brown hair, about six feet tall, likely average IQ, a risk taker, prone to being overweight, likely to die of heart disease, etc).
Currently all a DNA sample tells “the man” is “I do not match anybody in the database” or “I do match someone in the database”, or the interesting case your raised “I am most likely a very close relation to someone in the database”.
Are you currently against the collection of DNA markers from convicted felons?
I have already given you a very important example, genetic profiling for the denial or acceptance of medically necessary health care. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.... the first of those being life. You seem to scoff at the idea that our loving bureaucrats won't someday mandate the denial of service to cut costs based upon genetic profiles. Those in the UK are now currently being euthanized:
A British "end of life" care protocol approved for use by the National Health Service (NHS), has created a systematic, and legal, method of euthanising elderly and disabled patients, even while "mercy killing" remains officially illegal, says a prominent expert in elder care. The "Liverpool Care Pathway" will be used to eliminate patients deemed to be "blocking beds" in the increasingly financially strapped public health system.
If the thought of some Tom Daschle somewhere deciding whether you live or die is not something to "fear", then I don't need to waste anymore time on you.
And it is my understanding that the "samples" from which you make your digital CODIS profile, may not be destroyed, but kept in storage.
"Police were asked to supply the policies their evidence-room technicians keep at their desks that describe how long DNA samples are maintained for the crimes of murder, rape and kidnapping and for missing-persons cases.
Of the Colorado policies, only Denver's specifically addresses DNA storage, saying that DNA samples are to be placed in "long-term" storage. But even Denver's policy doesn't define what it means by "long-term." The department says it means "indefinitely."
So I assume that there are lots of long term storage areas around that haven't bothered to destroy the physical sample yet, if ever. There goes your theory that the only thing that exists is "the number of repeats I have for 13 different short terminal repeat sequences (diploid). So all they have are 26 numbers that form a unique designator that identifies me"
They most likely still retain the physical sample somewhere. That can be subjected to future tests that haven't been invented yet, looking for things that you don't have the imagination to dream up. Welcome to Gattaca.
No thank you.
And yes, I admitted the possibility of them taking my sample back out and gleaning more data from it (such as predisposition for disease, personality, etc); what I said was that all they on me by way of data in CODIS was the diploid repeat number of those 13 markers. The sample wasn't sent to the database, only data was sent to the database.
And like I said, it doesn't bother me that they know who I am and can identify my DNA as being mine. It was a good job and it did good work solving ‘cold’ rape and murder cases, usually from someone already in custody, and often they could be changed with the crimes they had “gotten away with” before their release (there was a backlog before the State of Virginia hired the company I worked for to do the DNA analysis).
So are you against collecting DNA data on convicted felons?
Just as I willingly surrendered my privacy when I was screened for a Top Secret clearance in furtherance of my protection and defense of the U.S. Constitution as part of the USAF.
Do you think that there is no probable cause to collect DNA identification data from convicted felons?
The people of the State of Virginia disagreed with you and passed legislation to do so.
Good for you. This is not about what you gave up for your clearances, nor is it about convicted felons. Average Joe citizen might value his privacy both medically and legally, but then by your reasoning it would not be a stretch to put him in the database because there’s always the possibility he might be a felon in the future.
I have already said I am against collection of DNA without probable cause.
I think being a convicted felon is probable cause.
You may disagree, but the citizens of Virginia agree that it is and voted for it.
Do you disagree?
I dont know their laws are and what constitutes a felony crime there.
“Detectives had apparently been tracking the DNA of a factory worker who packaged cotton buds used by the police to collect samples, according to ‘Stern.de’.”
The factory worker making the cotton created a brilliant cover. She has thrown the cops off her trail
Interesting article.
Talk about a wild goose chase!
Naive.
Pfffttt....
New keyboard and monitor time.....
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.