National DNA database?

[xepherys]

Link Here (Washington Post)

Originally Posted by From the Article

Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested

By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 24, 2005; A03

Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.

The controversial measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data are stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes.

Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly.

"When police retrace the history of a serial predator after he is finally caught, they often find that he never had a prior criminal conviction, but did have a prior arrest," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in a statement. "That means the only way they are likely to catch such a perpetrator after his first crime -- rather than his 10th -- is if authorities can maintain a comprehensive database of all those who are arrested, just as we do with fingerprints."

Privacy advocates across the political spectrum say the proposal is another step in expanding government intrusion.

"DNA is not like fingerprinting," said Jesselyn McCurdy, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It contains genetic information and information about diseases." She added that the ACLU questions whether it is constitutional to put data from those who have not been convicted into a database of convicted criminals.

The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved.

Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics.

"This clearly opens the door to all kinds of race- or ethnic-based stops" by police, said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital policy think tank.

Originally, the federal DNA database was limited to convicted sex offenders, who often repeat their crimes. Then it was expanded to include violent felons. Several states, including Virginia, also collect DNA from those arrested for violent crimes.

"It's a classic mission-creep situation," said Jim Harper, a privacy specialist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "These guys are playing a great law and order game . . . and in the process creating a database that could be converted into something quite dangerous."

Typically, DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva. A DNA "profile" -- or unique numeric signature -- is generated, which can be stored without including private genetic information.

But privacy advocates say they are unclear how the growing number of state and federal samples are being handled, recorded and secured.

The Kyl measure was added to a bill to strengthen penalties for violent acts against women and was approved without a roll-call vote. McCurdy said she hopes that negotiations among Judiciary Committee members result in changes before the legislation is voted on by the Senate.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[xepherys]

Now, personally I don't see this as being such a big deal. I orignally read the story on Slashdot which, of course, had a lot of comments regarding invasion of privacy and loss of rights and such. One person even compared it to the US PATRIOT act, which I think is ridiculous. The US PATRIOT act is an afront to American freedom, and the writers and supporters of the bill, IMHO, should be tried for treason.

At any rate, a national or global DNA database has so many benefits that it easily outweighs and realistically possible abuses.


a) Use in solving crimes (including pre-existing crimes) could be amazing. Fingerprints slightly change over years, and can be removed (acid) or hidden (gloves). DNA, currently, cannot be changed (except by extreme medical conditions such as Chimerae Syndrome and even then it isn't really changing, per se).

b) This is much different than fingerprints, is not really much more abusable, and is far more sophisticated and accurate.

c) One person on /. mentioned that a national DNA database could be used psuedo-anonymously be researchers and if something was noticed, like a high risk of alzheimers, the DNA owner could be notified in an automated fashion (thus psuedo-anon) about the condition so as not to be blindsided.

d) Also mentioned on /. that insurance companies, as long as they were not legally allowed to discriminate against potentially less healthy people, could hedge their money correctly, and possibly lower health care costs while also still turning a damned good profit. If used properly, this could be good for us all.

e) Extensive genetics research could be done if non-specific donor information was stored with the sampling. Race, age, origin, parents DNA (for heredity) and such on a large scale like that could help genetics really launch forward.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by xepherys

d) Also mentioned on /. that insurance companies, as long as they were not legally allowed to discriminate against potentially less healthy people, could hedge their money correctly, and possibly lower health care costs while also still turning a damned good profit. If used properly, this could be good for us all.

Let me play devil's advocate here and ask why insurance companiies shouldn't be able to use the DNA (genetic) information to determine insurability and rate structure? Don't they discriminate already? My wife's life insurance costs less than mine for example.

Or to put it another way, why shouldn't people with higher risk pay more?

[xepherys]

Well, I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't, only that the government, for the well being of its people, need to enact laws that protect the individual regarding such data. Sure, they discriminate already. They also lie. They also have various industry components in their pockets. Remember, in America, insurance is a business, not a social benefit. If they were allowed to, they'd misuse the hell out of it.

[flstf]

I'm well aware that insurance is a big business in this country and the lack of privacy in having our DNA on record goes against my sense of having big brother know everything about us.

But I have a problem with requiring insurance companies to turn a blind eye to information regarding our insurability. If they can determine that I have a 50% chance of dieing before I'm 40 and you only have a .001% chance then it seems only fair that they should be able to charge you less for life and health insurance.

Of course maybe we should just nationalize the insurance industry and treat everyone like they have the same genetic makeup and risk.