Conquer Club

DNA is largely considered to be the most consistently accurate form of evidence currently used. As such, it holds considerable value to law enforcement agencies throughout the modern world.

Previously focusing on convicted serious felony offenders such as rapists and murderers, in many places its use has spread to include anyone placed under arrest for any reason, a standard procedure similar to fingerprinting.
The United Kingdom National DNA Database was estimated as having 5,950,612 individuals registered by March 2012, nearly 10% of their population and growing by 30,000 each month since.

DNA evidence has not only been used to confirm guilt, but has also helped exonerate many wrongly accused inmates.
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/ ... th-penalty

On the other hand, critics bring up how DNA can potentially be used for discriminatory purposes, markers can indicate behavioral traits and disease risks.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court is holding a hearing on the constitutionality of DNA swabs; millions of entries could be destroyed, and thousands of cases could potentially be overturned.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172886713 ... nstitution

Germany made it mandatory for your dog to have its DNA gathered. The reason: Doggie doo in the park...that way they would test the pooh for whose ever dog it was and serve them a ticket for not picking up their dog's feces. However, I kind seen it as a precursor to see how well the DNA bank works with pets first...and then they will move it to humans.

Since Germany implemented Doggie DNA banks for tracking pooches, other countries have either followed suit or are thinking about following.

Really? If a dog craps in my yard, big effin deal. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!

Should DNA banks be used for citizens? That seems to be a privacy issue (at least in the United States...but lately it seems the Constitution is continually being shat on). If you want DNA from an individual...go get a search warrant! However, I am willing to bet that the "shadow government" has already been collecting DNA samples from the populace. The Soviets had entire office buildings wall-to-wall full of DNA material stored in glass jars. Just think of what the "shadow government" has collected by now and has stored on computer records.

They'll either gather it out right in the light of day, or they will gather it through clandestine means.

Eh I am with big brother on this one for some reason. Collecting DNA is fine, even for the whole population.

Sure there are some ways in which it could be used inappropriately, but the number of exploits are small and prone to error (Oh you gots the crazy gene son, no job for you), its a snapshot big brother (ie you cannot be tracked by DNA, DNA does not show your internet history, etc etc), and my support is conditional on correct anti-corruption and process transparency measure put in place.

I voted "felons only" but I'm undecided.

Is DNA - and DNA's unique code - your property even after it's separated from your body, like a limb? If so, then I think the right to bodily integrity trumps collecting DNA ... unless the person is a felon since we've already established conviction of a felony portends the loss of civil rights. (I didn't read the links so maybe this is already addressed.)

If it's not your property then I could probably be convinced that petty criminals and unconvicted arrestees could have DNA collected also.

I can't imagine I would support a situation in which every man, woman and child had to undergo a compulsory medical procedure, even if said procedure was as simple as a cheek swab.

I'm voting everyone, but not for law enforcement purposes. Completion of the human genome project could lead to great medical and other scientific advances.

BMO

1. Agreed with sax about ex-cons.
2. DNA collection for all if the information is recorded anonymously. (e.g. replacing Your Name with 394823059).
3. And of course it's cool in any voluntary situation. If the science was very sound, I wouldn't oppose insurance companies asking for your DNA sample before giving you a price.

CreepersWiener wrote:Really? If a dog craps in my yard, big effin deal. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!

Depends on where you live. I live in an apartment and there are tons of apartments right here. People walk their dog just to crap on the lawn of others. Since there are a lot of people and only a little bit of grass there are times when it is really not pleasant. Sometimes I sit by the window in the morning and yell, "Pick up your CRAP!"
I hope they don't have a gun, but they usually walk back and pick it up.

kentington wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:Really? If a dog craps in my yard, big effin deal. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!

Depends on where you live. I live in an apartment and there are tons of apartments right here. People walk their dog just to crap on the lawn of others. Since there are a lot of people and only a little bit of grass there are times when it is really not pleasant. Sometimes I sit by the window in the morning and yell, "Pick up your CRAP!"
I hope they don't have a gun, but they usually walk back and pick it up.

Well, there you go. As I said in my post. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!
You deal with it in your way. Yours happens to be confrontation of strangers. So now a DNA bank of everyone's dog is going to stop dogs from pooping? What if I poop in your friggin' yard? Hurry up and rush my shite to the human genome project?

I don't see why the majority of posters here are so quick to willingly let their DNA go to a DNA bank? If the DNA is being used for solving crimes, then call a judge, obtain a search warrant, and get your DNA sample. Oh yeah. The right to privacy doesn't exist anymore. Carry on.

BigBallinStalin wrote: If the science was very sound, I wouldn't oppose insurance companies asking for your DNA sample before giving you a price.

That makes baby socialist 2dimes cry.

2dimes wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: If the science was very sound, I wouldn't oppose insurance companies asking for your DNA sample before giving you a price.

That makes baby socialist 2dimes cry.

Tough titties.

(I'm not sure how having tough titties will affect your insurance rates, so don't ask).

I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Look the point of insurance is to spread the cost out so the healthy people chip in for unhealthy ones spreading out the cost. If you're just going to pay for what you get it's not insurance anymore.

Same as crashing your car. Without insurance that is expensive. With insurance it's expensive not crashing your car. GAH!

2dimes wrote:Look the point of insurance is to spread the cost out so the healthy people chip in for unhealthy ones spreading out the cost. If you're just going to pay for what you get it's not insurance anymore.

Same as crashing your car. Without insurance that is expensive. With insurance it's expensive not crashing your car. GAH!

Wat? The point of insurance is to pool resources for a voluntarily chosen group whose members may dip into the pool whenever something unexpected happens. Your particular price of insurance is best reflected by the decisions you make and by your genetic disposition (which is the "tough titties" of it).

Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. driving like a maniac) should increase the price of your insurance, which is why some insurance companies offer a program which installs a piece of hardware in your car that monitors thresholds that you may pass (e.g. accelerating way to quickly, stopping suddenly, and all that comes with driving like a maniac).

So having a genetically inferior liver picked up by a DNA test equals driving like a maniac*?


* By that we're talking 30 over the speed limit with a rum and coke in one hand and a cel phone in the other, right?

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Don't worry TGD, we'll just strap you down to extract it for our database.


--Andy

2dimes wrote:So having a genetically inferior liver picked up by a DNA test equals driving like a maniac*?


* By that we're talking 30 over the speed limit with a rum and coke in one hand and a cel phone in the other, right?

In no cases, sometimes.

BMO

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.

Rum and Coke isn't that maniacal. It starts getting maniacal somewhere around LSD but before nuclear waste water. From a mason jar.

Having never crashed driving under the influence of alcohol doesn't make it a good idea. I suspect you may have a point about driving on LSD but when the check stop guys pull people over they never ask about it. There is a new campaign about no looking at your crotch while driving because after they made it against the law to text and drive more people started crashing into things because they lowered their phone to hide instead of waiting until they are stopped. I've heard 25 in kilometers per hour is around the point where you'll be pulled over even if there isn't a radar thing going on to hand out tickets.

So while you're right if we are in the middle of Montana, Wyoming, either Dekotas or Nevada where there's less people to bother you or crash into we can ramp it up a bit. Here in the city they's gonna increase your rates for just getting tickets for the light stuff.

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.

And stupid for the sake of stupid is freedom. Whaddya know.

BMO

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.

Oh, you have guarantees from the government that they will not use your DNA to infringe upon your privacy? Good for you. I have no such agreements. And my government is in the process of putting drones in the sky to spy on... I mean protect my security.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.

And stupid for the sake of stupid is freedom. Whaddya know.

BMO

Oh you wiley old fox you!!

thegreekdog wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.

Oh, you have guarantees from the government that they will not use your DNA to infringe upon your privacy? Good for you. I have no such agreements. And my government is in the process of putting drones in the sky to spy on... I mean protect my security.

Thats a fair enough position. But that by itself does not imply the alternative position is facism, in fact my position of support was conditional that facism (or in my wording, corruption/opacity) was removed.

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

How does a DNA databank solve that problem?

If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.

thegreekdog wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

How does a DNA databank solve that problem?

If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.

No, you likely do not. "own" your DNA. The reason is because it takes technology and study to get the information and the one who generally "owns" information is the one getting the information, not the source of the information.

A fetus, to contrast is held wholly within and is entirely dependent upon the mother. Even so, its not "owned", but medical decisions rest with the thinking adult in the matter... but let's not get into yet another debate on that issue.

As a key example, there are several tribes (would have to google to get the exact information, not really important at this point), who were used to do various genetic studies and profiles of diseases, etc. People all over the world benefit from teh research, but they have no right to get any compensation. Similarly, some of the most popularly used cell lines came from a woman who may not have even been able to give consent, never mind if she actually did. She was a poor black woman and no one really cared... until some of her family found out.

Anyway, the legal basis of your argument is wrong. (ironic, though it is that I might know something of law that you don't). That argument may change, of course, but right now.. you really don't necessarily have the right to information obtained from your DNA.