Obama wants your DNA
I am not a DNA sequence. I am a person.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
.
Not invasive? It's like an anal probe on a genetic level! Okay, maybe not. I think just the idea of the government taking DNA samples of people has a creepy feel to it, though. But probably the idea of the government taking everyone's fingerprints was weird at first, too.
.
Not every one who gets arrested is guilty. Innocent until proven otherwise still stands, no? Nor are people necessarily arrested for capitol offenses; i.e. protesters. So when normal people realize that voting alone does not make a democracy, they should be out getting arrested for protesting.
oh no, please don't violate my DNA.
Don't worry, I won't, but wouldn't it be completely legal if I wanted to? In other words, I could take a sample of your DNA from perhaps something you drank out of and then threw away, have it analyzed, and then, I dunno, post it on the web. It would be legal to do this, right? There's no privacy laws covering this...or are there?
when you're arrested, you're fingerprinted, and in theory, if you spit on the floor you're in the system anyway. what harm is it that if you're arrested you have to have a sample taken? it would solve a lot of problems. as of now it is nowhere near 'orwellian'. when it gets that far, if it gets that far, then you can get your asses in a pucker.
www.triplebeard.com
http://darkroomreview.blogspot.com
“...There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one's head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people's pain. You ought to have some apprehension that the man you see before you was once even younger than you are now and arrived at his present wretchedness by imperceptible degrees.”
-James Baldwin
It's easy to view this as a slippery slope argument. They take the DNA of convicted rapists, and the next thing you know, you have to give a blood sample to push the button to cross the street and the government sends jackbooted thugs after you to make sure you're not jaywalking!
But, really, I have few qualms about convicted criminals being required to give DNA samples. It would help tremendously in solving cold cases as well as exonerating people who are innocent of crimes where they've been wrongly convicted.
And after that it's the movie Gattaca.
Obviously, the right to privacy is not a major concern in these days of webcams and facebook and GPS tracking and security cameras and online searches and background checks and drug testing, etc. But let me quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would willingly trade their freedoms for security find they end up with neither."
Don't worry, I won't, but wouldn't it be completely legal if I wanted to? In other words, I could take a sample of your DNA from perhaps something you drank out of and then threw away, have it analyzed, and then, I dunno, post it on the web. It would be legal to do this, right? There's no privacy laws covering this...or are there?
it would be weird but whatever. the goverment isn't full of evil robots here to enslave us and put us away in giant filing cabinets.
Yes you are?
Bill Clinton started this years ago with that one girl.
It always starts with a single person.
wait, that would have been his DNA.... nevermind...
the goverment isn't full of evil robots here to enslave us and put us away in giant filing cabinets.
That's what THEY want you to think! I think they've already gotten to you!
Security cameras all over coupled with increasingly sophisticated face recognition software is especially scary. Once it gets sophisticated enough, a computer can keep a database record on all your comings and goings, which will be recorded automatically, and someone can look up all that information just by typing in your name.
"Where were you on the night of the 27th, Mr. Ranton?" says the police officer. "Oh, wait a second, I don't have to ask you, I can just ask the computer."
WSJ article: On the Merits of a National DNA Database
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/15/on-the-merits-of-a-national-dna-data...
NYT op-ed,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15seringhaus.html?hp=&pagewant...
But isn't the issue that, to at least some degree, who I am is my DNA? It wouldn't be, to use a term in the article, "tremendously invasive" if it wasn't, right?