High court authorizes routine DNA collection

[OKTexas]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

 

[Mr. H.]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

 

[rightwinger]

I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot

 

[Mad Scientist]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Can your fingerprints be patented?

DNA is. In fact, there are plenty of Medical Corporations out there that are working on Genetic Therapies and if they own the patent for YOUR DNA guess what? You have to pay them exorbitant prices for that therapy.

The Supreme Court just made it easier for the State to collect it for them. Not for you, for them.

Google DNA Patenting if you don't believe me.

 

[martybegan]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.

The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.

With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?

Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.

And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.

 

[martybegan]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.

The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.

With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?

Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.

And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

 

[KevinWestern]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

Not sure what you mean, can you not determine genetic makeup by taking someone's DNA?

If your point was test related, doesn't this ruling set a dangerous precedent allowing for more detailed and accurate tests to be allowed in the future?

.

 

[whitehall]

Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.

 

[dilloduck]

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.

The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.

With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?

Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.

And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

If it's no different then why are they taking it ?

 

[martybegan]

The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.

The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.

With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?

Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.

And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

If it's no different then why are they taking it ?

because it expands the scope of evidence collecting from a crime scene. With fingerprints you have to actually leave one behind, and gloves can take care of that. With DNA any scrap of hair, or bodily fluid leaves something beind that can be linked to you.

 

[martybegan]

Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.

We already do the same thing with fingerprints, all this does is extend the same thing to DNA profiling.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.

The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.

With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?

Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.

And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

Arraignment is not a sufficient safeguard. After conviction would be the best unless the police can, as they do now, get a warrant for the collection of the DNA.

 

[martybegan]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

Not sure what you mean, can you not determine genetic makeup by taking someone's DNA?

If your point was test related, doesn't this ruling set a dangerous precedent allowing for more detailed and accurate tests to be allowed in the future?

.

You are thinking of full genome sequencing, which is very expensive, and still does not reveal alot about a person without alot of (expensive) analysis.

We already set the precedent when we allowed fingerprints to be taken on arrest. DNA profiling is a higher tech version of that, nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.

The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.

With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?

Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.

And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

Arraignment is not a sufficient safeguard. After conviction would be the best unless the police can, as they do now, get a warrant for the collection of the DNA.

Then you would need a warrant for fingerprints as well, which is currently not the case.

 

[KevinWestern]

Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.

What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).

The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.

Not sure what you mean, can you not determine genetic makeup by taking someone's DNA?

If your point was test related, doesn't this ruling set a dangerous precedent allowing for more detailed and accurate tests to be allowed in the future?

.

You are thinking of full genome sequencing, which is very expensive, and still does not reveal alot about a person without alot of (expensive) analysis.

We already set the precedent when we allowed fingerprints to be taken on arrest. DNA profiling is a higher tech version of that, nothing more.

Don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but isn't it possible in the very near future (or even 10, 20 years from now) for full genome sequencing to be quick, simple and cheap and possible from a simple DNA collection allowed by this ruling?

.

.

 

[martybegan]

Not sure what you mean, can you not determine genetic makeup by taking someone's DNA?

If your point was test related, doesn't this ruling set a dangerous precedent allowing for more detailed and accurate tests to be allowed in the future?

.

You are thinking of full genome sequencing, which is very expensive, and still does not reveal alot about a person without alot of (expensive) analysis.

We already set the precedent when we allowed fingerprints to be taken on arrest. DNA profiling is a higher tech version of that, nothing more.

Don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but isn't it possible in the very near future (or even 10, 20 years from now) for full genome sequencing to be quick, simple and cheap and possible from a simple DNA collection allowed by this ruling?

.

.

Its always possible, but at that point there will be bigger problems. Refer to the movie GATTACA for a view on that with the addition of genetic manipulation of offspring.

 

[Spoonman]

I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot

of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened

 

[Spoonman]

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

If it's no different then why are they taking it ?

because it expands the scope of evidence collecting from a crime scene. With fingerprints you have to actually leave one behind, and gloves can take care of that. With DNA any scrap of hair, or bodily fluid leaves something beind that can be linked to you.

so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your dna is there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do

 

[martybegan]

If it's no different then why are they taking it ?

because it expands the scope of evidence collecting from a crime scene. With fingerprints you have to actually leave one behind, and gloves can take care of that. With DNA any scrap of hair, or bodily fluid leaves something beind that can be linked to you.

so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your dna is there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do

All it does is put you at the scene. DNA is usually not just collected from the whole area, but from things like articles of clothing (on the dead body) or bodily fluids like semen (found sometimes in the dead body). DNA evidence is not enough to convict, but its usually good at wrecking an alibi (i.e. I wasnt there).