(no subject)

[scottobear]

DNA police

The prospect of routine DNA screening of the entire population drew nearer yesterday when the Government proposed to give the police the power to retain indefinitely samples taken from innocent people.

Is this a good idea?

Comments

[tillytollo.livejournal.com]

NO!

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

Did anyone else notice that this seems to be a UK thing? Not that that makes it better, and I'm certainly not going to say, "hey, it's another country, so it's not my problem," but for some reason this seems to make a difference to me.

It seems like it would be a huge drain on resources to try to keep that much info.

Also, it scares me.

Re: Not sure --

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

Well, they talk in the article about keeping samples - that means physical space, plus whatever conditions are necessary to keep them in good condition (I have no idea if that's even an issue), plus personnel to maintain it, keep it organized, etc. They're talking about a more than threefold increase in samples.

I wonder if this would even be feasible in the US... consider that these are samples taken from suspects, and that the violent crime rate in the US is massively higher than that in the UK. I don't think most police departments could afford that kind of expenditure (but then, maybe the British ones can't either, there was that implication). So I dunno.

I wanted to join the ACLU anyway.

Re: Not sure --

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

good points, all!

I really enjoy your observations... I can tell that you take serious time to think. :)

Libraries of assorted sampling can be a tricky situation, but I imagine no more tricky than any other catalog of material. It takes surprisingly few folks to run an archive, I think the trick would be having a good location system, a reasonable database.

I think it'd be pretty feasable to at least keep a info database, if not samples... text files compress easily, and the gov't has buckets of warehouse space. (I could be totally wrong in my opinions, though... )

I have my suspicions about the ACLU, too... I don't trust 'em.... it seems sometimes that they're more interested in one-sided cases, instead of defending everyone's liberty.

Re: Not sure --

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

Well, they don't have the right to keep the fingerprints of non-suspects, can they? (aside from folks in sensitive jobs, like government work, etc? ) I didn't realise if that was the case!

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

You're right... libery is a different issue in the UK. (check out the freedom of speech sometime!)

ACLU

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

Really? Can you give examples of cases?

The Texas ACLU is trying to gear up again; I was reading an article about them the other day. Things like the death penalty, and banned books in schools (I can't belive that the Houston Independent School District has a Harry Potter book on the banned list), and, um, I think housing associations, and some other stuff. I don't agree with everything they do, but someone's got to do it. I'd rather they be overzealous than that things get overlooked. But then, all I know about are the high-profile cases. Which ones are you thinking of?

Re: ACLU

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

Happy to.. the government seizure of SJ games equipment, most computer freedoms, primarily. I 'll give you some links when I get home tonight.

Re: ACLU

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

This is just a friendly nag. Whenever you get the chance, I'd love to see those links. Please.

Did I mention I'm impatient?

=)

Re: ACLU

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

coming up, dear. :) I was just researching them. :)

the thirst for knowledge is rarely a burden, never fear.

Re: ACLU

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

One of a few references of ALCU not taking a case, due to it not being marketable enough.. . (I do admire what they do, just that they lean to the sensational, as oppoest to all sides of a problem) more references to follow.

begin quote- It's been three months as I write this and, not only has nothing been returned to them, but, according to Steve Jackson, the Secret Service will no longer take his calls. He figures that, in the months since the raid, his little company has lost an estimated $125,000. With such a fiscal hemorrhage, he can't afford a lawyer to take after the Secret Service. Both the state and national offices of the ACLU told him to "run along" when he solicited their help. -- From Crime and Puzzlement by John Perry Barlow

more info at - http://www.sjgames.com/SS/

I also feel that

Re: ACLU

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

http://www.arcata.org/news/mt.acluf.oct15.html

The ACLU was not defending all of the doctors relevant for purposes of realizing and implementing this new law, created through the voters' adoption of P215 (now Section 11362.5 of California's Health and Safety Code, and possessing special legal character that's resistent to legislative encroachment). Apparently, the ACLU decided that it would only defend doctors treating illnesses about which very recent, "medical mainstream" research was already accomplished and easily available for use.

Re: Not sure --

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

Eep... that's horrid!

I'm glad I don't do anything where I'd need to be identified by such stuff. :)

Re: Not sure --

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

that seems awfully sneaky... hmm...