Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 03/14/2010 5:43:52 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
President Barack Obama’s embrace of a national database to store the DNA of people arrested but not necessarily convicted of a crime is heartening to backers of the policy but disappointing to criminal-justice reformers, who view it as an invasion of privacy.
Others also worry the practice would adversely affect minorities.
In an interview aired Saturday on “America’s Most Wanted,” Obama expressed strong agreement as host John Walsh extolled the virtues of collecting DNA at the time of an arrest and putting it into a single, national database.
“We have 18 states who are taking DNA upon arrest,” Walsh said. “It’s no different than fingerprinting or a booking photo. ... Since those states have been doing it, it has cleared 200 people that are innocent from jail.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Walsh has done a lot of good over the years with his program.
He’s now become too self-important, it would seem. Time to retire, John.
>>What a HUGE mistake this is.<<
I am so ambivalent — I think the analogy to fingerprints is accurate.
But since it is more than just a marker of who I am and can be used in broader searches, I feel a part of me is given to the public domain on a potentially arbitrary decision by some cop having a bad night is patently wrong.
I will follow this thread with great interest.
>>How about birth certificate checks? <<
Too intrusive. I think public posting of proctology exams is much less so (/MSM).
DNA is just like fingerprints. Same thing, and this hysteria over DNA is like little old ladies worried that a camera can suck your spirit by taking a picture.
It’s an advanced identification tool. Deal with it.
Perhaps we should do this before nominating another space alien, left-wing pod person for president.
I don’t mind so much taking DNA at arrest, and even running it to see if it matches other crimes — so long as it is destroyed if the person is found not guilty or the case is dismissed, or if it is locked up with the evidence and not available without a search warrant.
But it doesn’t surprise me that Obama would approve — he’s not a liberal in the traditional, leave people alone sense, he’s more of a fascist socialist, looking to control every aspect of our lives, including monitoring our every move.
Genetic information is so much more potentially devastating than just an ordinary fingerprint. It contains the very road-map to our individual existence - who we are and what we will become, biologically. That's a tremendous amount of information to be in the hands of the state, especially when you haven't yet been convicted of anything, just arrested.
Incidentally, I would argue that keeping fingerprints and a mugshot on file just for an arrest is also a gross invasion of privacy. The gubmit shouldn't be able to maintain any of that information without a conviction, IMHO.
If you're convicted of a crime, then sure, I have no problems with the state maintaining a database that can help to solve other crimes or future crimes.
I also think they shouldn’t be allowed to keep fingerprints after a case is dismissed or a person is found not guilty; or else the fingerprints should be filed with the evidence in the case, and not accessable without a search warrant.
If the cops can’t just randomly collect all our fingerprints and store them, they shouldn’t be allowed to get our fingerprints under the guise of an arrest.
Plus, DNA is much more than fingerprints. It can be used for esxample in to determine paternity, and to find genetic markers for diseases and health risks — something insurance companies would love to get hold of.
I wouldn't either. But, you and I know better. That's not how this is going to work.
I did have a second paragraph ya know...
If I can’t land on both sides of an argument, what would be the point of my ambivalence?
maybe we could really find out who the POS is with DNA testing
If this Obamacare passes this week, the biggest "insurance company" will already have their hands on it. Yet another reason to question this policy; When the government is the insurance company, and the holder of our most intimate personal genetic information, problems will be plentiful.
Yes, I realized that's what was driving your ambivalence. I just thought I'd add my $.02 on the topic. :)
Exactly Obama wants it because it is POWER over the people.
I love watching liberals explain this crap away when I say imagine if Dick Cheney had this power at his disposal.
Take his dna and find out he’s related to frank marshall davis
LOL — just so you knew I was wussing out — but definitively so! ;)
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.