The DNA of nearly 2,000 US citizens has been entered into an FBI crime database.
See full article...
See full article...
The DHS has been quietly harvesting DNA from Americans for years
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The silver lining is that you can assume that Gattaca is a prequel to the Eugenics Wars, which themselves are the prequel to Star Trek. After all, Star Trek is a post-apocalyptic, post-dystopic setting.
Upvote
63
(64
/
-1)
Upvote
81
(81
/
0)
I mean, we have know for years that all cops break the law. they can't help it they are dumb fucking idiots that think forcing their will is ok, but no one else can force their will.
Upvote
25
(37
/
-12)
At about 500 samples per year, is this only the verified number and there is way more, but still to be evaluated? because the number seems a little bit low, given how many people may get screened for whatever reason. Then later in the article there is the 2.6 million number of DHS contribution for the same time span. Maybe I need some coffee or additional explanation.
Upvote
56
(57
/
-1)
I strongly suspect that the responses on this will start at "well, nobody said it was against the law", move through "nobody was hurt, "just think of all the criminals we can catch!", and "only guilty people would be worried about this", and end up at "it is too difficult to remove the DNA from the database now".
They should be made to remove the DNA and pay the people whose privacy was infringed. But they won't do it voluntarily, a GOP-led administration won't force them to do it because it would diminish their power, and a Democrat-led administration won't force them because it would make them look "weak on crime" (even though this would be the exact opposite).
They should be made to remove the DNA and pay the people whose privacy was infringed. But they won't do it voluntarily, a GOP-led administration won't force them to do it because it would diminish their power, and a Democrat-led administration won't force them because it would make them look "weak on crime" (even though this would be the exact opposite).
Upvote
72
(74
/
-2)
Hey look the department of civil rights violations continued to violate civil rights.
Shocking.
Shocking.
Upvote
73
(76
/
-3)
Now, now - you forget that this was given the Supreme Court's blessing:
Ordinary citizen break the law - ignorance is no excuse.
Cop breaks the law - ignorance is bliss.
Upvote
58
(60
/
-2)
Cat_Herder
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
This is what happens when:Wow, your cops are out of control! AND dreadfully infective - 2000 samples in 4 years, is that even 1:100000 entries? Gonna take a long time to catalogue everyone at that rate
a) You have a system that wasn't designed to handled a high number of samples, and
b) The politicians don't provide the funding needed to expand the system.
The flip side: The longer it takes to catalog the samples, the longer people stay out of this illegal data collection.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Yes. Someone was sloppy with their research.
He was born in Kansas but is an Oregon senator.
He is also one of the better senators as far as being well informed on tech issues.
Upvote
51
(51
/
0)
I have an honest question I've never really thought much about: legal/constitutional issues aside, what's the argument against all citizens' DNA being collected and stored, say, at birth? Or, to put it another way, how is DNA practically different than other types of PII the government collects? I am legit interested in the arguments here.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
poke 532810
Ars Praetorian
I worked with a group of police officers for a while, and the stuff they laughed about doing would put you or I behind bars for a long time: excessive speeding, reckless driving, driving while intoxicated - in their personal cars and in their cop cars - and more. They definitely had the mentality that laws did not apply to them. I think this is a problem with just about anyone in a position of authority.
Upvote
66
(68
/
-2)
Upvote
44
(45
/
-1)
It is time to practice life in a surveillance state.
Soviet Citizens knew how to do it.
And have you seen videos of North Koreans,
fawning over Dear Leader for the cameras?
Soviet Citizens knew how to do it.
And have you seen videos of North Koreans,
fawning over Dear Leader for the cameras?
Upvote
14
(18
/
-4)
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Agreed, this felt poorly explained. I had to skim back through to see if I missed something. (This is what we get with Wired bylines, I’ve found.)
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
First, what’s the argument for it? Collecting this information into a law enforcement database presumes some reason to be in that database (ie this person committed a crime), which newborn babies definitionally have not (dogma aside). Is there a good, legitimate reason for LEO to have access to everyone’s dna forever?
Second, the PII collected at birth by law enforcement is minimal: birthdate, name, maybe eye color. Fingerprints aren’t even collected by law enforcement at that time afaik. (That’s why the police outreach teams offer “free” fingerprinting for kids – they don’t already have it in a database they’re allowed to access.)
DNA has a far greater potential for abuse. what happens when the administration determines there’s a “crime” gene (or a gene that predisposes people to empathy and against authoritarianism)? Should all people of genetic Latin descent be placed on a watchlist by DHS? Or should people with a likelihood of autism be denied medical services?
It sounds like a slippery slope, but remember that we’re still in the first 10 months of this presidential term. We’ve seen an insane power grab and abandonment of due process. This will not get better if we don’t start pushing back on it now.
Upvote
52
(54
/
-2)
My cop story is that to get into the Hog Island Wildlife Management Area you have to pass through the security for the Surry Nuke plant. While I was waiting there I overheard two agents (decked out in full tactical gear, and fully armed), who were apparently cops in a former career, lamenting that you could no longer take a suspect into a back alley and beat information out of them.
Upvote
40
(42
/
-2)
What comparable PII is universally collected, at birth or otherwise? The government has my name, sure. But I'm reasonably sure the only fingerprints and iris scan they have of me were given voluntarily, as an adult (as part of citizenship proceedings and Nexus signup). And either of those has less privacy implications than DNA, I would argue: DNA can also be used to research your relatives, for instance.
DNA can also be used to identify someone in much smaller amounts of much more readily available materials. That can be great, if done responsibly in a law-enforcement context with ethical safeguards (being able to identify an assailant based on small amounts of blood or tissue left after a fight). But especially with a government with authoritarian tendencies, that's also a greater opportunity for abuse of power. Easier mass surveillance means easier targeting.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
Nah, Dora. She's brown skinned and gets around as well. And probably an illegal Alien to boot.
Upvote
22
(24
/
-2)
DNA is the next logical step after fingerprints. The US, China, Isreal, Argentina and many other countries have my fingerprints as part of Travel applications (passports, visas,....) I would be shocked if some of them did not have my DNA...
Not saying it is right, just saying this is going to keep happening.....
Not saying it is right, just saying this is going to keep happening.....
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Cyber/<ender
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Because of how much specificity that one piece of info contains. See Gattaca.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The capitalization there has me wondering if Dora is a Xenomorph?
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
The article gives one example of a pretty good reason to treat DNA differently than, say, fingerprints: the government can figure out who your family members are.
Imagine the mob saying, if you don't pay, we won't break your kneecaps. We'll break your kid's kneecaps.
Now imagine the United States federal government saying it, especially in its current Retribution State mode.
Upvote
35
(37
/
-2)
You can't change your DNA. And it is singularly uniquely identifying, as far as I know. If you have a copy of my DNA, you can differentiate/identify me specifically from any other human on earth, right?
The government has my name, address, DOB, social security number, etc., but really none of that is unique by itself or could conclusively identify me on its own. Names aren't unique, neither are birthdays. My social security number, while unique, isn't tatooed on me. Those things reference and differentiate me, but they aren't me.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
At least Gattaca had the upside of improved health for most people. What we have right now, kind of the opposite (I'm looking at you RFK).
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
As other have pointed out, it's a ripe target for abuse. This data would (should) be legally covered by HIPAA regulations, as it can be used well beyond simple DNA-based positive identification. That would seem to me to be a strong limiter on what kind of data can be added here and who can access or copy it.
Pending Congressional or DOJ oversight, of course, which we all know isn't happening.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
The original fascists of the 1930s and 1940s couldn't have dreamt of the privacy violating technologies now routinely used by governments.
Upvote
31
(34
/
-3)
sprocket999
Ars Scholae Palatinae
I also have to wonder about the controls over DNA collected by private firms like AncestoryDNA and the recently bankrupt outfit, 23andMe. Given our world today, I can see that stuff being sent to DHS without any consent whatsoever.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)