My problem with the Children's Safety Act

[SewingDeb]

I don't see anyone going door to door seizing DNA. I don't have a problem with DNA being taken upon arrest. It has freed many innocent people.

 

[ckhagen]

I don't see anyone going door to door seizing DNA. I don't have a problem with DNA being taken upon arrest. It has freed many innocent people.

Just because you're arrested does not meant you've done anything wrong and your rights should still be preserved. The first time you get arrested because the DMV accidentally listed your tag number as stolen, you might change your mind about that. (ask me how I know :furious: ) Lots of people get arrested for very minor things that most of us wouldn't even consider an arrest-able offense. I don't think that they should be stripped of their rights to hold on to their own biological profile.

 

[SewingDeb]

Just because you're arrested does not meant you've done anything wrong and your rights should still be preserved. The first time you get arrested because the DMV accidentally listed your tag number as stolen, you might change your mind about that. (ask me how I know :furious: ) Lots of people get arrested for very minor things that most of us wouldn't even consider an arrest-able offense. I don't think that they should be stripped of their rights to hold on to their own biological profile.

Your fingerprints and photo are taken at booking as another poster has stated. This is before conviction and for identification purposes. DNA would also be for identification purposes. There would be no need to keep the actual biological material once there is a written report and it is entered into the system.

You lose a lot of rights at the point of arrest and it doesn't matter how minor the matter is if you are suspected of breaking the law. Why should this be any different?

I personally would not care if LE has my DNA or not. I have worked in two professions that required fingerprints so I am already in the system.

 

[Pepper]

Your fingerprints and photo are taken at booking as another poster has stated. This is before conviction and for identification purposes. DNA would also be for identification purposes. There would be no need to keep the actual biological material once there is a written report and it is entered into the system.

You lose a lot of rights at the point of arrest and it doesn't matter how minor the matter is if you are suspected of breaking the law. Why should this be any different?

I personally would not care if LE has my DNA or not. I have worked in two professions that required fingerprints so I am already in the system.

Exactly! If you can take fingerprints and mug shots when arrested, then why not DNA? I don't see the difference.

 

[Spazkat9696]

You know what I don't care if they have my DNA because I'm not a criminal.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Why would someone have a problem with giving their DNA unless they have something to hide?

I don't trust the government to keep data safe. There are constantly media reports of various state and federal agencies discovering they've lost control of data from thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Keep in mind that your DNA isn't just a unique identifier; it can also reveal if you have certain conditions and, in the coming years, it is likely that it will reveal many more conditions.

So, say that you have diabetes. You're careful with your diet, your exercise, you follow all of your doctor's advice. If you pay for your health coverage yourself rather than getting it through your job, the fact that you have diabetes will increase your premium. I know--I had to drop my health insurance when my premium went over $1350/month with a $15K deductible, no prescription med coverage. And that policy only covered me, no one else. It didn't matter that I had "perfect" control of my diabetes (according to my endocrinologist) and it didn't matter that I was never ill.

What if you have the genes for Huntington's Disease? Onset is late 30s to late 50s, predictable by how many copies of the defective base pair you have (the more copies, the earlier the onset). Huntington's Disease is inevitably fatal and it involves involuntary movements, cognitive dysfunction and psychiatric disturbances.

How many employers do you think would be willing to hire a 35 year old who had lots of copies of the faulty base pair, indicating that they will probably experience early onset of symptoms? People with Huntington's are completely normal before the onset of symptoms... and they need to pay bills just like everyone else does.

There's a recent study that shows a very high correlation between a certain gene variant and PTSD. People who have the gene variant and who experience a traumatic event are highly likely to experience PTSD; people who have two copies of the gene are almost guaranteed to get PTSD if they experience a traumatic event. Would it be fair to treat someone who has that gene variant as if they were a walking time bomb even if they show no symptoms of PTSD? How about doctors--if an obstretician knows in advance that a woman may be predisposed to developing PTSD, might they be tempted to decline that woman as a patient so that if the delivery is traumatic, they won't incur increased liability?

If a teenager's DNA indicates that one or more sets of onco-control genes (genes that control/prevent cancer) turned off, would it be fair for a college to deny them admittance on the basis that they are likely to have a shortened life span, so using resources to give them an advanced education could better be used for another applicant who has all onco-control genes active.

Perhaps all of the above should be made common knowledge. Personally, I think it's no one's business except the person who owns that DNA. Yes, Huntington's Disease shortens a person's working life but that's a risk an employer runs with every new hire. Just because someone doesn't have the gene for Huntington's doesn't mean they won't be hit by a bus and become disabled!

If you are willing to give the government that sort of information about yourself, then you trust the government a whole lot more than I do. Even if the government itself does not misuse your information, it has already been clearly established that state and federal governments are not capable of keeping data safe.

 

[liltigress]

When I first started reading this thread, I thought I had no problem with DNA collections, but you sure make some valid points and plenty to consider, Grainne Dhu.

A while back, I saw on the news about a woman having to prove that her daughter was really her own daughter. Weird? Sure... It seems the mother had 2 DNAs depending on the location on her body it was taken. This is extremely rare, but it has happened. (I will search for that story).

So, with that to consider, I have wondered how many people have been cleared of a crime that they were truly guilty of? Or how many men were dismissed from their parental rights when they really were the father of that child?

Suddenly, implanting a chip into a person for identity purposes doesn't seem so far fetched to me. It could help identify or locate missing children/persons, just as it currently helps identify pets.

 

[Zanko]

The person with 2 DNAs is called a Chimera. I remember the story was a woman who needed to get a paternity test to prove the father of the child was his. Turned out that she was not the mother! Except, she was. She had different DNA in different parts of her body. She had to fight to keep her children! I think it was on a show called Medical Marvels or something like that.

 

[liltigress]

Zanko, I believe you are absolutely right about that. It was the first I'd heard of that happening and it kinda threw me for a loop then the questions started surfacing in my head about different scenarios. Thanks for that info.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

A while back, I saw on the news about a woman having to prove that her daughter was really her own daughter. Weird? Sure... It seems the mother had 2 DNAs depending on the location on her body it was taken. This is extremely rare, but it has happened. (I will search for that story).

Yes, Lydia Fairchild is what is called a chimera; when her mother got pregnant, there were two fraternal fetuses which became fused at a very early stage of cell division. It is thought to be a rare condition. Lydia Fairchild's story is extremely upsetting because at one point the Department of Human Services insisted on sending a witness to the actual birth of one of her children (the testimony of the doctor and nurses present at the previous two births was not considered proof that she had actually had those children!). Testing showed that it was not Ms Fairchild's child. The DHS then fabricated some weird story that Ms Fairchild was becoming pregnant via IVF, a procedure that costs $10+K per try.

And such is the prejudice against poor people in this country, she was suspected of abducting all three of her children, even the one whose birth was witnessed by a DHS employee. Did they seriously imagine that Ms Fairchild had abducted an infant and stuffed it inside herself??? Boggles the imagination.

So, with that to consider, I have wondered how many people have been cleared of a crime that they were truly guilty of? Or how many men were dismissed from their parental rights when they really were the father of that child?

It is still thought to be a very, very rare condition. Considering that humans spontaneously abort very easily (estimates are that over one third of all pregnancies spontaneously abort in the first 14 days), it's very rare for a fetus with such anomalies to survive.

Suddenly, implanting a chip into a person for identity purposes doesn't seem so far fetched to me. It could help identify or locate missing children/persons, just as it currently helps identify pets.

As the technology exists today, it would be difficult but not impossible for the radio frequency identity (RFID) chips to be misused. They have no power source in themselves, so in order to be read, they have to be activated by a source of radio waves pressed against the skin over the chip. Most people would notice some stranger coming up and pressing an RFID reader against their arm (or neck, another possible location for chips).

However, this is rapidly changing. There are now readers that can activate RFID chips from six inches away. In a crowd of people, someone waving an RFID reader would probably be more noticeable but perhaps not. It is not unlikely that within the next ten years there will be RFID readers that can pick up chips as far as ten feet away.

And then what happens? RFID chips, in and of themselves, don't carry much information. They can only carry an alphanumeric string. The reader picks up that alphanumeric string, then checks with a centralised database for the associated information.

And that's where I'm going "hold on, wait a minute, let's be thinking this over..." Central database? How secure will it be? As secure as the VA, which allowed the records of 200,000 (yes, two hundred thousand) soldiers be stolen?

If someone had an RFID reader and access to the database, what could they do with the info? One thing they would know is where you live and that you are for sure not home at the time. If you appear to be with a group of people including an adult male about your age and children, that's probably your family, so they aren't home either.

With your name and address, they can probably find out your birthdate. With those three pieces of information, they can then probably find out your parents' names and your mother's maiden name. With that information... they can access your billing information with many companies including many banks. They can probably open up credit card accounts in your name.

I've read a lot about ID theft in the last five years. Invariably victims of ID theft spend a great deal of time and energy clearing up the mess. Which is great, they eventually clear up the mess. But I'm betting they would rather have spent that time playing with their kids, watching movies, doing crafts or just lying in a hammock and listening to the birds chirp. Or maybe posting to Web Sleuths! Is there really anyone who wants to deal with numerous forms of bureaucracy, over and over and over?

I'm comfortable with the idea that people who have committed felonies forfeit certain rights. But should people who have never committed a crime be forced to assume the same sorts of risks?

 

[Zanko]

Very good points Grainne Dhu.

With the widespread fingerprinting done for anyone arrested or working in various fields including daycares, social services, LE, and so on, have there been any instances of information "leaks"?

In my field of work, I must be fingerprinted and this information is stored on a federal database. If my fingerprint was associated with a crime, the information that they extract would include my name, social security number, date of birth, address and so on. This is the same information that is currently in the DMV records, social security office, and so on. Although I do believe that there are breaches of security, I am not familiar with any cases where this information has been compromised. I'd be interested in reading more about it.

 

[liltigress]

I also have my fingerprints and information in the FBI files for my line of work, also for my license to carry a weapon. There is always the possibility of a security breach even with the Federal databases but they are still a must-have. I do understand in certain lines of work, some have to undergo a background check.

But, I'd have to say, if DNA collection is more productive than the fingerprinting system during an arrest and/or conviction, then I believe I am all for it.

My thought is... will the DNA be in code and entered into a database, or will the DNA extraction itself be available in a lab somewhere, or both? I really am ignorant as to how that would work. I would hope the chain of command would be so large on such a thing that it would be near impossible for someone to go in and pick out a particular vial (by number?) and spill it at a crime scene to pinpoint any particular innocent individual.

 

[Zanko]

Ya! How does it work? Would the actual sample be stored somewhere or would it come down to data entry?

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Very good points Grainne Dhu.

With the widespread fingerprinting done for anyone arrested or working in various fields including daycares, social services, LE, and so on, have there been any instances of information "leaks"?

Fingerprints are not, so far, highly susceptible to computer searches (unlike what is portrayed on TV). The fingerprint can be scanned and entered into a computer database but so far, the best computers can do is kick out a list of possible matches.

Remember the Brandon Mayfield case? He was a victim of a mistaken computer generated possible match based on his fingerprints from when he served in the military. A technician looked at the computer generated list of possibles and thought that Mr Mayfield's prints were a match.

Of course they weren't. But that wasn't discovered until his life had been subjected to considerable upheaval by the whole process.

In my field of work, I must be fingerprinted and this information is stored on a federal database. If my fingerprint was associated with a crime, the information that they extract would include my name, social security number, date of birth, address and so on. This is the same information that is currently in the DMV records, social security office, and so on. Although I do believe that there are breaches of security, I am not familiar with any cases where this information has been compromised. I'd be interested in reading more about it.

There have been so many, I don't feel able to list them. For a quick look at the scope of the problem, Google on "government database losses" (without the quote marks).

One of my closest friends works in computer security. He tells me that he has had to tell innumerable people "no, using a random password generator is not safe if you then write your random password on a Post-It and stick it to your computer!" You'd think that would be so completely obvious, no one would need to be told that. But, amongst the agencies he's been at where he has found people doing that? The IRS. What government agency has more of your personal data than the IRS?

He's also had to tell people to stop using their own names (first, middle or last) as passwords. And stop using birthdays. And stop using the name of your agency...

If I had his job, my head would be flat from beating it against the wall. He is easily the most patient man I have ever met.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I would hope the chain of command would be so large on such a thing that it would be near impossible for someone to go in and pick out a particular vial (by number?) and spill it at a crime scene to pinpoint any particular innocent individual.

The way DNA is usually collected from an individual is by using a plastic swab thingie with very soft, tiny bristles to swish against the inside of the cheek. That picks up plenty of cells for testing and is difficult for someone to fake (the way blood can be faked, for instance).

There wouldn't be enough of a sample to be used to plant at a crime scene. I'm also certain that if someone's DNA came up as a match, the first step would be to collect a new swab from them just to make sure that there wasn't a mistake in the original entry (for instance, a tired data entry clerk accidentally transposes numbers or letters).

My concern is that the DNA code itself can reveal a lot about you and it reveals more each year. Pair that with the government's record with poor computer security and, well, people who have no business knowing about you could learn more than you would ever dream possible.

Pretty soon it will be possible to tell via DNA test who is likely to get multiple sclerosis. Would you want potential employers to be able to do a surreptitious check and then refuse to hire you, even though you are currently completely healthy because at some point in the future you may come down with MS?

The illegal check thing is already happening. It's very difficult to detect because if there are, say, ten qualified applicants for a job, only one will get hired and who's to say why the other nine were refused?

The price of your personal information is steadily going down. Five years ago, credit card information was worth $25 per active card (name, number, exp date) on the black market. Today, that same info is only worth 50 cents.

It is getting easier and cheaper all the time for people to get personal information. Why make it even easier?

 

[Medea]

My compromise is that they take the DNA of someone who is arrested for a VIOLENT felony and they have the option to petition to have the sample destroyed if they are found to be factually innocent and the police agree they are no longer a suspect, e.g. arrest was a mistake.

As far as the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why object'...that is the slipperiest of slippery slopes beyond which is a deep dark Orwellian rabbit hole where the citizen has no right to privacy whatsoever.

 

[LI_Mom]

My compromise is that they take the DNA of someone who is arrested for a VIOLENT felony and they have the option to petition to have the sample destroyed if they are found to be factually innocent and the police agree they are no longer a suspect, e.g. arrest was a mistake.

As far as the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why object'...that is the slipperiest of slippery slopes beyond which is a deep dark Orwellian rabbit hole where the citizen has no right to privacy whatsoever.

Especially when you consider the govt. is claiming the right to arrest people it labels "enemy combatants" & deem them too dangerous to even be given a chance to defend themselves against the charge.

There's NOTHING to stop this same govt. from eventually widening the net in order to 'disappear' more & more people... all in the guise of keeping the public safe.

This would NOT be so troublesome IF we didn't know for a FACT that many of the people who were stripped of any basic civil rights are KNOWN to be innocent... but the govt. says they don't know what to do with them now.


Although, I DO think the BIGGEST danger is corporations, especially those in the health arena, in getting a hold of this info & using it to find more & more ways to deny 'undesirables' the same full services they provide for the 'better' customers.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

My compromise is that they take the DNA of someone who is arrested for a VIOLENT felony and they have the option to petition to have the sample destroyed if they are found to be factually innocent and the police agree they are no longer a suspect, e.g. arrest was a mistake.

As far as the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why object'...that is the slipperiest of slippery slopes beyond which is a deep dark Orwellian rabbit hole where the citizen has no right to privacy whatsoever.

I absolutely agree.

Not only should the sample be destroyed, any data from that sample should be deleted from every computer it has been recorded in.

The attitude that if something isn't criminal it should be okay to hold it up to public scrutiny gives me the shivers. For instance, many years ago, when I was living in my first apartment, there was a scent that I thought was just to die for. Ooooooooh, it was heavenly, it was wonderful, it practically made me swoon every time I tried it on. I couldn't afford it (it was more than half my weekly paycheck and nearly half what I paid in rent!) but I did what I think every young person does at least once and made a poor decision. I lived on noodles and catsup for so long that I have never been able to abide the taste of catsup ever since in order to buy that perfume.

Would I want my neighbours to be tut-tutting over my foolishness? NO! It was foolish but it didn't hurt anyone but me. It's silly now but it would have been terribly humiliating then.

Everyone has something like that.

 

[RJA00]

The way DNA is usually collected from an individual is by using a plastic swab thingie with very soft, tiny bristles to swish against the inside of the cheek. That picks up plenty of cells for testing and is difficult for someone to fake (the way blood can be faked, for instance).

There wouldn't be enough of a sample to be used to plant at a crime scene. I'm also certain that if someone's DNA came up as a match, the first step would be to collect a new swab from them just to make sure that there wasn't a mistake in the original entry (for instance, a tired data entry clerk accidentally transposes numbers or letters).

My concern is that the DNA code itself can reveal a lot about you and it reveals more each year. Pair that with the government's record with poor computer security and, well, people who have no business knowing about you could learn more than you would ever dream possible.

Pretty soon it will be possible to tell via DNA test who is likely to get multiple sclerosis. Would you want potential employers to be able to do a surreptitious check and then refuse to hire you, even though you are currently completely healthy because at some point in the future you may come down with MS?

The illegal check thing is already happening. It's very difficult to detect because if there are, say, ten qualified applicants for a job, only one will get hired and who's to say why the other nine were refused?

The price of your personal information is steadily going down. Five years ago, credit card information was worth $25 per active card (name, number, exp date) on the black market. Today, that same info is only worth 50 cents.

It is getting easier and cheaper all the time for people to get personal information. Why make it even easier?

Before we adopted my son, He had to have a dna test done. it looked like a big q-tip. bio mother listed a man as the father it came back neg.

I guess if everybody gave dna test that would help the state with child support,

When my son gets older and if he ever wants to know is bio father i have no clue what im going to tell him. bio mother doesnt know who it is.

the only thing i have a problem with dna testing for everyone

lets say someone adopted and there bio father or bio mother gets in trouble. would they come looking for possible next of kin by dna to search for them

I would not agree with that

 

[sajoc]

It doesn't matter how many "Bills," pills or anything else they try and shove down our throats, this country is going to move into "Big Brother" status like we've never known before in the history of this world!

It's easy to take the attitude of "I don't mind because I"m not doing anything wrong, but once a police state is started, it's impossible to turn it back in the other direction. And EVEN the innocent can fall victim to the giant hand of BIG BROTHER.

Protect your children as much as possible at home and out in every way you can, so you won't have to hope this Bill catches the killer... I even recommend wireless video cameras at home. It's not that I don't trust anybody... I just trust fewer than I used to.

https://www.wireless-videocam.com/ features the latest technology in SleuthGear, covert and wireless video cameras for home/office and business surveillance and security protection.