![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jack Webb never dreamed of this...
Interesting segment on tonight's 60 MInutes on "DNA dragnets." The idea is to ask people to "voluntarily" give up DNA samples so that they may be compared against DNA collected at a crime scene.
The "pro" argument: innocent people have nothing to fear.
The "con" argument: it violates civil liberties and has the potential for massive abuse.
The argument against the "con" position: there are mechanisms in place to prevent massive abuse (laws preventing DNA collected in a criminal investigation to be used for other purposes), and innocent people have nothing to fear.
Laws can be changed. At one time, states laughed off the idea that they might ever sell data from their driver license databases, telling critics they described as "paranoid" that the idea was ludicrous and citing regulations that prevented such misuses from occurring.
Of course, today, now that everyone but a "lunatic fringe" is cool with the idea that driver license databases must contain not only name and address, but also a photograph, SSN, and often a fingerprint, several states routinely make their driver license databases available for a variety of governmental purposes not directly related to making sure that people are qualified to drive on the road. Too, if I am not mistaken, some states also sell such data to private-sector marketing firms (South Carolina comes to mind here as either a current offender, or one that had to give up this source of revenue as a result of public outcry).
Personally, I think Morley Safer did a very lukewarm job of presenting the civil libertarian position on this issue. The talking head they got to attack DNA dragnets sounded like he had little more to stand on than some fuddy-duddy legal tradition.
If citizens must give up their DNA "voluntarily" or else become suspects in criminal investigations (or victims of intimidation), then the Fourth Amendment - the one that goes, roughly, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." - means nothing.
If innocents have nothing to fear by allowing the State to take samples their bodily fluids on demand, then certainly they must have nothing to fear by allowing the State to search their persons, their premises, or effects on the same basis.
Don't expect people like Bush or Gore to help protect your privacy... their track records show a consistent and accelerating animosity toward the concept of privacy.
Cheers...
The "pro" argument: innocent people have nothing to fear.
The "con" argument: it violates civil liberties and has the potential for massive abuse.
The argument against the "con" position: there are mechanisms in place to prevent massive abuse (laws preventing DNA collected in a criminal investigation to be used for other purposes), and innocent people have nothing to fear.
Laws can be changed. At one time, states laughed off the idea that they might ever sell data from their driver license databases, telling critics they described as "paranoid" that the idea was ludicrous and citing regulations that prevented such misuses from occurring.
Of course, today, now that everyone but a "lunatic fringe" is cool with the idea that driver license databases must contain not only name and address, but also a photograph, SSN, and often a fingerprint, several states routinely make their driver license databases available for a variety of governmental purposes not directly related to making sure that people are qualified to drive on the road. Too, if I am not mistaken, some states also sell such data to private-sector marketing firms (South Carolina comes to mind here as either a current offender, or one that had to give up this source of revenue as a result of public outcry).
Personally, I think Morley Safer did a very lukewarm job of presenting the civil libertarian position on this issue. The talking head they got to attack DNA dragnets sounded like he had little more to stand on than some fuddy-duddy legal tradition.
If citizens must give up their DNA "voluntarily" or else become suspects in criminal investigations (or victims of intimidation), then the Fourth Amendment - the one that goes, roughly, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." - means nothing.
If innocents have nothing to fear by allowing the State to take samples their bodily fluids on demand, then certainly they must have nothing to fear by allowing the State to search their persons, their premises, or effects on the same basis.
Don't expect people like Bush or Gore to help protect your privacy... their track records show a consistent and accelerating animosity toward the concept of privacy.
Cheers...
no subject
no subject
But there's not much you can do with a fingerprint, as compared with DNA. Someday, I shall post an appropriate rant on the subject.
Cheers...