What is Digg?97 Comments
- allocate, on 01/02/2009, -0/+32I just finished a biotech class mainly focused on policy: It's very well-established that the government can collect DNA (for database purposes) from felons (even non-violent ones) so this holding isn't surprising.
In fact, the laws are extending to convictions for lesser crimes and, my professor surmises, possibly even arrestees in the future.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but you should at least know that the DNA isn't usually stored. Certain parts of the genome are sampled because it's generally agreed that those markers contain no genetic information beyond semi-random repetition of bases (for statistical analysis purposes). - bongfarmer, on 01/03/2009, -2/+31I'm going to start claiming anything I don't want to do is "tantamount to laying the foundation for the rise of the anti-Christ."
- chupavacas, on 01/02/2009, -10/+33On religious grounds... yes that's a stretch. But on unalienable rights grounds, no. The government should not be able to collect DNA from anyone, including prisoners if they do not have a reasonable reason for doing so. Collecting DNA information amounts to a "search" and the Constitution prohibits that unless the government has a warrant. If we don't start waking up to what the Bill of Rights is all about then we're going to find ourselves in shackles before too long.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -2/+24I don't know, conflicted on the issue. Though I do tend to think with government you give them an inch, and they want your; AV, dignity, tax revenue, first born, testicles, loyalty, support, and even respect, and I'm just not comfortable with submitting all that....
- agentbob, on 01/02/2009, -0/+12from what I know the technique used is comparable to fingerprinting - they don't take away your fingertips, they just take images of them for future reference.
- theberlindoctor, on 01/02/2009, -5/+17Its fun when god battles with government!
- ansatsu29, on 01/02/2009, -0/+11Thank you for sharing that interesting point of yours.
- gkskillz, on 01/03/2009, -0/+11Your argument has been used in a number of arguments for shrinking civil liberties. Who cares if my phone is tapped, if I have nothing to hide? Or who cares if we torture enemy combatants and violate habeas corpus, if I'm not the enemy? Would living in a police state really be all that bad if I had nothing to hide? The answer to these questions is that the power given to the police state can easily be abused.
To use your DNA example; what if the eugenics movement had access to the genetic material (DNA) of everyone, and wanted to say, prevent the breeding of all people with a certain trait, they could use the vast amount of data in their compulsory sterilization programs. Now it might seem a little far fetched, but let me remind you that these programs did exist in the early 1900s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilizat ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Just because you have not broken the law does not mean the information collected can not be used against you, which is why the 4th amendment exists, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure. In the case of convicted criminals, you can argue that there is reason to seize their DNA, and that this does not violate the 4th amendment, but you cannot make that case against ordinary citizens.
A video explaining the negative aspects to a police state can be found seen here.
http://www.huesforalice.com/bbs/ - PhantomPhoenix, on 01/03/2009, -5/+16The guy has already been convicted. It would be different if they were taking DNA samples at his front door in the middle of the night without a warrant.
I'm all for the Bill of Rights, and a strong supporter of the ACLU, but your logic is flawed. Did you not read the article, or even the Digg description? - temsi, on 01/03/2009, -3/+14Mugshots, finger prints, hair on a pillow... all perfectly reasonable, provided there is probable cause or a warrant outlining what is being sought and for what purpose. A fishing expedition is not permitted.
Besides, the guy has already been convicted, so what possible cause could they have to search him in this manner?
If he's been convicted of whatever it was he was accused of doing, then a DNA sample is not needed, nor justifiable.
A warrant for his DNA must be issued, and it must specify what they're looking for. They can't just take it to build a database.
Forcing a prisoner to give a DNA sample without it being directly related to the crime with which he is accused, violates his rights as outlined in the 4th (search and seizure) and 5th Amendments (forced to testify against himself).
"I'm all for the constitution...but"?!?
Do you even know what that document means?
Do you have any clue what the Bill of Rights is?
Based on what you said it's almost as if you believe the constitution grants us rights.
We have rights before the constitution even enters the equation. The constitution grants the government limited powers on our behalf. The Bill of Rights outlines a few of the unalienable rights we feel the strongest the government should not have the power to infringe. Anything not listed in the Constitution or its amendments is still ours to decide, not the government's.
Seriously, you should have paid more attention in civics class.
There is no religious case against forced DNA samples, but there is definitely one of privacy. - Danltn, on 01/03/2009, -0/+11Excellent - another precedent that shows your religion does not make you above the law.
- kingmanic, on 01/03/2009, -0/+10It's data concerning Restriction fragment length polymorphism or more specifically and commonly Short Tandem Repeats. They target 13 regions which tend to have these repeated and variable length sequences. I wonder how large the database will have to be before they start bumping into the birthday paradox? 1:5 million right? or more like 1:1000? Allocate, Did they discuss the birthday problem? or the problem that Juries don't really understand DNA evidence and generally give it too much credence?
Basically DNA evidence can help place the accused at the scene. There needs to be other evidence because there is a very small chance a DNA match is a false positive. Because of the "semi-random" nature of the sequences two unrelated individuals can share the same CODIS finger print. If the registry gets big enough and the Juries aren't educated well it may lead to some false convictions just as any other law enforcement tool needs to be applied properly, DNA finger printing needs to be as well.
I think it's a good thing to DNA fingerprint criminals because it's an extra reference tool law enforcement can use but I despair at shows like CSI which play so fast and loose with the science. - Dumbledorito, on 01/03/2009, -0/+9It's only a non-issue if the entity holding the DNA evidence was trustworthy. However, this also creates another place that a person, properly motivated, could falsify evidence. The database says your DNA was found at a crime scene? The DNA bank doesn't lie.
"What? You mean you didn't want your DNA sold to a pharmaco for use in... well, we didn't ask, but they gave Senator Bedfellow a lot of campaign money."
"Oh, I'm sorry, but there was no law that said we COULDN'T pass your DNA on to your insurance company. Yeah, they're one of Senator Bedfellow's biggest contributors, how'd you guess? Anyway, they wanted me to let you know that your DNA has indicators for a higher likihood of cancer, depression, and voting against politicians who don't do what corporate interests want, so your coverage has been canceled." - AmyVernon, on 01/02/2009, -1/+10I thought I was the only one to call myself "God's temple."
- temsi, on 01/03/2009, -0/+8Good post.
I would however like to take exception with the argument that seizing the DNA of convicts does not violate the 4th Amendment.
If the DNA seizure has nothing to do with the crime with which the convict was charged, then it's irrelevant and is exactly why the 4th Amendment exists, like you said. It is an unreasonable search and seizure. It is a fishing expedition, designed solely to find out if there's any other crime the convict can be tied to. If that "other crime" is not specified in the warrant, then the search is unconstitutional. - absurdist, on 01/03/2009, -2/+9Jesus ***** Christ. What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" are you having trouble with?
- Nerys, on 01/03/2009, -0/+7Many times I hear this argument. If you did nothing wrong why can I not look?
This is called circular logic. its supported only by itself. The easy way to identify this logic is to FLIP it. if it still makes sense its circular and therefore ILLOGICAL.
SO lets try it.
If I did nothing wrong why do you need to look?
See how that works? - Radan, on 01/03/2009, -0/+7Too retarded.
- hawkspur, on 01/03/2009, -0/+7By the same logic, we should give the police every scrap of information about ourselves. Hell, why not let them record our phone calls and check our email for us? After all, if you havn't committed a crime you have nothing to fear.
Mindless thinking like that is what erodes at our liberties and rights that the founding fathers of this country so graciously have preserved for us.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin - CraigStanton, on 01/03/2009, -0/+6I assumed that JigoroKano means the reason he's trying to keep his DNA secret is that he left some behind at another crime, not this one. Idiot * 2
- WhiteHatTrick, on 01/03/2009, -0/+6What about taking your DNA at birth? Because that's been apparently happening in the states (not everywhere) for many years.
- Zarokima, on 01/03/2009, -0/+5I'd like to check your credit information to make sure it isn't fraudulent. I promise I won't abuse this information in any way, it's just a test. If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
- cowboy86, on 01/03/2009, -0/+5 Is there any truth to that epside of Law & Order? The one where the guy merely says he's a Muslim and they can't use his DNA?
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -0/+5reporting you for spam comments, expect your account to be deleted by Digg.
- aereaus, on 01/03/2009, -3/+8Don't do the crime and you won't have to do the time. Simple.
- kingmanic, on 01/03/2009, -0/+5It means that
1- It was you!
2- They botched the testing somewhere
3- It's your lucky day, you've become a living example of the birthday paradox.
They need to do more research on 2 and 3 and inform the jury so they don't assume DNA match = guilty. It's a useful tool when other evidence also points to this individual but Juries need to know it's not infallible for due process to work. - ripple123, on 01/03/2009, -0/+511th commandment: thou shalt not commit wire fraud. or is it thou shalt not get caught?
- DesdinovaEL, on 01/03/2009, -1/+6If he is such a devout Christian, why is he convicted of fraud? Strangely ironic on many levels...
-abc - temsi, on 01/03/2009, -2/+6whitezombie420, you're such a shining example of an arrogant ignoramus.
- lolwaffle, on 01/02/2009, -5/+9In a sense, it's obvious the guy is stalling. But it's also kind of scary when the government gets to decide what is religious.
- inactive, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4Maybe it's a troll...
"Game Addiction is a Very Real Problem and Id welcome the Govt to regulate this problem to twist society Into a More Equitable One"
"BestBuy is one of the most Innovative stores around, their high tech products are Always On The Forefront Of Technology and there warrantees ensure that manufacturers dont screw up with redickulously short warrantees" - aereaus, on 01/03/2009, -1/+5Aren't people who talk to imaginary "friends" considered insane? "God" supposedly talked to Pres. Bush and we all know that he's nuts.
- Brassbud, on 01/03/2009, -1/+5This is why I always make sure my blood is 99.999 percent somebody else's before I commit a crime. I find most blood banks to have excellent frequent customer discounts.
- temsi, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4@whitezombie420
LOL
wow, it's so refreshing to see someone so proud of their ignorance.
I find it particularly interesting that you didn't refute a single point I made, you responded with ad hominem and irrational statements. - inactive, on 01/03/2009, -1/+5He said nothing. And that's very offensive to my religion. Empty comments is a deliberate act of provocation punishable by death.
- JesusHimself, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4what did he say??
- Ne007, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4Next they clone you and harvest your clone's body parts.
- nealparr, on 01/03/2009, -2/+6I was in prison for three years on burglary. Trust me, prisoners have no rights. From the moment you walk in (stripped and cavity searched) to the moment you walk out, you have very few rights you can claim. Claiming any rights, even the simplest and most basic, is an almost impossible task because first you have to get someone to listen to you. No one cares about prisoners, least of all their rights. I remember overhearing a correctional officer saying if it were up to them, "prisoners wouldn't even be able to buy candy bars at the commissary". The ***** up thing is that we all were in a medium security prison. At some point we got to go home (no lifers). You don't give a man some basic semblance of "normal", that dude is going to be institutionalized and mentally ***** up when he does go home. I was only there for three years on a non-violent crime and I left with a bit of post-tramatic stress that has kind of ruined me for any sort of a "normal" life. Prisoners need basic rights.
- shodanx, on 01/03/2009, -3/+7only retards like aereaus think life is so black and white it can be summed up by chanting and old catch phrase
- JigoroKano, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4That's exactly what I meant. Thanks Craig.
- reechme, on 01/03/2009, -1/+4Hey, but God loves a frauster ;)
- aereaus, on 01/03/2009, -0/+3Jesus loves you, but everyone else knows your a fraud.
- JesusHimself, on 01/03/2009, -0/+3I cannot titty ***** myself :(
- opticwind, on 01/03/2009, -0/+3Well, no, "insane" is a legal term for starters, not a mental health expression. Secondly, religion is clearly different than some crazy hobo off the street talking to the Mebes in his head. If you can't see that belittling people's beliefs by calling them a nutjob is douchebaggery, not even god can help.
- inactive, on 01/03/2009, -0/+3It was a canned comment that he had posted on about 20 different subs. I guess Digg agreed with me since they deleted the comment and account
- alpharaptor, on 01/03/2009, -0/+3relax buddy, they just wanted the blueprints.
- Nerys, on 01/03/2009, -0/+3When the government decides what is religious there is no legal right to religion any longer.
- aereaus, on 01/03/2009, -1/+4nealparr was in prison for three years on burglary. He stole and did time. Don't turn this into a Constitutional rant Nerys.
...and shodanx whose the retard here? I was responding directly to nealparr, who was bitching about no rights after he committed a crime. So...STFU!
As far I know prisoners at times have more rights then average citizens in the US. I now live in Denmark where they actually take the time to rehabilitate their prisoners. - Nerys, on 01/03/2009, -1/+4temsi you hit is SPOT ON. but do not be mad at them. There is in many schools no such thing as "civics" class any longer. Its also not 100% the parents fault. When you send a child to a decent school and they are coming home with good grades HOW can you possibly know whether they are actually getting an education or as it the case most times today monkey training.?
Its hard. Very hard. "I CAN" but only because it partially happened to me. SO now and only now I know what to look for.
My dad and myself had NO WAY to know my education was insufficient until AFTER I had recieved it.
And the education I received was magnitudes more advanced and thorough than what they are giving the kids today.
This topic brings one of my biggest points scarily to home.
An Uneducated Populace is an easy to manipulate populace. - carterartist, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2I think what was said about fingerprints, is that even if the prints have NOTHING to do with the case, they take them for booking. You get a DUI, guess what, they take your prints. It's the same thing. As far as I understand, the DNA is only for Felons and Violent Offenders. Sorry, those guys lose a bit of rights when they act against society. I don't think the arguement of privacy or any of your fears are justified on this point.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is