Crossing the privacy lines?

[nadalia]

In my line of work I often consider a person's right to privacy. There are tons of pieces of information about you (and me, and your 3rd cousin twice removed) that my employer collects and then sells to companies and organizations for many different purposes. We abide by many laws at both the federal and state levels and I personally believe that

Comments

[woadwolf]

I agree. I have a BIG problem with the collection of dna BEFORE a person is found guilty of a crime, and by guilty, I mean after all the legal appeals, etc, have been done. THEN, take the dna. Dammit, I STILL believe in 'Its better that a 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.".

Collection of DNA on Arrest Saves Lives!

[karenfoster]

No one should get away with murder, rape, nor any other heinous crime. We have the technology, we can identify them and prosecute them successfully with collection of DNA on arrest. We can stop the predators in our society. Less than 6 % of the population will ever be arrested for a felony, a crime usually punishable by more than a year in prison. When people are arrested law enforcement and our courts often don't have the time and resources to take the case to conviction. The case will be dismissed or plead down to a misdemeanor. Then they are given a slap on the wrist and released. Major crimes can take years to get to conviction. People who have committed the crime often get off on technicalities

Re: Collection of DNA on Arrest Saves Lives!

[nadalia]

You bring up some decent thoughts. I didn't think about the other crimes a person may have committed but had never been arrested for. When it comes to the comments about DNA being blind to race, sex, etc. That is true, however people who read the results, and computers too, can still make mistakes. What if someone doesn't look at the right markers or misreads a result? What if there's a bug in a computer system that processes the DNA and marks it as a match to John Doe when really it is not? I also feel that the 252 wrongfully accused individuals part is mostly irrevelent as, to my understanding, most of those individuals were convicted of a crime and then exhonerated when they finally got the $ to collect their own DNA and compare it against DNA collected from the crime. I do belive that process is wrong too. In my opinion, when a case goes to trial, the prosecution should request the DNA of the accused (if they have DNA to compare it to) as part of their due diligence. The accused would then have the option to decline, which could

privacy is only one issue

[oyster44]

Your concern for privacy is good but there are several other issues too. What if cures are found based on your DNA, do you get a share in the profits? Can your health care company get your DNA to check for family diseases and then drop your policy if they find something that could cost them money?

Just because your DNA is at a crime scene doesn't even mean you participated. What if the police find your DNA in a bar while investigating a murder there? Your name will immediately be in the news and public even if you weren't at the bar that night. Your life could be ruined because you went to that club ONCE. The movie GATTACA was awesome on this subject.

On a more realistic and practical note - Taking DNA for ID purposes on arrest is the only practical way to do it. You can't have people floating in the system for months without checking for other matching crimes, fake names, aliases, etc. I'm really surprised we don't take DNA samples at birth. And aren't we taking samples upon entry to the US now?

Re: privacy is only one issue

[nadalia]

Are we? Yikes, what happens to all that data?