Proposition to take DNA at arrest stirs privacy fears (on CA's Nov ballot)

[CShine]

A man who lost his brother to an unknown serial killer has bankrolled a November ballot measure that would force everyone arrested for a felony in California to provide a DNA sample. Although backers of the measure say such a greatly expanded DNA database could clear up thousands of unsolved crimes, civil rights activists argue it would give the government access to too much information about too many people.

"DNA is not like a fingerprint, since getting it is more invasive and it holds information beyond mere identification,'' said Tania Simoncelli, a science and technology fellow for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Storing it permanently for future criminal investigations doesn't comply with the Constitution."

That's not the way Bruce Harrington, a Newport Beach attorney and developer, sees it. Harrington spent more than $1.3 million to qualify the initiative for the ballot and is confident he'll win the support of California voters in November.

"It's really a shame that California is so far behind when it comes to collecting DNA, when there's compelling information from other states about how effective it can be,'' Harrington said. He said that under the ballot measure, "At the same time someone has a mug shot and fingerprints taken after an arrest, he'll have a mouth swab (for DNA) and that's it.''

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/12/MNGOB7598T1.DTL

[Journeyman]

1. Anyone know what the ACLU guy means. . .

that getting DNA is "more invasive" than a fingerprint. I thought you could get DNA from spit or a cheek scraping. Am I missing something?

[Hoping4Change]

4. Perhaps he means that someone entire genetic blueprint is

on file. This opens up the possibilty of selling that information.

[Journeyman]

6. That's what I kinda figured. . .

just didn't know if my knowledge of DNA collection (which admittedly comes mainly from crime and courtroom dramas) is perhaps more incomplete than I suspect it to be.

[Leprechan29]

7. Other posters may say this

But the fact that the DNA codes for your entire being (for the most part) while a fingerprint is just an expression of a gene or two, and is therefore much less invasive as far as evidence collection. Its mostly the possibility of abuse of the database that frightens me

[Just Me]

10. Well, I'm torn,...

,...because DNA is SOOOO much more reliable evidence of a crime. Yet, I understand the concerns of abuse.

Should we go for leashing the abuse since DNA actually protects innocent people? Whaddya' think?

[Leprechan29]

15. Use it like this

(As it is currently used, I think) If a sample is found at a scene, then test it against suspects, just dont keep the suspects sample on record unless they are convicted

[LiberalFighter]

14. Along with someone obtaining the copyright on the DNA

[JayS]

17. "possibility of abuse of the database"

Cool! Now y'all know what we gun owners were talking about. Welcome to the club! :)

[DBoon]

12. DNA is much more than an individual identifier

You can identify blood relatives using DNA, and get some information about the individual themselves - specifically an genetically related disorders. Traces of DNA may be identified where fingerprints can't, allowing a more complete tracking of someone's past activities.

While people who are arrested should be required to provide strong identification, you can do a lot more with DNA samples.

[DrWeird]

13. The kind of tests done on DNA samples in criminal c ases...

is essentially little different than fingerprinting. It can only be used for distinguishing individuals. Yes, other tests can be used to tell if the subject has an increased chance of Parkinson's, or some such thing, but that's not what they do in crime labs.

[BadGimp]

2. $1.3 million - the going rate for real democracy in Calif.

wtf people

Let's start a collection and see what we can get past my fellow Californians.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. WTF IS UP

with these california victims families allways beign rich enough to get invasive laws past? (3 strikes law anyone)

[JayS]

16. Three Strikes Law

Lots of politicians we know voted for that...


***************************************************
Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

Final passage of the 1994 crime bill, including semi-automatic assault weapon ban and hiring 100,000 new police officers.

HR 3355: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Vote on passage of the conference report of the omnibus crime bill. The bill included provisions to: build more prisons; hire 100,000 new police officers; allow death sentences for more federal crimes; ban 19 semi-automatic assault weapons; and institute 'three strikes and you're out' provisions, among other components.
(Conference report adopted 61-38 on 8/25/94)

Bill Status:
Bill Number: HR 3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-94)
House Passage Vote: 11/03/93 - Outcome: Passed by Voice Vote
Senate Passage Vote: 11/19/93 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 08/21/94 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Conference Report Vote: 08/25/94 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 09/13/94
Public Law Number: 103-322 108 Stat. 1796

[izzie]

5. I feel some thing is wrong with this but do not know what.

-----------

[Zhade]

8. Makes it much easier to frame, say, political opponents.

NT!

[Joanne98]

9. More NAZI mischief in CA

All the NAZI'S in CA need to MOVE. Go live with your own kind, like in Cobb Co. GA. This is what happens when you let NAZI'S like An-nold steal the governor's mansion. Police states are UNCONDITIONAL. No more free passes. Die Nazi scum.

[oneighty]

11. better to have

DNA samples from everybody, everybody and everybody, child to grave. Equal opportunity that-a-way.

180