Quantcast

Fed wants your DNA

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,847
0
Orange County, CA
next thing you know, ins. companies are going to give you quotes (or drop policies) based upon your driving record, or previous health issues, or lifestyles.
Y'know, for a guy permanently on thyroid medication, you're being awfully cavalier...

Of course, you're paid up with the Jesus insurance plan. So you have NOTHING to worry about... :rofl:
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
357
0
Virginia, USA
OK , This is a Slippery Slope , while I have never been arrested , the FBI has 4 sets of my Finger Prints already, I needed and Got a security Clearence, is this saying now that DNA will be required for that as well ?
No. This is a mandate for federal agencies to uniformly submit DNA samples that they were already taking to the FBI's CODIS database.

I don't think a DNA sample is going to give the feds much more info than the 29 pages I already gave them on my SF-86, credit report, local law enforcement agency check... All cross-referenced by polygraph, of course. My DNA won't tell them who my high school english teacher was, but they already know.

will they start taking a DNA sample , At Birth along with the Foot print ? it goes on and on.
Does your state file the footprint? Virginia puts it on a silly certificate that the parents take home with them...
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,417
472
chez moi
This is a more accurate fingerprint. If you weren't offended by the government taking people's fingerprints, you have no logical reason to oppose the taking of DNA. Period.

Edit: For you "Get a Warrant!" types, note that the DNA in question is sourced from people for whom PC (the standard for a warrant) has been established...namely, they're incarcerated or arrested.

It's more accurate and often more useful than fingerprinting. Accuracy means more guilty people convicted and more accused innocents acquitted.

I've been a proponent of filing a DNA sample with every birth certificate in the country to provide a positive means of linking an individual to a birth record. Too many people commit fraud using other people's birth records.

This is my own logic. The ONE thing I will note as a viable point for concern for others is that DNA can be analyzed in ways that fingerprints can't--showing proclivities for disease, mental illness, whatever. I don't see this as sinister, but I guess if you want to consider a Gattaca-type possibility, it's a concern.

So long as DNA is used as a means of identification, I have no problem with it. I don't see it being practically useful any other way, but wouldn't oppose legislation which made it illegal for the government to use DNA for any other purpose.