Posted on 04/16/2008 3:07:00 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
WASHINGTON -- The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency - a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people.
Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab, Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons.
Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information, such as family ties and genetic conditions.
Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.
Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.
There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.
Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from committing more crimes.
A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.
"Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.
Thirteen states have passed similar laws.
But the new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Now innocent people's DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said.
If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample.
The Homeland Security Department - the federal agency charged with policing immigration - supports the new rule.
"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.
The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.
The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period.
(This version CORRECTS number of states from a dozen to 13 with similar laws.) )
I would rather see them collect DNA from everyone convicted of a felony.
Just think what they could do if they took DNA at birth!
ML/NJ
Heck, if they collected DNA in utero, they could eliminate crime altogether!!
< /sarcasm>
Big brother.
I would think that this stomps all over privacy laws. I don’t think it’ll fly once the ACLU gets legally involved.
What privacy? As in the privacy of the millions of innocents who ALREADY must be fingerprinted to get a driver’s license?
The Clintons had hundreds of FBI files on their enemies and foes. Just think of what they could have done with genes.
I have no problems with collecting upon arrest as long as there is an AUTOMATIC removal of DNA information if not convicted and a method is in place to allow someone who’s DNA is on the database to go before a judge and request removal of the DNA. At that time, the government should have to prove a conviction in order to retain the data.
I think there is some merit to collecting the DNA of felons. I do not think a simple arrest is grounds for DNA collection.
Furthermore, if a person has been arrested for a felony, convicted, sentenced, and has served his term, after they have kept their nose clean for ten years, the DNA sample should be destroyed.
I would make an exception to this last clause, in that anyone committing a sex crime with a high rate of recidivism, would have their record kept for at least 25 years, before being expunged. In some instances, I would even agree to keeping the records for life.
Exactly right.
Umm, Yeah. I think this is a Constitutional issue. Arrest doesn’t mean guilty. If convicted Yeah, sure, collect all the DNA you want.
But merely upon arrest, No way.
And in terms of cost? Another ten million$ a year just to collect maintain the samples... A couple of billion$ a year if they actually analyze all of them.
With a taste in my mouth somewhere between rotten milk and rancid beef, I say I hope the ACLU does something. Do we have anything resembling a Constitution any more in this country?????
I would rather see them collect DNA from everyone convicted of a felony.
Adding... and welfare applicants.
What privacy rights are at issue?
I'm not a criminal, and I don't care if the FBI has my prints and my DNA in their files.
and I wonder how quickly this The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested. will prevent illegal predators from being sampled...
exactly. Only the convicted should have to submit DNA.
“I’m not a criminal, and I don’t care if the FBI has my prints and my DNA in their files. “
I could agree with you, except the government has such a bad track record of keeping their ‘files’ functional. USCIS lost 30,000 alien application files for vetting. Couldn’t find ‘em, so they just issued the visas anyway. THAT is the governments idea of ‘efficiency’.
Why don't they post the results of how many murders and rapes could have been prevented with the use of a personal firearm???? Tens of thousands I'm guessing. NY City, D.C., where else are you banned from protecting yourself?????
At least until some Congressman slips a change into the legislation creating National Rhubarb Appreciation Day.
There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.
Library of Congress Police? Do I get two "shhhh"'s and then it's off to the DNA lab for me?
A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.
53 ever or 53 in one year?
[thread hijack alert] Now compare that to the number of crimes we could prevent every year with some diligent border enforcement.
Castrated????
I'm not a criminal, and I don't care if the FBI has my prints and my DNA in their files.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic but just in case... once the nose is in the tent, so soon is to follow the rest of the camel.
I was raised not to trust the gub'mint, to never give "it" any advantage over The People. This gub'mint did very bad things to my people... Maybe that data will be used to track gun owners and anything else deemed "harmfull" or "un-progressive".
An articulable probable cause affidavit and then a court order signed by a judge should be the only way a DNA sample is taken from someone not convicted. PERIOD!!! Is it time to get our guns yet?????
Maybe it’s late in the day and I am tired, but I can’t for the life of me figure out how collecting DNA from people detained prevents crimes from happening later.
Or the number of crimes we could prevent every year if the cost of collecting, processing and maintaining a database on 140,000 DNA samples a year was spent on feet on the ground.
“A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.”
I don’t follow this at all...how could you prevent these crimes from happening with DNA samples??? Did they have a fricken crystal ball to know who the people that committed
these crimes were going to be??? Obviously, they can be used to identify criminals once the crime has been committed, but as far as I know, DNA is not predictive of criminal intent.
I hope they choke on all the useless data they collect.
That way when then get something useful they can’t process it.
My DNA is none of their business.
Finger prints can not be used to deny you medical insurance.
DNA can.
Does that include those who run companies that get government assistance?
Check my tag line.
I agree.
An arrest is not grounds for reasonable search and seizure of your DNA markers.
Except I say convicted felons should stay in the system. Maybe they didn’t get CAUGHT for 10 years after they served their term. Many burglars become rapists. Sex criminals should always have their DNA on file once they are convicted.
I used to do DNA ID typing for the federal CODIS database.
......companies that get government assistance?
________________________
Are there any other kind?
I see where you’re going and just so you know. Corporate Welfare is a myth.
I think it will come to that!!
“I don’t care if the FBI has my prints and my DNA in their files.”
The sheep are gathering in Obama’s camp. Why don’t you join them. You sure as hell don’t belong here.
I don't know, they already take DNA from military and I was finger printed years ago.
I see the DNA collection as being different than fingerprints. There is room for abuse, if they actually have clonable DNA.
You’re genetic code is every bit as confidential as a patent or copywrighted material, on I’d term it to be something you could take to the X, it is so much more so.
That being said, it seems to me that keeping this code at some point becomes an infringement of your rights, if you are abiding by the rules of society.
I think it is right to deny gun rights to felons for a period of time. In time though, it’s my opinion that they should be back full Constitutional protections afforded any other citizen.
For instance, denying a person to own a gun thirty years after they have cleaned up their act, should be unconstitutional. Even people who have made mistakes years ago should be able to defend themselves in their own homes.
I view it along the same lines.
The problem for me is that once your genetic material is taken, it could be kept on ice for a long time. Bear with me, when it’s out of your control, you can’t say for sure what they are doing with it.
Should the government have all proprietary rights to the unique genes that make you what you are?
What if it were discovered that there is something about you that is unique, and of great monetary value. Should the government have your genetic material on file, to do with as it pleased?
You’ve seen how folks abuse medical records. Do you really want to have some technician pondering the fate of what makes you unique, and possibly abusing your genetic materials?
This may not explain it very well, but I hope it at least makes you think along these lines. Folks should before they sign off on it.
That DNA is for the purpose of identifying your remains. And you might have just volunteered to join the military, that being your choice.
However, here's what they possibly mean. In a hypothetical rape/murder, the forensics examiner finds DNA of the perpetrator. That DNA will tie the perpetrator to the crime IF there's a recorded contact with police where DNA samples were taken and tied to the individual. Most people who commit violent crimes don't just commit one, they commit multiple crimes, and get arrested multiple times. Many of these crimes are smaller, petty things, such as shoplifting, drug possession, etc, where DNA is not normally taken. IF DNA is taken at all arrests and matched against outstanding violent crimes, it would probably solve a lot of crimes. My guess is that they did a study, and found that in 53 cases, they had crime scene DNA, but did not have that DNA matched to the individual. The individual later committed more rapes or murders, but in between the earlier crimes and the violent crime for which they were caught, they had arrests where DNA samples were not taken.
The only thing preserved was electronic data on genetic markers. I agree that this is all that the Government should have a right to, genetic identification, not genetic data, and not the entire genome. Nobody can clone a living organism (yet) from a dried blood sample, but that should be out of bounds for the government as well.
As someone who worked with this system my data was put on file as well to make sure the DNA signal I was amplifying was the felons and not my own.
The only “right” that having my DNA on file curtailed to me in my mind was my “right” to leave anonymous DNA at a rape or murder scene. If it was my DNA they would know it, and I don't go around leaving my DNA at rape and murder scenes so I didn't view it as an infringement.
“We’re all criminals. They just haven’t figured out what some of us have done yet.”
I have always said it a bit differntly:
Big Brother thinks that everyone must be guilty of something. They would like all of us to be imprisoned, except “Big Brother” associates.
Yours is more succinct and concise.
I would rather see DNA on file for all Politicians.
The right to not incriminate yourself? Perhaps unreasonable search and seizure?
Give the government all your personal info if you wish, but if they want mine, they'd better have a legal reason for it.
“I don’t know, they already take DNA from military and I was finger printed years ago.”
Military personnel are a completely different ball game. When one joins the military then one almost surrenders all rights, or at least, that’s the way it was when I joined. I was fingerprinted then, too.
It helps in apprehending criminals sooner and getting them back in jail before they can commit more crimes.
The problem is, it’s a one size fits all law.
Someone may not want to tamper with your and my code. They may see it quite different if the DNA is that of Dick Cheney, Bruce Willis, or Heather Lockleer.
I don’t trust other individual’s with my DNA unless it’s an absolute must. The cards do sound much better, but who’s to say it is safe until the date resides on a card. Who’s to say the swab couldn’t be lifted and sold?
“With a taste in my mouth somewhere between rotten milk and rancid beef, I say I hope the ACLU does something. Do we have anything resembling a Constitution any more in this country?????”
Amen to your comment about the ACLU. Communist organization through and through but.....
“Do we have anything resembling a Constitution any more in this country?????””
No. FDR pretty much stomped all over the Constitution after he was able to appoint socialists to the Supreme Court.
From my point of view, the “mistakes” that were made by previous totalitarians has been to impose totalitarianism over night. They have learned and are now slowly chipping away at freedoms a little bit every day so that with time there will be totalitarianism without firing a shot.
What does it mean? It means that only "some" of our rights are listed. It was meant to acknowledge that we have many others besides the one listed.
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.