|
|
Post by Baltimore on Apr 11, 2005 17:28:26 GMT -6
www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/countycollects8.htmI'd like to see some discussion on the collection of DNA, used as a permanent database? Not just for felons. I know I'm naive about this, but I'm thinking, if a crime could be solved by my DNA, I'd give it. A whole bucket full. This is right up there with the baby footprints deal. Ultimately, were I ruled out--maybe one day I'll be in some ditch, and that's how I'd be identified! I see both sides...and it puzzles me greatly! 
|
|
|
|
Post by fmk on Apr 11, 2005 17:40:39 GMT -6
If you don't mind me asking... what baby footprint deal ? I only ask as my own birth certificate has that ..its not a new thing by any means
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Apr 12, 2005 8:31:37 GMT -6
I have no problem with a national DNA database being set up. I would support any law that requires the whole of the UK putting their DNA on file.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2005 18:03:47 GMT -6
It should be required for criminals and if someone wants to volunteer their DNA, fine. Making it mandatory for everyone would be a no go. In some ways it is the ultimate fingerprint, but on the other side DNA can be used to tell a lot about you. Any genetic disorders, genes, etc that many people would feel uncomfortable about the government knowing about them. Your DNA tells most of the story of who you are. There have to be controls on how it is used.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 29, 2005 14:24:41 GMT -6
It should be required for criminals and if someone wants to volunteer their DNA, fine. Making it mandatory for everyone would be a no go. In some ways it is the ultimate fingerprint, but on the other side DNA can be used to tell a lot about you. Any genetic disorders, genes, etc that many people would feel uncomfortable about the government knowing about them. Your DNA tells most of the story of who you are. There have to be controls on how it is used. I see nothing wrong with collecting DNA from all people so that we have a national database that accurately identifies everyone. There are ways of keeping such information secure. You could cross reference the DNA records of one database to names in another database stored elsewhere. Law enforcement could use the information to quickly rule out suspects and concentrate on other, more promising leads. |
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on Apr 29, 2005 22:52:47 GMT -6
I believe that people should only donate DNA when they are a convicted violent felon, and when they are reasonably suspected of committing a crime, and only then.
People should still have a right to privacy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2005 16:11:17 GMT -6
When the information is there, people have a great temptation to find a way to use it. If someone wants to donate, fine, but if you're not a criminal, then you should and are free to refuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 1, 2005 17:31:51 GMT -6
Refusing a DNA sample makes you look like you have something to hide. That's why the ACLU doesn't want voluntary DNA sweeps, either.
If everyone had to give DNA, then everyone would have a stake in what was done to the information.
The risk to privacy is more than worth taking in order to solve crimes, and would probably have some deterrent effect as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2005 21:12:40 GMT -6
I don't find that invasion acceptable to be forced upon all citizens. I think you would see a very large coalition of liberal and conservative groups that would fight against that kind of invasion of privacy. Even fingerprints are not required of all citizens, even though it is less invasive.
Not to mention that it would be ruled unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dea on May 3, 2005 13:01:17 GMT -6
It should be required for criminals and if someone wants to volunteer their DNA, fine. Making it mandatory for everyone would be a no go. In some ways it is the ultimate fingerprint, but on the other side DNA can be used to tell a lot about you. Any genetic disorders, genes, etc that many people would feel uncomfortable about the government knowing about them. Your DNA tells most of the story of who you are. There have to be controls on how it is used. I agree about the DNA potentially being used against you. It's the "Big Brother" fear in me I suppose. However, I see no reason why convicted felons should not have their DNA recorded right along with their fingerprints and photo. We don't all volunteer to give our fingerprints to the government, do we? So I don't really see the need for DNA submissions by the general public. |
|
