What is Digg?172 Comments
- schnikies79, on 10/08/2009, -1/+81If this was done to convicted felons, I wouldn't have a problem. This being done to suspects is a problem.
- EMFK, on 10/08/2009, -5/+50When you're putting this type of information into the hands of the government, I think we should all be worried. While I can understand why California and many other states do this, I am just not comfortable with who is keeping this information.
- Ninh, on 10/08/2009, -8/+42Considering falsification of DNA traces has recently been demonstrated by israeli scientists, the value of those samples is at best questionable. Furthermore suspects are deemed innocent until proven guilty and until such time that they are convicted, the state has no business keeping permanent records about them.
- cubicledrone, on 10/08/2009, -1/+35"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - AresDiggs, on 10/08/2009, -1/+35I'm going to install video cameras in your house, monitor your internet activity, drop by unannounced for 'inspections', listen in your phone calls, etc... because it_might_help prevent someones death or catch a criminal down the road. But ***** you and your rights.
- Surferess, on 10/08/2009, -8/+32Well, as a liberal-type person, I reject your premise outright!
- kooft, on 10/08/2009, -6/+29"The sample is stored in state and FBI databases, even if the arrested person is never charged or convicted of a crime."
So you have no problem with the FBI collecting the DNA of everyone in America, whether or not they committed a crime? - tonberryqueen, on 10/08/2009, -1/+19Did you even read the article? Or what the database allows?
The ACLU isn't arguing that convicted felons shouldn't have their DNA on file. They're arguing that I can't be arrested and released and have my DNA held in a database indefinitely. It *is* a violation of privacy, because you can find out a lot more about me from my DNA than my fingerprints. Why on earth should I allow that information to be held against my will?
And yes, the ACLU defends criminals and non-criminals alike. People who want to preserve civil rights are funny that way. - doctechnical, on 10/08/2009, -1/+18Using that brand of logic you could justify any degree of infringement of freedom. Let's outlaw swimming - think of all those people that drown! If it saves just one life....
- rocknog, on 10/08/2009, -3/+19This sounds like a conservative position to me - you know, limiting government power and all. I'm not entirely sure you know what the term "liberal" means.
- rocknog, on 10/08/2009, -3/+19It's the ***** paradox of the modern conservative - preach on and on about small government, but then turn around and support measures that clearly expand the government's power while totally disregarding the Constitution. ***** hypocrites.
- zoomer123, on 10/08/2009, -5/+20ACLU aren't liberals. If they were, they wouldn't defend the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church.
- paulvq, on 10/08/2009, -1/+16You could say that about anything.
- doctechnical, on 10/08/2009, -1/+15As much as it pains me to agree with the ACLU, they're absolutely right here. If I'm just a suspect and you want my DNA then you'd damn well better have a warrant for it.
- Aquinas315, on 10/08/2009, -3/+17This sounds like it violates the 5th amendment to the Constitution, specifically "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Wouldn't taking the DNA from someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime and having said DNA used as evidence violate this?
IANAL. - noahgelman, on 10/08/2009, -5/+19How have they destroyed "traditional America"?
- Opiate, on 10/08/2009, -3/+16Stasi-esque supporters generally push for this, I wouldn't be so surprised.
- egocogito, on 10/08/2009, -0/+13I think that this is the heart of the issue.
- AgeofMastery, on 10/08/2009, -1/+14That's the whole point, they take cases from all sides of the political spectrum, they don't just support liberal causes.
- BrianGarceau, on 10/08/2009, -0/+12I agree that extracting the DNA of a convicted felon is a good thing to do, but taking the DNA of someone who is just arrested is something I didn't think could happen. I'm glad the ACLU is coming out against this.
- bubbashine, on 10/08/2009, -4/+15God forbid the gubmint intrude into to the business of an individual or provide them additional health care, but wire-tapping U.S. citizens, e-mail surveillance, or torture doesn't count since those keep the boogeyman away.
- le0pardess, on 10/08/2009, -14/+25I agree with this submission and dugg it, but it is amazing everything is only unconstitutional when the ACLU says it is. Where in the hell are they with these unconstitutional issues:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.a ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/07/ba ...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/6 ...
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/07/acorn-throws-o ...
http://www.examiner.com/x-25100-Phoenix-Gun-Rights ...
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091006_watch ...
And yes, every one of these are submitted in Digg. - Snoogs, on 10/08/2009, -1/+12The operative word here is 'unreasonable'. This statement means little when you can argue forever over the meaning of the word.
- egocogito, on 10/08/2009, -1/+12See, unlike in your head, in America we have this little thing I like to call "due process". At least we used to last time I read the constitution.
- diggerado, on 10/08/2009, -0/+10Perhaps you missed the part where they're taking DNA from people who haven't been proven to break any laws?
- bubbashine, on 10/08/2009, -4/+14http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/oklahoma-abort ...
FTA: "On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Implementing the measure will “cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year.” Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:
1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions" ..
How hard do you figure it'll be to track these young women down in small counties? And there's no chance of harassment of these women. Right?
Spend a relatively high amount in the OK government to violate the privacy of a person's medical records?
Conservatives ..... stand and cheer!! - egocogito, on 10/08/2009, -2/+12I dont see how one and two are really constitutional issues. 3 is not a constitutional issue, just a crime. 4 is not trustworthy but would be more on the criminal side than the constitutional side if it were true. 5 is definitely legit and it pisses me off that the ACLU wont touch anything to do with the second amendment. 6 is scary and I am surprised that it is not the sort of thing that the ACLU would jump all over.
- tonberryqueen, on 10/08/2009, -1/+10I hear that warrantless searches to illegally obtain evidence help with this, too.
- RoflCoptah, on 10/08/2009, -3/+12DavidNiven is a massive troll. DONT FEED HIM
- le0pardess, on 10/08/2009, -1/+8I see you easily identified 5 and 6. However, I will clear up 1-4 and why I listed them...
1) The liberty we enjoy in America requires *limits on government power*, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Our written Constitution delegates only certain powers to the federal government and Congress must point to at least one of them as authority to pass legislation.
This means, of course, that the Constitution might not allow some things Congress might want to do.
2) Nowhere does the Constitution state, given illegals or otherwise, a welfare state ( see #1).
3) High crimes and misdemeanors.
4) Fifteenth Amendment, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) - tonberryqueen, on 10/08/2009, -0/+7There's nothing to show that these people DID break the law, seeing as how they were either never even charged, or were never convicted.
The ACLU doesn't say it has a problem keeping the DNA of convicted felons on file. RTFA. - frcc, on 10/08/2009, -1/+8Civil liberties aren't granted by government therefore it can't take them away. That means we're protected against tyrannical government even if mistakes are made and laws are broken.
- Lonandubh, on 10/08/2009, -1/+8The problem isn't that they don't support the 2nd amendment, but they speak against interpreting the 2nd amendment the same way they demand the other amendments be interpreted. Everywhere else they interpret "the people" to mean the general populace, but not there. Kinda selective, don't you think?
- Gregbertt, on 10/08/2009, -1/+8Hmm. I'm with the ACLU on this one. For me it comes down to the word 'accusations'. Taking DNA from those arrested on felony 'accusations' does not pass the sniff test for me. You want to take DNA from everyone 'convicted' of a felony go right ahead, but 'accused' of a felony? No way.
- Hetman, on 10/08/2009, -3/+9It obviously violates the fourth amendment.
- Snoogs, on 10/08/2009, -2/+8So, how is access to my breath, blood, hair, and urine constitutional?
- frcc, on 10/08/2009, -0/+6Since government doesn't grant your civil liberties, it can't take them away. Civil liberties are the protection we have against the type of government you seem to advocate. Who knows, some day you might make a mistake and be thankful you can't be injected with experimental drugs or be used as a lab rat by the government for some experiment with a 95% mortality rate..
- hivoltage815, on 10/08/2009, -2/+7Just to play devil's advocate:
If the person was a suspect, that means probably cause was already established. So I don't see where the fourth amendment is violated here, please explain. - Insightful, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innoce ...
- JoeParanoid, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5Having seen what law enforcement does with less intrusive information, the perils are far more extensive than most people imagine. In the business we call it "generating paper criminality" to establish a criminal record. If you are interviewed or evidence is taken from you from one incident (whether charges are filed or not), that is saved on the system so that, should they pick you up sometime down the road, they use the fact that your information is on the system to justify arrest and to support a prosecution (pattern of suspicious activity) whether it is relevant to the charges or true. You'd be surprised how many people are convicted on this sort of flimsy association. It is especially bad for juveniles whose hanging out with friends is used to constitute gang affiliations.
- Animan351, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5While it may be arguable to say that giving your DNA violates your right to not incriminate yourself. I sure as hell think that you should at least be found guilty of the felony before you get put in the registry.
- mweathr, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5It's not the criminals who do the faking. If the lab can fake results, then DNA is no longer a reliable identifier.
- hivoltage815, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5@curunir
I think you are absolutely right. Only in cases where the goal of the DNA collection is to match to the evidence collected from a crime scene would it be legal. Thanks for summing it up. - curunir, on 10/08/2009, -1/+6Assume for a moment that there was no blood / DNA evidence collected at the crime scene. Maybe you were identified as a possible suspect by an eyewitness or proximity or whatever.
Then they want to collect your DNA. That's unreasonable. Because they can't use it for anything to do with the crime - it won't be used to prove or disprove your guilt.
When you request a search warrant, it has to be for something specific that will serve as evidence of the crime. You can't get a search warrant just to go on a fishing expedition. - bap710, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5Dunno why you're getting dugg down. Just Google things like "secretly collected DNA" and you'll get all sorts of articles on cases involving DNA collected without the suspect knowing about it:
http://politicom.moldova.org/news/secretly-collect ...
"Sacramento investigators are using DNA covertly collected from a cigarette in an attempt to prove a man killed his aunt, officials said."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17669936/
"When a 60-year-old man spat on the sidewalk, his DNA became as public as if he had been advertising it across his chest. Police officers secretly following Leon Chatt last August collected the saliva — loaded with Chatt’s unique genetic makeup — to compare with DNA evidence from the scene of an old murder they believed he’d committed." - Solkre, on 10/08/2009, -0/+5Arrested... Convicted... same thing today based on the Media and Govt.
- mbtria, on 10/08/2009, -0/+4A government that collects not just your fingerprints and DNA, but has decided that it has to examine your naked when you want to fly. How soon before Homeland Security decides that it has to keep a copy of those Terrahertz pix, if it doesn't already? How long before those pictures get on the Web?
Never happen you say? Our government is run by technologically incompetent and arrogant fools who lie constantly to cover up their mistakes. Consider the RFID chips in passports. The ones that had to be within a few inches of the scanner. Except hackers had demonstrated they could be read at over 100 feet even before any were issued. Not just read, but cloned as well. Our government knew that the passports were crackable by junior level hackers, but insisted they were completely safe.
The VA demonstrated that it can't be depended upon to follow its own simple security procedures and sent out info filled hard drives with all the data needed to screw up the credit of 70 million veterans. This was just last week, and it is not the first time either. And this is the easy stuff -- don't let a hard drive go anywhere. What happens when it starts to get a bit more complicated? - drmangrum, on 10/08/2009, -0/+4@digitalArtform
I don't get your point. It really doesn't matter if a person is conservative or liberal. Philosophical ideologies have no bearing on the fact the Constitution gives the supreme court the power to determine what laws are constitutional or not. - lyonsban, on 10/08/2009, -1/+5Probable cause is not required for arrest and an arrest isn't required to be sent to a police station. Often all parties are simply brought to the jail and processed, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It clears a situation from becoming worse, by simply booking everyone and who and what happened is worked out later.
Cases are dismissed every day, all day in every courtroom in the country. - cubicledrone, on 10/08/2009, -1/+5The fourth amendment is violated because there is no warrant. If they have probable cause, get a warrant. Otherwise, the search is unreasonable. That's the law.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 176 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is