Would you give a DNA sample

[AdamZ]

The Police in Massachusetts recently arrested someone whom they have accused in a three year old rape and murder. Apparently they took a DNA sample from the guy over a year ago but didn't have it tested until recently when they got a match. In the interim before they had it tested they Asked all the men who lived in the town to submit all DNA samples, ( The defendant did not live in that town but an hour away) approaching the at the town dump or post office. ( two places everyone goes)
Would you have given a DNA sample?

 

[corjulo]

No!!!!!!!!!

 

[wbarnhill]

Under normal circumstances (tho I dunno when I'd be picked up for some kinda crime like this), I'd gladly provide a DNA sample in order to clear my name. In THIS particular circumstance (where it is a widespread thing), I wouldn't.

 

[Brian Austin]

Keep in mind that once they have it, they have it forever and it goes into a national database.

I'd pass, personally, unless they could provide reasonable evidence that I'd need it for proving my innocence. And just saying "We've got evidence" doesn't count. Show me the money.

 

[poadeleted3]

Not a chance, short of a court order. I don't like the tactic of the government asking people to prove their innocence, and using this sort of dragnet to smear every man in town. Just not right, IMHO.

 

[James_Dean]

Show me the warrant, and then I'd try to make sure that it was done by a forensic expert.

 

[wsuffa]

Until the citizens of this country are willing to stand up to government actions ('it's for your protection, folks'), this kind of stuff will continue to happen.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Really very much difference between the "DNA" (usually RNA) and individual fingerprints ?

 

[RogerT]

I wouldn't give a DNA sample or submit to any kind of search
without a warrant. I still believe in the Constitution.

 

[Brian Austin]

Really very much difference between the "DNA" (usually RNA) and individual fingerprints ?

Wear gloves and it's unlikely you'll have any fingerprint issues. You'd have to shave your body and wear a complete bodysuit to avoid leaving DNA/RNA stuff lying around in more cases than not. All they need is a single cell, really.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Wear gloves and it's unlikely you'll have any fingerprint issues. You'd have to shave your body and wear a complete bodysuit to avoid leaving DNA/RNA stuff lying around in more cases than not. All they need is a single cell, really.

I guess it comes down to if there was some DNA/RNA at a crime site for some reason like a frame-up or self defense, using a sample to prove innocence if necessary. But that wouldn't be the end of it in many cases, more eveidence would be needed.

 

[wsuffa]

I think the day will come where a DNA sample is taken at birth and made part of the birth certificate. It will then form the basis of your very existance in society, your ability to travel, your ability to get a job, and so forth. The security mavens want that capability NOW, as does the law enfocement community.

 

[Brian Austin]

I think the day will come where a DNA sample is taken at birth and made part of the birth certificate. It will then form the basis of your very existance in society, your ability to travel, your ability to get a job, and so forth. The security mavens want that capability NOW, as does the law enfocement community.

Double-edged sword. It would be considerably more difficult to have your identity stolen if your DNA was associated with it.

Consider that our identities are built entirely around paper and the odd fingerprint (for law enforcement, military and other professions but not everyone). There is really nothing that absolutely ties YOU to who you say you are aside from papers.

Yes, it would still be possible to hack through it...but considerably more difficult.

 

[wbarnhill]

Security vs Privacy.

It'll always be the same with "It's for your own good" or "If you're not guilty what do you have to worry about" in order to get people to submit to something they're not entirely comfortable with, be it DNA sampling, cameras on every street corner, facial recognition software, etc. The question is where do you draw the line, and are you willing to accept the lower level of security for the higher level of privacy? It's a true dilemma.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
[font=arial,helvetica,helv][/font]

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Really very much difference between the "DNA" (usually RNA) and individual fingerprints ?

Unless you are a virus your genetic fingerprint is not RNA. In fact it is rather doubtful that human RNA could be used for forensic identification. Furthermore, given how ubiquitous Rnase is (enzyme that destroys RNA--you have it all over your skin), RNA sampling within the environment is virtually impossible.

 

[AdamZ]

Dave: Finger prints are no different than DNA in that you don't have to give the police a sample voluntarily if you are not an arrested suspect or without a court order.
Although if you have served in the armed forces, are a member of law enforcement, an attorney in some states and some gov't employees your fingerprints are already on file.
Long short is I would not give a sample under such circumstances.

 

[mdreger]

I wouldn't give a DNA sample or submit to any kind of search
without a warrant. I still believe in the Constitution.

You don't fly commercial aircraft, go to many national park sites (The Holocaust museum and St. Louis Arch for example), or enter any number of other public venues that now have metal detectors, do you? Or do they show you a warrant? I've never seen one. Just because a court says it is constitutional, I don't buy. I would imagine that whatever searches the founding fathers endured would have been approved by the courts of that (pre-revolution) time. I think they meant that each search had to be specifically named and approved by a judge.

 

[fgcason]

I would imagine that whatever searches the founding fathers endured would have been approved by the courts of that (pre-revolution) time. I think they meant that each search had to be specifically named and approved by a judge.

How many of the searches you're required to go through constantly nowadays have warrants issued for them? Zero?


Amendment IV

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.


The wording sums it up nicely. Word meaning drift, ignoring or implying words for convenience, wacko jobs, unquestioned new rule's being established and people's basic inability to read what somthing actually says have muddied the waters considerably in the last 216 years.

IMO mass DNA sampling of citizens like this thread started with is in violation of IV unless probable cause is now defined as just being in the same country where the offense occured. I'm pretty sure no one pointed to X hundreds of completely random people and did the oath of affirmation thing. Stepping over the line IMO.

 

[Brian Austin]

IMO mass DNA sampling of citizens like this thread started with is in violation of IV unless probable cause is now defined as just being in the same country where the offense occured. I'm pretty sure no one pointed to X hundreds of completely random people and did the oath of affirmation thing. Stepping over the line IMO.

Unfortunately, our education system doesn't TEACH the Constitution the way it should. I'd bet that well over half the people in the US have no idea how it's structured, what amendments are part of the Bill of Rights, etc., let alone what each amendment actually covers. And law enforcement is beginning to take advantage of it. It's only 'unreasonable' if someone SAYS it's unreasonable. If the searchee thinks it's reasonable, no violation. At least, that's the way everyone seems to be handling it now.

I'll bet if students were required to fully understand the Constitution and its role in our government, half the Beautiful Sunshine that happens in DC wouldn't be happening.

 

[corjulo]

Wouldn't let them fingerprint me either. We have a whole generation of kids who have no idea what Civil Liberties are. They think its normal to be photographed, finger printed, monitored, searched and on and on. I remember when my kids school announced with great pride that the police would be available to photograph and finger print the kids. A few clear eyed parents said over our dead bodies. We'll collect are own pictures and prints and DNA evidence thank you. The media have people so scared of their own shadows that they think the only way to be safe is to give up personal freedom. Who was it that said trading liberty for security gets you neither?

 

[Silicon Rallye]

Wouldn't let them fingerprint me either. We have a whole generation of kids who have no idea what Civil Liberties are. They think its normal to be photographed, finger printed, monitored, searched and on and on. I remember when my kids school announced with great pride that the police would be available to photograph and finger print the kids. A few clear eyed parents said over our dead bodies. We'll collect are own pictures and prints and DNA evidence thank you. The media have people so scared of their own shadows that they think the only way to be safe is to give up personal freedom. Who was it that said trading liberty for security gets you neither?

I'm with Dan, except for other reasons. First, I believe there are legitimate reasons for DNA or fingerprint requests (military or specific police investigations).

Lately, there have been too many instances of personal information records compromised by hacking or theft. The less in-depth personal information floating around, the better.

 

[T Bone]

Security vs Privacy.

It'll always be the same with "It's for your own good" or "If you're not guilty what do you have to worry about" in order to get people to submit to something they're not entirely comfortable with, be it DNA sampling, cameras on every street corner, facial recognition software, etc. The question is where do you draw the line, and are you willing to accept the lower level of security for the higher level of privacy? It's a true dilemma.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Hi Wm. Nice to see you (I know him from another flying forum) and I must agree completely with your take here.

The insideous way "they" will eventually win this argument though, is hinted at in the page 2 post from corjulo.... Well done corjulo, more people should be as vigilant!

"Well, you want to protect the children, don't you"? Who could possibly be against that..... (Total Rubbish!!)

And corjulo, re read this (one of my longtime favorite quotes) from the bottom of Mr. Barnhill's post

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin