DNA databases

[Lady Cop]

this was touched upon in another thread, what is your opinion on DNA databases?
i do not see it as a police state/big brother move. i see it as a crime-fighting tool, and an accurate one. no more invasive than fingerprints.
North Carolina is going to the next step today, DNA samples from certain arrested individuals, prior to conviction.

RALEIGH NC— Tuesday marks the first day of a new law that allows law enforcement to take DNA from arrestees, not just those convicted of a crime.

The new state law begins February 1 and requires officers to take DNA samples from anyone charged with assault on handicapped persons, stalking, or any felony.

Previously, samples were only obtained from convicted felons with blood. Now officers can swab the inside of someone's cheek to obtain DNA.

The samples will be sent to Raleigh for analysis and storage. They will be run against DNA taken from unsolved crimes to look for matches and stored to compare against evidence collected from crime scenes.

Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes previously said the extra effort will help solve a lot of cases.

The law requires a person's sample be automatically removed from the state's DNA database when the suspect is acquitted or charges are dismissed.

North Carolina's DNA database, which is maintained by the State Bureau of Investigation, currently contains more than 200,000 profiles and has helped solve more than 1,900 cases since its inception.

[Duchess]

I don't have a problem with it, of course that's easy for me to say since chances are it will never pertain to me. I don't have a problem with many things that bother other people, I just don't care. I care what's going on in my own lil' world & how it affects my life.

[Maggot]

DNA should be used like fingerprints, but I bet DNA will not be erased on a non-conviction. Fingerprints are still saved, DNA will end up being used the same way, never getting erased.

[Lady Cop]

i like a national database, because of serial killers, many of them travel. since they are usually stranger murders, it's helpful to have a connecting nexus.

[IMaDick]

My only problem with it in the other thread was the use of the phrase "Any Crime" that's too wide of a loop.

By the way, when a person talks about DNA and it's uses, the conversation should include the synthesis of that DNA, once a strand is developed it can be synthesised and reproduced.

The uses of reproduced DNA at this time scientifically are boundless both positive and negative.

The right person with the right motive could pretty much make anyone who's DNA is stored guilty of multiple crimes.

[Aberlin]

My only problem with it in the other thread was the use of the phrase "Any Crime" that's too wide of a loop.

By the way, when a person talks about DNA and it's uses, the conversation should include the synthesis of that DNA, once a strand is developed it can be synthesised and reproduced.

The uses of reproduced DNA at this time scientifically are boundless both positive and negative.

The right person with the right motive could pretty much make anyone who's DNA is stored guilty of multiple crimes.

I'm with you but people could also in theory plant your fingerprints at crime scenes all the same.

Its an invasion of privacy as Shitstorm said in another thread (great post btw), but I think it should be if you've committed certain crimes you get put in the database. This way someone kid who shoplifted doesn't have to get added in.

But like you said, then you have the issue of people planting DNA. I think it would need to be HIGHLY monitored with very strict access and ID verification processes to prove you are authorized to use the system. Along with that, every thing they do should be recorded and scrutinized.

Definitely a pain in the ass but its a thought.

[shitstorm]

this was touched upon in another thread, what is your opinion on DNA databases?
i do not see it as a police state/big brother move. i see it as a crime-fighting tool, and an accurate one. no more invasive than fingerprints.

Just to clarify, the poster in the other thread was suggesting that ALL people (as soon as they're born) get entered into a DNA data base. I agree with you on criminals, but not with her on doing so for everyone else.

I'm always shocked at how little people really understand the concepts behind the bill of rights. I chalk it up to lack of exposure and schools having an agenda other education. Once someone actually reads the thoughts of people like Founders, they usually see the wisdom.

[shitstorm]

Texas health officials secretly transferred hundreds of newborn babies' blood samples to the federal government to build a DNA database, a newspaper investigation has revealed.

According to The Texas Tribune, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) routinely collected blood samples from newborns to screen for a variety of health conditions, before throwing the samples out.

But beginning in 2002, the DSHS contracted Texas A&M University to store blood samples for potential use in medical research. (Your DNA belongs to you and you should be the only one to consent to such a thing. Even parents should never be allowed to make that decision for a minor child.) These accumulated at rate of 800,000 per year. The DSHS did not obtain permission from parents, who sued the DSHS, which settled in November 2009.

Now the Tribune reveals that wasn't the end of the matter. As it turns out, between 2003 and 2007, the DSHS also gave 800 anonymised blood samples to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) to help create a national mitochondrial DNA database (What the hell is the agenda, here???).

This came to light after repeated open records requests filed by the Tribune turned up documents detailing the mtDNA programme. Apparently, these samples were part of a larger programme to build a national, perhaps international, DNA database that could be used to track down missing persons and solve cold cases. (Bullshit on the warm fuzzy missing persons stuff. Something else is going on with this. They ALWAYS lie and spin things that are sinister into something for 'good'.)

Jim Harrington, the civil rights attorney who filed the blood spot lawsuit (pdf) last year on behalf of five Texas parents and who directs the Texas Civil Rights Project, suggests to the Tribune that the DSHS settled with the parents to avoid risking a court case that might have revealed the DNA database. "This explains the mystery of why they gave up so fast," he says. (NO! That isn't right. The database had already been uncovered and revealed. A trial would have exposed the REASON/AGENDA behind the program.)

Email exchanges (pdfs here and here) between state officials and Texas A&M, obtained by the Tribune, point to attempts to conceal efforts to use the DNA for any kind of research. The university had hoped to issue a press release detailing such efforts, but it acceded to the state's request to keep quiet. (See? They're hiding something.)

Why did the DSHS want to keep it a secret? The Tribune quotes one Texas health official's explanation:

"Genetic privacy is a big ethical issue & even though ... approval is required for use of the spots in most situations and great care is taken to protect the identity of the spots, a press release would most likely only generate negative publicity. (They weren't getting anybody's approval. They were obtaining samples under false pretenses (looking for childhood diseases) and then stealing the VALUABLE DNA.)

The fear of a negative reaction is understandandable. Concerns over genetic privacy are growing - for example a recent study found that even anonymous collections of DNA can potentially be traced back to individuals. However, the DSHS appears only to have handed over mitochondrial DNA, which is next to impossible to trace to individuals.

Handling public fears about genetic privacy is certainly tricky, but concealing such an affair is not the answer - and only increases public mistrust.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shorts...as-he.html

[shitstorm]

Secret DNA database in danger of breach (Busted, IOW)

Posted on 12 January 2010.

The Children’s University hospital in Temple Street, Dublin, has been the target of a theft of two computer servers back in 2007. They contained medical records of nearly 1 million patients, and the culprits (along with the servers) have never been discovered.

At the time, the investigators - Ireland's data protection commissioner and the gardai - decided that the hospital shouldn't inform the public about this incident, since the possibility of the thief accessing the data inside the servers was very slim.

According to Times Online, this incident would have remained hidden from the general public had it not been for another security issue that is currently being debated by the hospital, the DPC, the Health Service Executive and the Department of Health.

As it turns out, the hospital is in possession of 1.54 million blood samples took from almost every child born in Ireland since 1984, making them the keepers of a DNA database that for all purposes could be considered national.

The existence of this database was unknown to the public and to the data protection commissioner until a few weeks ago. So, now the question is: should the hospital be allowed to keep the samples even if the people whose samples they have want them destroyed - along with the personal information they are tied with?

The hospital claims that access to the information in the database was never given to law enforcement agencies, and has been used only 4 times by scientific researchers. (So, Ireland isn't claiming it's for LE and I call BULLSHIT on "only used four times". Liars.) Also, they say that the servers containing all this information are kept safe in a location where access is monitored and recorded, and protected by many locked doors.

According to the DCP, the hospital has definitely improved security after the 2007 breach. But, the decision about what to do with the database has still not been taken - discussions about the issue are going to take place this week.

http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8694


When the human genome project was started, I had suspicions that, in addition to any helpful medical discoveries it would bring about, there was a broader, hidden agenda behind it. I have not discovered what it is but my spidey sense says it has something to do with bloodlines of certain people. Something weird that I ran across was that the HGP was begun, in the US, under the auspices of the Department of Energy. WTF?