PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 So, was the dude who licked the envelope guilty? Isn't it a good thing he was caught? Again, he gave up saliva - not "DNA". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Some people don't want the govt. to have access to a lot of the stuff that DNA can tell or will be able to tell soon. What, exactly, is this information that the gov't can gleen from DNA that you don't want them to know? A predisposition towards breast cancer? Blue eyes? Who cares! The sooner you give up the illusion of privacy, the happier you'll be. The government, or pretty much anyone, can learn pretty much anything they want about you already. Big whoop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmuja Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Besides, why should "arrest" be the criteria for suspicion? Many people get arrested all the time who arnt guilty of anything! Should people who protest and practice civil disobedience be more suspicious than the general population? What about "minorities"? They get arrested more often then non-minorities so why should they be disproportionally suspected or singled out for DNA matching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 What about "minorities"? They get arrested more often then non-minorities so why should they be disproportionally suspected or singled out for DNA matching? Umm, I'm pretty sure they get arrested more often because they commit crimes more often. Which seems a pretty good reason to disproportionally suspect them... You know who are really disporportionally singled out? MEN. And good thing, since men commit pretty much all violent crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I read a short online article a couple of weeks ago about convicts' DNA getting used for something fishy--tracking their siblings. The logic was that crime tends to run in families (the article mentioned that they don't know if its a genetic thing or if its the way kids are raised, etc). The article mentioned that cops were interested in keeping track of siblings of cons. Anyone else read this? I can't remember where I saw it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 What does that mean, specifically - "tracking their siblings"? How is DNA going to help with this in any way. I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I mean, if I'm arrested and they take my DNA, how does that help them track down my siblings or keep track of them? It makes no sense. Wouldn't it be easier to use my last name and birth place to find my siblings? How the hell would they track them down using DNA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Take a breath. Right now I am just asking for help to track down the fucking article. Christ on a stick you are all riled up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmuja Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 So we should target and arrest more black people then? Catching the guilty is indeed a "good" thing. But, do you think that DNA's perceived infallibility might also be that much harder for someone who is innocent to fight against? I have known cops, judges, prosectors and I don't hold them in such high esteem as you seem to. In fact, I'll take the "ethics" of about 1/3 of those behind bars over many in the injustice system any day of the week. You should re-read my comments above which already pointed out some of my (and others) objections to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 So we should target and arrest more black people then? I'm pretty sure we already do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 You should re-read my comments above which already pointed out some of my (and others) objections to this I've ready your objections. I just don't find them credible. Basically, they seem like paranoid delusions, but maybe that's just me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Siblings have very similar DNA. Although you could not use a sibling's DNA to conclusively prove that someone committed a crime, you could compare DNA found at a crime scene to DNA in a databank and determine that the DNA in question belonged to a close relative of the person in the databank. --damn that sentence is way too long-- This could certainly narrow the list of suspects or at least provide a lead. that said, i'm completely opposed to a DNA databank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmuja Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 I think they should just sample people who eat a Mcdonalds, mostly low income, a lot of minorities, bound to be a higher proportion of criminals there. Yeah. PLC, its just you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Siblings have very similar DNA. Although you could not use a sibling's DNA to conclusively prove that someone committed a crime, you could compare DNA found at a crime scene to DNA in a databank and determine that the DNA in question belonged to a close relative of the person in the databank. --damn that sentence is way too long-- This could certainly narrow the list of suspects or at least provide a lead. that said, i'm completely opposed to a DNA databank. Take that PLC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gambo Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 For year’s members of Govt agencies such as CIA, FBI and military have provided their DNA samples for identification purposes – That’s OK but to gather DNA from the general public. that’s wack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Take what? That example just shows how a DNA database would allow them to narrow down a list of subjects to the relatives of someone in the database. Isn't that a good thing? And I still don't see what that has to do with "tracking" anyone. If they want to find those siblings, the DNA is not going to help. They still need to track them down using all the other standard databases out there - like the phone book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Yeah, it's so easy to find the siblings of somebody named Jones, Smith, Chen, or Wong using a phone book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 "Yeah, it's so easy to find the siblings of somebody named Jones, Smith, Chen, or Wong using a phone book." How does having their DNA make it any easier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmuja Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 PLC its been pointed out more than once why its "not a good thing" over all. You seem to be stuck on a narrow way of looking at it. I'll say it staight out, no, the end doesn't justify the means. Thats where we differ. The government/justice system is well capable of misuse and abuse, either you recognize that fact or you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 "Yeah, it's so easy to find the siblings of somebody named Jones, Smith, Chen, or Wong using a phone book." How does having their DNA make it any easier? maybe you should read the Wikipedia article on DNA or some other entry-level article for the lay person, so you can understand what we're talking about here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The government has a long track record of misusing, losing, and corrupting personal data. Just last year the personal information (SSN, etc) of 25 million veterans was lost when a Vets Admin employee's house was burglarized. The No Fly lists are infamous for flagging the wrong people due to mispelled names, etc. Many legal immigrants faced deportation because they never received a hearing notice that the government ginned up in the paranoia following 911 (the gov's address database was horrificly inaccurate). On top of this, government database systems, are typically old, difficult to maintain, and unreliable from chronic underfunding. Then there is deliberate abuse, such as planting evidence, which is unfortunately common according to my brother, a public defender, and a friend who is a prosecutor. DNA is one of the most compelling types of evidence out there, so the temptation for law enforcement officials who want to further their careers by padding their track record to plant this type of evidence is high. Given all this, I would want the government to handle as little of my personal information as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 maybe you should read the Wikipedia article on DNA or some other entry-level article for the lay person, so you can understand what we're talking about here. I'm pretty sure I understand DNA - at least a lot better than you, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I worry about the misuse of the DNA information in a criminal proceeding but I also have other concerns. Perhaps we nationalize healthcare. Even if we don't consider the patients whose care is funded by medicare/medicaid. If the government has DNA info in a database, how long before they start using for non-criminal issues such as healthcare decisions or premiums. "i'm sorry mr. smith, your dna shows that you're predisposed as a heart attack risk, you're not eligible to receive those services b/c you're going to die early anyway" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Agreed. And PLC, the word "track" was not used in the context you are using it. DNA obviously can't tell you where a person is. Just where they were. Someone else must have read this article! It bugs me that I didn't save it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 that post was simplified for PLC, who clearly does NOT understand DNA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.