They just finished showing an update on America's Most Wanted for the murder of a girl who used to live in my town. They talked about a law that went into effect at the beginning of this year which requires felons to give a DNA sample upon their arrest instead of waiting for conviction. It was also stated that the girl's family is working on getting similar laws passed in other states.

The details of the law and the case surrounding its formation are here: http://www.katieslaw.org/index.html

What I want to know is if you have a similar law in your state and what you think about it. Should people arrested for felonies be required to give DNA? Or is it infringing on rights? Is it a good preventive measure?

Uh, I'm all for everyone giving their DNA to a national repository. At the very least, junk segments so you can ID people, but not let everyone know that they're probably going to have heart disease (insurance would kinda not be nice there).

Because the government is completely trustworthy and awesome and would never abuse the trust of the people by using such information in a way other then intended.

Like Wiretapping.

And Carnivore.

And secret prisons.

Never abuse our trust.

...Carnivore?

How would they abuse it?

"Oh ho ho! We, the secret evil Government DNA Bureau, are going to utilise our cosmic power to tell people who their fathers are!

MWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

I'm thinking something more along the lines of taking DNA evidence and planting it on crime scenes to frame innocents for the sake of convinience.

Worst/almost-worst case scenario, I'm sure, but these things might happen.

As near as I know theres a similar law in effect. They took a DNA sample when I was arrested in 2004.

Wouldn't the DNA samples be too small/old too be used to frame someone Iye?

I dunno, I wuz just speculating.

If they can't frame someone, they can't honestly ID him, either.

The idea is you get DNA samples, take the junk segments (the parts that don't actually effect your phenotypes, and which are the best for ID purposes for a few reasons), and then you store this information on a computer. Then when you find DNA at a crime scene, you use the same method to get the information, then run a search on the database.

And if the government wants to frame somebody for some diabolical reason, they don't need DNA. If it's the US, just call the guy a terrorist and arrest him indefinitely; if it's somewhere else, just plant a different kind of evidence.

Short version: It's like wiretapping, only it records e-mail.

Long version: It's a program installed at ISPs and lans, by court order, that is supposed to track any email that triggers whatever the search criteria is in the warrant. While in theory this should only catch e-mails of a specific intent, the worry by civil liberties groups is that since all e-mail passes through this program, it could be recording anything the FBI wants it to.

"Hmm, wait a minute, we filed some of this data wrong. Because of that, over a thousand DNA samples were incorrectly filed, and a dozen people went to jail who were innocent. Who knew that computers could have database errors?!"

There are, of course, other more fantastic uses for a system that has everyone's DNA on file, but I'll hold off on those ones until after we start seeing Death Squads and Hunter-Killer robots.

That would be a problem with DNA evidence at all. Or any kind of evidence.

Plus, there's the whole

"But your honour, I wasn't even in the same city. Look, here, have some of my hair/a mouth swab/some blood and double-check the whole thing."

"Ok."

And so, Bob Innocent had his name cleared.

Considering the idea is only use DNA that doesn't code for anything, the only possible use is IDing and paternity and stuff. I don't see many fantastical uses for those.

If you are going to redo all the DNA on the area by area method anyway, why bother with some sort of massive DNA database in the first place, since the local system is pretty much what we do now?

So you can get leads in the first place. Since it can hopefully presumed that less than half of the records will be wrong, there will be a net benefit. If there's any reason to believe there's systematic error, of course take new samples to prevent false positives, but with the exception of people who got their records mixed up with people not at the scene, you'll at least get good leads nice and quickly.

So how do you get the DNA of everyone in the US?

And what happens when illegal immigrants commit crimes?

How do you account for people willfully ducking giving their DNA?

Or, lastly, not leaving DNA evidence behind?

I see no reason to give the government this information, and there seem to be enough flaws that I don't think it would help as much as it seems.

Get samples when they're born or when they immigrate? Get samples whenever they get a driver's license or an ID, or something like that.

Alternately, round them up and steal all their blood!

Then we don't get the easy lead? Oh well.

If it's a mandatory thing, then treat it like tax evasion or something. If it's not mandatory, then that's not a problem.

Then we don't get the easy lead? Oh well.

So that if you commit a crime, it makes it easier for them to find you as a suspect!

I would be alright with a voluntary database set up like this, where people can voluntarily head to a police station or something to add their DNA to the database. However, I've been under the assumption of some sort of mandatory database, and in that case it isn't alright. I don't believe in arresting people, or punishing people, that just don't like the idea of their DNA being on file.

National fugitives. It's hard to go area by area when the dude's hopping states.

I'll ask you this:
What makes this worse than a fingerprint?

Remember, even if only a fraction of a fingerprint sample is still recognizable (dont remember the %) a person can be IDed by fingerprints. Fingerprints are required for things as simple as cashing checks, this law is only taking DNA samples of people arrested for felony level crimes.

We live in the information age, "there is no such thing as privacy" (quote: one of the presidents of SUN company). This is just another way to categorize someone, and trace elements like hair can be very difficult to not leave behind at a crime scene. Besides, to my knowlege DNA cannot be the only evidence used to convict someone since it IS easy to plant someone else's hair and it can easily become circumstantial evidence.

It doesn't matter whether they like it or not. You just fine the guys who don't do it. :P

Apparently your bank is Big Brother United, all they want from me when I cash a check is photo ID.

Then again, I use cash everywhere I go, except for paying tuition at school, so it doesn't crop up much.

And it's actually a good size percentage. If I recall correctly, it's 30/40%, but it needs to be from a certain part of the finger, otherwise they still can't match it to a legal degree of accuracy.

Well if it became mandatory, sign me up for the first bus out of here, 'cause I'm not doing it, and I'm not paying fines for it.

I don't see why FZ considers the DNA to be such an abusable thing for the government to have. They already have, in the US, your Social Security number and your signature. They already could raise hell with your life just from what they have.

They're just talking about if you get arrested for certain crimes.

I'm behind it, myself. But then again, I'd seen Katie around. I hadn't known her personally, but I knew her face even before she was in the papers after her murder.

...You really don't want to hear about someone getting raped, strangled and then set on fire and be told "Oh hey, we can't catch him cause he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so his DNA's not on file."

Best of all, he was still in the area and free to do unto others what he'd done to Katie.

If he'd been required to give his DNA after he'd been arrested for a different crime, they would have caught him then instead of four years later. I can definitely see why her parents wanted it passed.

It's not even entirely the government having it. If I was accused of something, and DNA would acquit me, I'd do it, knowing that it would go into some sort of database and never entirely vanish. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it.

But I don't like the national government demanding it. I believe strongly in government interfering as little as possible with regular citizens, and that crosses a line if you make it punishable to not give up that information.

They already demand your name, location of residence, how much you earn, and a whole bunch of other things for tax reason. And those are like actually important bits of info, unlike strings of junk DNA.

Plus, if you want an emotional reason, look at Mato's example. If everyone's DNA was on file, they would've almost certainly IDed the perpetrator.

They would ID the perp.

And Katie would still be dead.

Not only that, but they might not have even caught the guy immediately. Maybe it would turn him into a spree killer, in which case the deaths would start coming faster and faster since he knew it was a matter of time before being caught. The DNA only tells them who it is, not everything about him like where to find him, and if he changes vehicles it doesn't even tell them what vehicle he drives. Having DNA isn't a situation where the case is over and everyone lived happily ever after, criminals identified by DNA still go on to do horrible things before being caught.

And all those things are changeable, even your name. Maybe you want to start a new life, so from one year to the next, you move, sell your car, get a new job, and change your name. For all intents and purposes, you're a new person. But DNA never changes.

Oh.

Well, you got me there. The victim's always still dead. Guess we shouldn't bother with any murder trials, since they don't bring the victims back.

Wanna try again? :P

It's a possibility, true. So's the possibility of him going on a killing spree without the DNA 'cause he knows he's unidentifiable. So's him, either way, realising the error of his ways, moving to Mexico, and living a life of great justice as repentance. So all of these are useless maybes.

True, but it's a really nice help.

Ok, so Mr. Crazy who changes his ID for no reason every year is known by the government. Since the government's in charge of name changes (it's a judicial thing), they'd know this anyway. And since the DNA's only brought up under criminal investigation, it's not likely to matter unless Mr. Crazy is at a crime scene.

((... snare drum giveaway ad??))

*cough*

While it's true that all the information out there is more than enough to royally fuck you up, and if the government REALLY want to do a job on you, you AIN'T getting away from it. Period.

BUT on the other side of the coin, I see where FZ is coming from. I don't want the government to order me to to give them anything more than they already do.

That said, if it's to cooperate in an investigation, THEN I have no problem. Hell, when I worked at a credit union, an employee made off with 500 bucks from the vault. EVERYone was questioned and printed.

But again, I see where FZ is coming from. I've said before I don't like where I see things going. I completely prefer government non-interference... y'know, like in the Constitution.

...Okay, here's what happened.

I don't see a problem with it, I don't see how the government could fuck with you more, with some DNA samples, then they could with half the other shit they have about you.

Unless of course, the Government has secretly already perfected cloning and plans on using this DNA to replace key individuals with new clone-servants.

I know this isn't serious, but for the third time (I think), you don't give the entire genome. You give them a segment or few of junk DNA.

Everyone knows that evil cloning governments don't need the whole genome!

FZ is doing a good job of playing devil's advocate here.

When you get arrested for a serious crime the police will take your picture and your print, the best forms of Identification with the technology of last century. Now DNA is another viable form of ID - a helluva LOT more reliably than appearances.

Remember this isn't about infringing on the rights of innocent citizens, its about taking a sample of someone who commited a crime and will likely have a trial and jail time because of it, and most criminals are repeat offenders so this will help link them to other crimes they may have commited, like the one that this issue is about.

No, I believe this is about having a databank BEFORE they commit a crime, so we can identify them without them first being around.

Before being convicted, after being arrested. Looks like we diverged quite a bit half a page in.

That's exactly it. It'll help future crimes and help solve crimes they couldn't in the past because they had to wait for the felon to get convicted. The only DNA on record would be people who get arrested. For felons.

I don't really see how taking samples from people who have been arrested is any different than fingerprinting, which is already part of the processing procedure.

So I say go for it.

Because you can destory your finger prints so you never leave them again.

What they did in MIB doesn't really work...

Works for a little while. I remember having a flat spot on my finger where I burned it. It got better, but there was no fingerprint mark there for a while.