obama supportts dna sampling upon arrest

[rightwinger]

On arrests?? That's a bit overboard... upon convictions, I would support that

I would be more incline to agree with this but only with a court hearing first. If anyone has ever been under false arrest for minor bullshit charges that were false to begin with they would understand this is too much control. I would not even mind giving DNA if it is always guaranteed to be held strictly for investigative purposes into a major crime. Anything else is absurd. Our government has allowed unethical corporates way to much in the way of intrusions into our lives already with their so called "herd" management procedures.

Right now if you are arrested, they take your mug shot, fingerprints and ID and run a criminal check to see if you are wanted in another case.

They do not wait until you are CONVICTED to run a criminal check

How many stories have you seen about wanted criminals who were captured and released? The public goes crazy about how inept the police are. DNA checks will help prevent this from happening

 

[tigerbob]

Here come the conspiracy theories. I think everybody should have fingerprints and DNA on file, how much faster and efficient criminal investigations would be.

But you have the nutjobs that will claim "but they will use your DNA for cloning, expiermnets, other bullshit". But they don't physically have a ton of your DNA stored, they have the profile on file. and nobody is going to do shit with DNA, thats paranoia and conspiracy theory bullshit.

There are plenty of rational arguments on both sides, but your perspective (which roughly translates as "people never have their personal information used for any purpose other than that for which it was intended, so there are no potential issues with this") is neither rational nor is it an argument.

At least make an attempt to demonstrate why you are confident that the database will be secure and not open to misuse. Relying on a "you're all crazy and I'm the only one talking sense" approach hardly makes a compelling case.

You apparently know nothing about genetics, and nothing about DNA testing. NObody here against this has given one legitimate, rational reason how the gov't can misuse this. Most are "they will clone you, this is invasion of privacy" with no explanation how it is. The DNA can't be used as I"ve mentioned, and you say I'm not logical? Yet another USMB moron that doesn't know what an intelligent argument is

Did you notice that my reply was to one post, and they when in another post you provided a more substantive rationale I thanked you for providing some insight?

You shouldn't take it that someone who has an issue with one of your posts will therefore disagree with all of them, nor extrapolate one comment that a poster makes into an overall position.

Nor should you think that a person has to be an expert in genetics to have an intelligent argument.

If you are indeed a genetics and DNA expert (or relatively expert) then I will of course take your superior knowledge of the subject at hand into consideration. But if that is the case, I would suggest that demonstrating the scope of your knowledge is a better way to convince your opponents that just screaming "moron" as anyone who happens to disagree with you.

 

[Dr Gregg]

There are plenty of rational arguments on both sides, but your perspective (which roughly translates as "people never have their personal information used for any purpose other than that for which it was intended, so there are no potential issues with this") is neither rational nor is it an argument.

At least make an attempt to demonstrate why you are confident that the database will be secure and not open to misuse. Relying on a "you're all crazy and I'm the only one talking sense" approach hardly makes a compelling case.

You apparently know nothing about genetics, and nothing about DNA testing. NObody here against this has given one legitimate, rational reason how the gov't can misuse this. Most are "they will clone you, this is invasion of privacy" with no explanation how it is. The DNA can't be used as I"ve mentioned, and you say I'm not logical? Yet another USMB moron that doesn't know what an intelligent argument is

Did you notice that my reply was to one post, and they when in another post you provided a more substantive rationale I thanked you for providing some insight?

You shouldn't take it that someone who has an issue with one of your posts will therefore disagree with all of them, nor extrapolate one comment that a poster makes into an overall position.

Nor should you think that a person has to be an expert in genetics to have an intelligent argument.

If you are indeed a genetics and DNA expert (or relatively expert) then I will of course take your superior knowledge of the subject at hand into consideration. But if that is the case, I would suggest that demonstrating the scope of your knowledge is a better way to convince your opponents that just screaming "moron" as anyone who happens to disagree with you.

Yup, I saw that, and my response was because I had given an argument in the future responses, and figure you were just being like the partisan hack trolls that just go around the internet attacking with nothing of substance. But I was right though, all that has been given by the opposition to this is conspiracy theory (they are going to abuse it) and shown they are ignorant of the matter. And I never said "moron" in that post, and I was dead on with the responses, as I've come to known this place. look ,the one hack even admitted he doesn't have an argument, so I was dead on. And saying you don't know things about genetics is a far cry from calling someone a "moron".

But I've yet to see an intelligent argument as to why this is a violation of privacy.

 

[Luissa]

Wow. The Obamaroids can't wait to surrender their DNA to PapaObama

I've never seen them agree quicker on anything. Well, besides Booooooshhhhhh Foxnewsssss and Palinnnnnnnnnnnn

Here take my DNA!!

Most places started doing this awhile ago, dipshit!
My city has been doing since at least 2002, and it has been very effective when catching CRIMIMALS! If you have not commented a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[RodISHI]

On arrests?? That's a bit overboard... upon convictions, I would support that

I would be more incline to agree with this but only with a court hearing first. If anyone has ever been under false arrest for minor bullshit charges that were false to begin with they would understand this is too much control. I would not even mind giving DNA if it is always guaranteed to be held strictly for investigative purposes into a major crime. Anything else is absurd. Our government has allowed unethical corporates way to much in the way of intrusions into our lives already with their so called "herd" management procedures.

Right now if you are arrested, they take your mug shot, fingerprints and ID and run a criminal check to see if you are wanted in another case.

They do not wait until you are CONVICTED to run a criminal check

How many stories have you seen about wanted criminals who were captured and released? The public goes crazy about how inept the police are. DNA checks will help prevent this from happening

Police are not judges nor should they be allowed to act as judges. Taking a piece of someone no matter how minor a piece that may be to conduct the DNA analysis would be an intrusion. Hell offer the guy a drink and get the DNA off of the cup or something but don't intrude and call it a good thing when someone is arrested under a suspicion because it is not. How many stories have you heard about where people were convicted or arrested and later found it was discovered they were not guilty of jack

 

[Dr Gregg]

I would be more incline to agree with this but only with a court hearing first. If anyone has ever been under false arrest for minor bullshit charges that were false to begin with they would understand this is too much control. I would not even mind giving DNA if it is always guaranteed to be held strictly for investigative purposes into a major crime. Anything else is absurd. Our government has allowed unethical corporates way to much in the way of intrusions into our lives already with their so called "herd" management procedures.

Right now if you are arrested, they take your mug shot, fingerprints and ID and run a criminal check to see if you are wanted in another case.

They do not wait until you are CONVICTED to run a criminal check

How many stories have you seen about wanted criminals who were captured and released? The public goes crazy about how inept the police are. DNA checks will help prevent this from happening

Police are not judges nor should they be allowed to act as judges. Taking a piece of someone no matter how minor a piece that may be to conduct the DNA analysis would be an intrusion. Hell offer the guy a drink and get the DNA off of the cup or something but don't intrude and call it a good thing when someone is arrested under a suspicion because it is not. How many stories have you heard about where people were convicted or arrested and later found it was discovered they were not guilty of jack

there you go again saying its an intrusion with no reasoning what's being intruded. No knowledge about your genetics or you, other than a DNA fingerprint, which only can be used for comparison to crime scene DNA found.

 

[Luissa]

I would be more incline to agree with this but only with a court hearing first. If anyone has ever been under false arrest for minor bullshit charges that were false to begin with they would understand this is too much control. I would not even mind giving DNA if it is always guaranteed to be held strictly for investigative purposes into a major crime. Anything else is absurd. Our government has allowed unethical corporates way to much in the way of intrusions into our lives already with their so called "herd" management procedures.

Right now if you are arrested, they take your mug shot, fingerprints and ID and run a criminal check to see if you are wanted in another case.

They do not wait until you are CONVICTED to run a criminal check

How many stories have you seen about wanted criminals who were captured and released? The public goes crazy about how inept the police are. DNA checks will help prevent this from happening

Police are not judges nor should they be allowed to act as judges. Taking a piece of someone no matter how minor a piece that may be to conduct the DNA analysis would be an intrusion. Hell offer the guy a drink and get the DNA off of the cup or something but don't intrude and call it a good thing when someone is arrested under a suspicion because it is not. How many stories have you heard about where people were convicted or arrested and later found it was discovered they were not guilty of jack

They usually don't take DNA until arrested, and you have nothing to worry about if you are not a criminal. I also know this practice has helped solve a few crimes here.
Next thing we know, you will be saying fingerprints are an intrusion.

 

[Newby]

Wow. The Obamaroids can't wait to surrender their DNA to PapaObama

I've never seen them agree quicker on anything. Well, besides Booooooshhhhhh Foxnewsssss and Palinnnnnnnnnnnn

Here take my DNA!!

Most places started doing this awhile ago, dipshit!
My city has been doing since at least 2002, and it has been very effective when catching CRIMIMALS! If you have not commented a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

Isn't that kinda like when the government is tracing your calls or even listening to them (wiretapping terrorists)? If you're not doing anything wrong, then what's the big deal? Nothing to worry about right?

 

[Big Black Dog]

This issue is a double edged sword. On one hand, I favor a DNA sample being on file for true identification purposes only. It would help police solve crimes, it would offer positive ID if your body was found laying around somplace in a state of complete lifelessness, and it could prove that you were who you said you really were. On the other hand, you would loose all privacy and if used in a way other than for identification, insurance companies might deny you inusrance based on things they could find out because of your DNA or it might be used in other ways besides for just identification. It's a coin toss. I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea.

 

[Luissa]

This issue is a double edged sword. On one hand, I favor a DNA sample being on file for true identification purposes only. It would help police solve crimes, it would offer positive ID if your body was found laying around somplace in a state of complete lifelessness, and it could prove that you were who you said you really were. On the other hand, you would loose all privacy and if used in a way other than for identification, insurance companies might deny you inusrance based on things they could find out because of your DNA or it might be used in other ways besides for just identification. It's a coin toss. I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea.

Like I said before, they have been doing it here for almost ten years. They have only ever used DNA to solve crimes. When I was arrested in 2002, they took a sample of my DNA and I haven't had a problem with it since. So if you don't want your DNA on file, don't commit a crime.
It is kind of like being tased, if you don't want to be tased don't talk back or threaten a cop.

 

[Luissa]

Wow. The Obamaroids can't wait to surrender their DNA to PapaObama

I've never seen them agree quicker on anything. Well, besides Booooooshhhhhh Foxnewsssss and Palinnnnnnnnnnnn

Here take my DNA!!

Most places started doing this awhile ago, dipshit!
My city has been doing since at least 2002, and it has been very effective when catching CRIMIMALS! If you have not commented a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

Isn't that kinda like when the government is tracing your calls or even listening to them (wiretapping terrorists)? If you're not doing anything wrong, then what's the big deal? Nothing to worry about right?

I have always figured the gov't has been wire tapping for years, they just have only been recently honest about it. And if they are listening to me, they are wasting their time.

 

[Dr Gregg]

This issue is a double edged sword. On one hand, I favor a DNA sample being on file for true identification purposes only. It would help police solve crimes, it would offer positive ID if your body was found laying around somplace in a state of complete lifelessness, and it could prove that you were who you said you really were. On the other hand, you would loose all privacy and if used in a way other than for identification, insurance companies might deny you inusrance based on things they could find out because of your DNA or it might be used in other ways besides for just identification. It's a coin toss. I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea.

Again, they don't sequence the DNA, fingerprints don't give any information about your genetics, just like a fingerprint gives no information about you other than for identifications purposes. A cheek swab isn't going to give enough DNA to do anything with other than a profile

and I"m sure if it got to that point, there would be a law against genetic discrimination. NO way life would turn out to be like GATTACCA

Heres a site that describes it

http://protist.biology.washington.edu/fingerprint/dnaintro.html

 

[RodISHI]

there you go again saying its an intrusion with no reasoning what's being intruded. No knowledge about your genetics or you, other than a DNA fingerprint, which only can be used for comparison to crime scene DNA found.

You have no credibility with me. So why bother wasting your time?

Right now if you are arrested, they take your mug shot, fingerprints and ID and run a criminal check to see if you are wanted in another case.

They do not wait until you are CONVICTED to run a criminal check

How many stories have you seen about wanted criminals who were captured and released? The public goes crazy about how inept the police are. DNA checks will help prevent this from happening

Police are not judges nor should they be allowed to act as judges. Taking a piece of someone no matter how minor a piece that may be to conduct the DNA analysis would be an intrusion. Hell offer the guy a drink and get the DNA off of the cup or something but don't intrude and call it a good thing when someone is arrested under a suspicion because it is not. How many stories have you heard about where people were convicted or arrested and later found it was discovered they were not guilty of jack

They usually don't take DNA until arrested, and you have nothing to worry about if you are not a criminal. I also know this practice has helped solve a few crimes here.
Next thing we know, you will be saying fingerprints are an intrusion.

Again, how many people in the United States are arrested under false pretenses? When and if that happens that means taking DNA from the one was an intrusion.



This is not Europe but this type of profiling started there.
Police target 'innocent' youths for arrest in bid to increase DNA samples on database | Mail Online


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html

Watching the Watchers Thursday March 11, 2010

Creative Commons License

Obama OK with DNA Sampling Upon Arrest?
by wok3
Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 06:50 AM EST

When someone is arrested, the theory is that they are innocent until proven guilty. Some say that giving a DNA sample is no different from having your fingerprints taken, also a common occurence after an arrest. Another factor is that innocent people have already been released due to this DNA sample being retrieved upon an arrest, as the legal system finds out that it has the wrong person locked away.

The potential for misuse seems staggering though, with a national database storing this information. It is not as if law enforcement has not fiddled with evidence before now, and with this additional tool at their disposal, it seems an almost impossible task to defend someone who has been identified by this DNA sample comparison as a culprit. It is not that I do not wish guilty people to get away with crimes, but how can we be assured this system would not fail, perhaps even by a simple mistake in data entry. Would it even be possible to undue such a thing?

The other side of the argument is crystal clear, if we take a DNA sample of everyone that is arrested, then more guilty parties will be caught. But how can we ever be certain that a DNA match was not the result of a mistake, or perhaps even 2 or more mistakes piled on top of each other?

If someone had been convicted of a felony, then I would have no problem whatsoever in obtaining a DNA sample from that person, but to require this from everyone seems to be casting a very wide net – with little if any guarantee that there would not be some sort of mishap that resulted in the incarceration of an innocent person. Obviously even someone convicted of a felony could be found out to be innocent at a future date, but at least the potential for this mistake would be reduced considerably.

Another factor is that as DNA has become a normal part of investigations, career criminals have taken steps to reduce the chance of their DNA being found. So what is someone innocent of a particular crime has had their DNA entered into the system at an earlier time, yet because of the precautions of the guilty party, only the innocent person’s DNA is retrieved from a crime scene? Good luck if you have to rely on an attorney provided by the court in that case. I guess that problem exists with fingerprints as well, but since DNA is the newcomer, it seems more difficult to challenge the seemingly sure-fire authenticity it offers to jurors.

 

[beowolfe]

I was against this when proposed by the last administration and I'm against it now. You should collect DNA from CONVICTED persons. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing, you know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do we have a 4th Amendment...does it mean anything?

 

[Dr Gregg]

yes, cause I rely on fact Rodishi, you rely on rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and a complete lack of understanding of anything scientific. I'll address all your bullshit because there is enough ignorance of science out there, no need for more people buying your obvious bullshit.

Why bother posting at all if you don't want to learn the truth? oh, another fucking spamming troll

 

[Dr Gregg]

Why do we have a 4th Amendment...does it mean anything?

Maybe you can explain how this violates the 4th amendment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do we have a 4th Amendment...does it mean anything?

Maybe you can explain how this violates the 4th amendment.

Because its the federal Government trying to set the precedent.

Why do we even have states?

Do you have any idea at all of how the government was set up?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Why do we have a 4th Amendment...does it mean anything?

Maybe you can explain how this violates the 4th amendment.

Because its the federal Government trying to set the precedent.

Why do we even have states?

Do you have any idea at all of how the government was set up?

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations, what a clusterfuck that would be. there needs to be some centralized rules and regulations.

I've know how the gov't is set up, maybe you need to learn that if something is indeed unconstitutional, the SC would rule on it as being so, checks and balances, exactly how the gov't was set up.

 

[Luissa]

there you go again saying its an intrusion with no reasoning what's being intruded. No knowledge about your genetics or you, other than a DNA fingerprint, which only can be used for comparison to crime scene DNA found.

You have no credibility with me. So why bother wasting your time?

They usually don't take DNA until arrested, and you have nothing to worry about if you are not a criminal. I also know this practice has helped solve a few crimes here.
Next thing we know, you will be saying fingerprints are an intrusion.

Again, how many people in the United States are arrested under false pretenses? When and if that happens that means taking DNA from the one was an intrusion.



This is not Europe but this type of profiling started there.
Police target 'innocent' youths for arrest in bid to increase DNA samples on database | Mail Online


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html

Watching the Watchers Thursday March 11, 2010

Creative Commons License

Obama OK with DNA Sampling Upon Arrest?
by wok3
Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 06:50 AM EST

When someone is arrested, the theory is that they are innocent until proven guilty. Some say that giving a DNA sample is no different from having your fingerprints taken, also a common occurence after an arrest. Another factor is that innocent people have already been released due to this DNA sample being retrieved upon an arrest, as the legal system finds out that it has the wrong person locked away.

The potential for misuse seems staggering though, with a national database storing this information. It is not as if law enforcement has not fiddled with evidence before now, and with this additional tool at their disposal, it seems an almost impossible task to defend someone who has been identified by this DNA sample comparison as a culprit. It is not that I do not wish guilty people to get away with crimes, but how can we be assured this system would not fail, perhaps even by a simple mistake in data entry. Would it even be possible to undue such a thing?

The other side of the argument is crystal clear, if we take a DNA sample of everyone that is arrested, then more guilty parties will be caught. But how can we ever be certain that a DNA match was not the result of a mistake, or perhaps even 2 or more mistakes piled on top of each other?

If someone had been convicted of a felony, then I would have no problem whatsoever in obtaining a DNA sample from that person, but to require this from everyone seems to be casting a very wide net – with little if any guarantee that there would not be some sort of mishap that resulted in the incarceration of an innocent person. Obviously even someone convicted of a felony could be found out to be innocent at a future date, but at least the potential for this mistake would be reduced considerably.

Another factor is that as DNA has become a normal part of investigations, career criminals have taken steps to reduce the chance of their DNA being found. So what is someone innocent of a particular crime has had their DNA entered into the system at an earlier time, yet because of the precautions of the guilty party, only the innocent person’s DNA is retrieved from a crime scene? Good luck if you have to rely on an attorney provided by the court in that case. I guess that problem exists with fingerprints as well, but since DNA is the newcomer, it seems more difficult to challenge the seemingly sure-fire authenticity it offers to jurors.

A majority of people are arrested because they commented a crime, and like I said we have been doing it here for almost ten years. We have had no problem with it, and have caught many criminals with this tool.
Instead of worrying about the few innocent people who have been arrested, why don't you worry about the five year old girl's who's murder case could be solved due to DNA sampling. Dna sampling for one would be and probably already is very effective in catching serial killers and rapists, along with other career criminals.