|
Perhaps unlike fingerprints, DNA can tell alot more about a person--and thus may fall under the principle of privacy? Apparently there's some precedent, where a famous judge cobbled together some constitutional principles and came up with a constitutional right to privacy.
I think the question will more likely be, would DNA collection amount to unreasonable search and seizure? Does a person have the right to privacy against people having DNA knowledge of them?
DNA, like finger prints are probably great indicators that an individual has been at a crime scene. However, they carry the excess baggage of medical information.
Perhaps in RFLP or whatever chain reactions they use these days to index DNA signatures doesn't reveal anything about a person's health.
However, unlike finger prints too, DNA can be planted much easier....
Just some thoughts. Sorry for the rant.
|