Share this
Mister Wong
Webnews
Power-Oldie
Linkarena
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Jumptags
Upchuckr
Simpy
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Netscape
Furl
Yahoo
Blogmarks
Diigo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Meneame
Diggita
Export PDF
Print
E-mailThe new DNA sample collections will pertain to federal arrests by federal agencies ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police at present. Also included will be samples taken from foreigners who are "detained," — one assumes at airports. Currently, the feds say they average 140,000 arrests per year, but they estimate the new collecting requirements will result in the addition of 1.2 million people to the database each year. Clearly, the math is out of whack — or they fully expect to "detain" an awful lot of foreigners at airports — or they have something else in mind.
Whatever the case, DNA testing is no silver bullet for crime investigators. Forensic DNA testing is not an exact science. Collection conditions and circumstances as well as preservation and lab conditions highly impact the outcome. Family ties and genetic conditions also strongly influence any outcome, and in the case of identical twins there’s no telling the difference between them, genetically speaking.
Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-Ariz.), a supporter of the ruling believes, "Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s." Really Senator? How?
Support for the rule comes from a Chicago study reporting that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest. But how can having a sample of someone’s DNA prevent a murder or rape? The only way that is possible is if these criminals were second or third or fourth offenders, and the justice system had them back out on the streets when they should have been locked up. But that points to a flaw in the justice system — it doesn’t rationally follow that now the fundamental civil rights of humans are to be tossed out the window with the collection and permanent storing of DNA samples of innocent people.
Despite supporters' beliefs that this rule is a flawless crime cure all, privacy issues should not be overlooked. Moreover, just because there is data in a database it does not follow that there are no errors in the data. Databases hold error-filled data as efficiently as they hold accurate data. Commercial databases are filled with errors a plenty; secret government databases are probably endemically error-ridden, and with little possibility of correcting those errors — just ask the "no-fly" list casualties. And certainly the potential for abuses and misuse to occur is very high.
The Department of Homeland Security is highly in favor of the new ruling. "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. But by definition DNA sampling is a forensic tool, not a law-enforcement tool. We’ve got a bit of verbal engineering going on here. Law enforcement personnel should see to it that laws are enforced, apprehend those who violate the law, and help prevent or deter crime. But these things cannot be accomplished by DNA sampling.
Rest assured it is only a matter of time when DNA samples will be collected at every level of law enforcement — and maybe even outside of that by other governmental agencies — if this ruling goes through. The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register and there is a 30-day comment period for those who wish to contest or support it. But, usually it’s a done deal at this point.
