Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

-Tracking blood and organ donors nationwide*

*Broader blood testing at birth (or even before) would enable quick identification diseases and defects to allow for treatment.

This is already handled by an NGO, btw. Same people that maintain the bone marrow donor registry I believe. Government doesn't have anything to do with it, beyond the usual HIPPA stuff.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It is perfectly relevant. It shows that the government has past form on abusing personal information under the guise of 'national security',

A program that can only involve a violation of civil rights just by existing is not the same thing as one that could be used to violate civil rights only when someone does something unethical. They are different but I doubt anyone wants to concede to that reality. It doesn't make for good soap boxing about how terrible the government is

So in short, fighting the good fight has none not one thing to turn back NSA corruption once they have acquired power.

As I've struggled to point out in this thread, you fight the good fight or you throw your hands up and refuse to play. Most people refuse to play (or, again ambitious here, don't have the time or money to buy the rule books).

My issue is that instead of realizing they're part of the problem, the Civil Rights White Knights (TM) pretend they're the only sane men in a world of madness.

 LordofHats wrote:

If the government maintains a DNA database of all citizens... what would it's purpose of this database?

Potential uses;

-Identifying corpses, which leads to
-Criminal investigation uses

That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).

-Tracking blood and organ donors nationwide*

Don't need the government for this... it already exists.

-Might have application in combating identity theft

Now that is kinda interesting... I would have to see it's application to make that detemination, but my default position would be no.

-Probably some kind of scientific hoo nanny would probably be made feasible by it

wut? o.O

*Broader blood testing at birth (or even before) would enable quick identification diseases and defects to allow for treatment.

We don't need the government to do that... there's already plenty of organzations researching this.

I think we all know that the big one is criminal investigations which also so happens to be the one most people are worried about.

yup.

I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?

Yep, but in the states that would be by 'least intrusive means', which in this case would be the cops putting down the donuts and doing some very basic police work rather than a mass coerced DNA testing.

 whembly wrote:

That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).

Amendments can be changed. And if things change so much in the US political landscape that a DNA database could actually happen, I think it'll find a way around that issue.

Don't need the government for this... it already exists.

yeah but if you go through the trouble of making the database might as well roll it in.

-Might have application in combating identity theft
Now that is kinda interesting... I would have to see it's application to make that detemination, but my default position would be no.

If you're DNA checking everyone at birth, put a code on a birth certificate that identifies the holder's DNA. Could be useful on credit cards too. Identity thieves are pretty creative, but I imagine that would be a huge pain to get around.

Problem is that that expands access to the database outside the government (and call me crazy, but I trust lying politicians more than lying corporate executives... not by much though).

wut? o.O

Massive research studies into the national population. Identify the number of carriers of the genes that cause so and so disease. EDIT: And track the distribution of those gene's over time. Scientifically such a thing would be kind of cool, socially there are all kinds of 'oh no what could happen now" problems.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).

Amendments can be changed. And if things change so much in the US political landscape that a DNA database could actually happen, I think it'll find a way around that issue.

No Right under the Bill of Rights has ever been changed in the USA. That would mean figuratively, and literally, war.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).

Amendments can be changed. And if things change so much in the US political landscape that a DNA database could actually happen, I think it'll find a way around that issue.

True... but the likely hood of that happening is nil to zip.

Don't need the government for this... it already exists.

yeah but if you go through the trouble of making the database might as well roll it in.

Why? The current systems really don't go outside of it's role. That's not a bad thing ya know.

-Might have application in combating identity theft
Now that is kinda interesting... I would have to see it's application to make that detemination, but my default position would be no.

If you're DNA checking everyone at birth, put a code on a birth certificate that identifies the holder's DNA. Could be useful on credit cards too. Identity thieves are pretty creative, but I imagine that would be a huge pain to get around.

Theorectically, that's cool... again, I don't see how this would work... yet.

I mean, can you see biometrics advancing much? That's why I brought up Gattica.

Problem is that that expands access to the database outside the government (and call me crazy, but I trust lying politicians more than lying corporate executives... not by much though).

True... but, if there's a financial impact, it would behoove private companies more to protect their client as opposed to government officials (who can blame everyone, which then means... no one really gets the blame).

wut? o.O

Massive research studies into the national population. Identify the number of carriers of the genes that cause so and so disease. EDIT: And track the distribution of those gene's over time. Scientifically such a thing would be kind of cool, socially there are all kinds of 'oh no what could happen now" problems.

eh... that is intriguing... sure. But, I'd leave government out of it.

In St. Louis... Washington University is already doing that. They've mapped the genome. Now, their cross referencing their research to data collected by the local Hospital's own patient database.

 CptJake wrote:

I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?

Yep, but in the states that would be by 'least intrusive means', which in this case would be the cops putting down the donuts and doing some very basic police work rather than a mass coerced DNA testing.

Declaring that non participants will be numero uno suspects is more of a hindrance than a help but I reckon the French want this aspect of the case wrapped up asap.

 Frazzled wrote:

No bill of Right has ever been changed in the USA.

And no one had been to the moon in 1968.

Granted, that one was more of a cultural victory than anything else XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It is perfectly relevant. It shows that the government has past form on abusing personal information under the guise of 'national security',

A program that can only involve a violation of civil rights just by existing is not the same thing as one that could be used to violate civil rights only when someone does something unethical. They are different but I doubt anyone wants to concede to that reality. It doesn't make for good soap boxing about how terrible the government is

The whole point of the NSA itself was to intercept foreign communications and to help prevent a repeat of 9/11. Spying on US citizens with no probable cause shows that was completely unethical and had no problem with over reach.
The parallels are there. It is just that you do not wish to acknowledge them. Perhaps this will help;
The NSA has a purpose in intercepting communications of foreign persons of interest. That is in itself not unethical. Creating a program to spay on US citizens without so much as probable cause is unethical.
Police have a purpose in investigating allegations of crime. That is in itself not unethical. Future program that takes DNA for an unconstitutional program is unethical

The NSA still have all their powers and nothing concrete was done about their misfeasance. So again, why would we permit the government assuming powers that we then have to fight at a later date? We know that no government ever likes to relinquish power that it has gained.

 LordofHats wrote:
As I've struggled to point out in this thread, you fight the good fight or you throw your hands up and refuse to play. Most people refuse to play (or, again ambitious here, don't have the time or money to buy the rule books).

So we're still at the point that nothing ever happened to the NSA (red faces and embarrassment of getting caught aside) and that they are still not only at liberty to continue collecting data on US citizens, but elected representatives are giving them political cover to do so.

 LordofHats wrote:
My issue is that instead of realizing they're part of the problem, the Civil Rights White Knights (TM) pretend they're the only sane men in a world of madness.

My issue is that people can't see a repeated pattern that governments over reach their power, and refuse to relinquish it when caught, all while people continue to say that no government would ever do that.

 whembly wrote:

True... but the likely hood of that happening is nil to zip.

Won't find me proposing such a thing is happening in a foreseeable future.

Why? The current systems really don't go outside of it's role. That's not a bad thing ya know.

I'm only saying that if you take the time to make the database, it's sensible to roll that function into since they're already doing the work of collecting the data.

I mean, can you see biometrics advancing much?

Biometrics is a question of accuracy. Eventually they're be there. The bigger hurdle is that doing such a thing would need a huge computing infrastructure.

eh... that is intriguing... sure. But, I'd leave government out of it.

If you wanted to do it on a national scale (a massive endeavor), they're the only ones capable. Of course it would probably be more than a little gimmicky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


The whole point of the NSA itself was to intercept foreign communications and to help prevent a repeat of 9/11

The NSA was founded in 1952. It's purpose was to monitor communications intelligence (CIA does human intelligence).

. Spying on US citizens with no probable cause shows that was completely unethical and had no problem with over reach.

Yeah. Give someone a free pass to keep anything secret, bad gaks gonna happen. Comparatively, I'm skeptical we ever needed them in the first place. They are responsible for a rather astonishing number boondoggles.

My preference? Dump them both. The CIA should have been done away with after Iran-Contra made it apperenty they weren't just dangerous but dangerously inept. Pft. We can't even get rid of ATF. Fat chance of getting rid of the CIA or NSA.

The NSA has a purpose in intercepting communications of foreign persons of interest. That is in itself not unethical. Creating a program to spay on US citizens without so much as probable cause is unethical.
Police have a purpose in investigating allegations of crime. That is in itself not unethical. Future program that takes DNA for an unconstitutional program is unethical

And like I've been saying for pages, if you make a hammer, someone will inevitably use it to bash someone's head in instead of a nail (or a nail into a head). Has no real relevance on whether you should keep making hammers (or we could all just start using nail guns).

We know that no government ever likes to relinquish power that it has gained.

And yet, they have. If you pressure them, they will give it up, because less power is better than no power. The problem isn't the government having power its the people being apathetic.

 LordofHats wrote:

My issue is that people can't see a repeated pattern that governments over reach their power, and refuse to relinquish it when caught, all while people continue to say that no government would ever do that.

And those people are part of the problem too. The world; one big sink or problems

 easysauce wrote:
Why not just make DNA imprinting, drug testing, and RFID chips mandatory for all people at birth,
if you have anything against it, its because you are a criminal with something to hide, and are now a suspect.

Works for me.

 Goliath wrote:

Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.

I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.

I don't want to carry that schtick, but I find it incredibly easy. I'll take your word that a cheek swab wouldn't be enough to perform both tests. I genuinely have no firsthand experience in the business.

What if they take two?

Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.

The problem here is that we (Americans) spend 10 billion to spy on 150 million of it's own people. That's the NSA budget vs the population of the US thought to use the Internet. I'm overblowing the situation somewhat, admittedly, because presumably the NSA does something other than watch US citizens, but since all the specific numbers are classified, it's difficult to actually look at the situation without making any assumptions.

Anyway, back to the problem. Cost does not appear to be a barrier to entry for classified projects that someone decides are going to get done come hell or high water. You can't say it with 100% certainty that it couldn't happen at this point because of cost, because it just did with the NSA thing. "The datacenters and bandwidth would cost too much." "it's too logistically hard."

Not so much.

And let me finish by saying that this argument is mostly academic, at least, for me. I know I probably come off sounding like some half-insane bearded recluse who keeps his bodily fluids hidden away in mason jars and chases at shadows that aren't really there. I'm really not. I'm just continually amazed at the reality of now, and speculating toward the future.

Well I admire their determination.

 LordofHats wrote:
The NSA was founded in 1952. It's purpose was to monitor communications intelligence (CIA does human intelligence).

Thank you for the correction. But again, they did not have a remit to spy on US citizens without due cause

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. Give someone a free pass to keep anything secret, bad gaks gonna happen. Comparatively, I'm skeptical we ever needed them in the first place. They are responsible for a rather astonishing number boondoggles.

And how do you think DNA samples will be treated? All that genetic information about people just stored, to be accessed and sifted through. If you thought that abusing communication was bad gak gonna happen what do you think will happen with DNA?

 LordofHats wrote:
My preference? Dump them both. The CIA should have been done away with after Iran-Contra made it apperenty they weren't just dangerous but dangerously inept. Pft. We can't even get rid of ATF. Fat chance of getting rid of the CIA or NSA.

So you are well aware of various government abuses, across a variety of agencies, you know full well that removing their power is nigh impossible, and yet you want to hand serious power over to them that they will be even more loathe to forfeit.

 LordofHats wrote:
And like I've been saying for pages, if you make a hammer, someone will inevitably use it to bash someone's head in instead of a nail (or a nail into a head). Has no real relevance on whether you should keep making hammers (or we could all just start using nail guns).

Good. Then surely you can see why people don't want the government having vast databases of DNA.

 LordofHats wrote:
And yet, they have. If you pressure them, they will give it up, because less power is better than no power. The problem isn't the government having power its the people being apathetic.

It is both. The government should never have that much power, and the people should prevent them having such power.
Instead what we have is people saying that they are opposed to government DNA databases (you know, being the opposite of apathetic), while you tell us that no harm can come from increasing the government's power even after pointing out the excesses of the government.

 LordofHats wrote:
And those people are part of the problem too. The world; one big sink or problems

Well, at least you understand your place in the scheme of things

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?

Yep, but in the states that would be by 'least intrusive means', which in this case would be the cops putting down the donuts and doing some very basic police work rather than a mass coerced DNA testing.

Declaring that non participants will be numero uno suspects is more of a hindrance than a help but I reckon the French want this aspect of the case wrapped up asap.

I'll reuse the example someone else already brought up, to try and illustrate why what they're doing is unjustifiable intrusive bull :

You live in a village, that village is far away from any other centres of habitation. One of the houses in the village is burgled. Now, because of the community's relative isolation, the local police assume that the burglar lives in the village, and that they are therefore likely to be storing their ill-gotten gains in one of the village's 500 houses.

The police appear at your door, and demand that you "voluntarily" permit them to search your home, your person, and any digital devices you own for evidence that you are the burglar, and inform you that if you decline to "volunteer" to allow the search, you will become one of their main suspects. No attempt to investigate to validate their assumptions, no attempt to adhere to legal due process, just a blanket demand that every household in your village submits to the same "request" they have made of you.

You really see no issues with that? You would be happy with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" reasoning at play? You would permit the police to root through your possessions and personal files and not for a moment feel you were coerced into doing so?

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Why not just make DNA imprinting, drug testing, and RFID chips mandatory for all people at birth,
if you have anything against it, its because you are a criminal with something to hide, and are now a suspect.

Works for me.

Yes, but you're a DakkaDakka forum mod, that you are a rampant fascist is no surprise

I've donated my DNA many times. Never hurt me.( no one ever knocked on the door saying"Is my dad in""

 loki old fart wrote:
I've donated my DNA many times. Never hurt me.( no one ever knocked on the door saying"Is my dad in""

Masturbating on a park bench doesn't count as "donating"

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
I've donated my DNA many times. Never hurt me.( no one ever knocked on the door saying"Is my dad in""

Masturbating on a park bench doesn't count as "donating"

For many years the thought of someone knocking on my door, saying does my dad live here, was my biggest worry.

 Yodhrin wrote:
... and inform you that if you decline to "volunteer" to allow the search, you will become one of their main suspects.

... At which point they very quickly find that there is no other evidence linking you to the robbery (assuming, of course, that you didn't do it), and everyone gets on with their lives.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And how do you think DNA samples will be treated? All that genetic information about people just stored, to be accessed and sifted through.

For one you don't give just anyone access. Then you don't make it clandestine because clandestine things just never seem to end well.

If you thought that abusing communication was bad gak gonna happen what do you think will happen with DNA?

Different eggs. I agree that the outrage over PRISM is overblown. Its a scandal, its illegal, and its wrong, but practically it's personally harmed nearly no one. PRISM is more alarming as a pointless illegal operation that seemingly had no purpose or stated goals which should raise the question of how such a thing was ever conceived let alone allowed to happen.

I suspect a DNA database actually has a wider potential door for real abuse to happen than PRISM ever did. I accept that.

Then surely you can see why people don't want the government having vast databases of DNA.

Fear is a powerful thing. I find life easier when I ignore it and push on through. World would be a better place if other people did the same imo.

It is both. The government should never have that much power, and the people should prevent them having such power.

If they have power its because the people allowed them to have it. We allowed the NSA and CIA to be created (oh McCarthyism, the gift that never stopped giving), we allowed the massive expansion of the governments intelligence mechanisms over the past 40 years even though there were countless evident examples not to, we created the environment that allowed something like PRISM to pass.

The government isn't an alien. Its made of people and empowered by people. People can't claim political freedom while denying responsibility for their governments.

while you tell us that no harm can come from increasing the government's power even after pointing out the excesses of the government.

I'm just gonna start counting now (1). I already said that abuse will happen, several times even. It's inevitable. I like more precise criminal investigations and bad guys going to jail more. A DNA database allows nothing that can't already happen and if anything centralizing the control of DNA testing reduces the chances of a frame job, not increase it (its hard to convince techies 100 miles away to support trumped up lies).

 LordofHats wrote:

Well, at least you understand your place in the scheme of things

(2). I think it's hilarious that I continually say abuse will happen (I say it in every post) but you keep saying I'm in denial that abuse will happen. It would be entertaining if my low expectations of critical reading abilities weren't being revealed to be too high. I need to find James Cameron. He's the only one who can raise the bar at this point.

With police seeming now to need DNA and more cameras to solve crimes, I'm wondering how they used to solve crimes before these things were in use.

I'm so against any kind of "voluntary" DNA testing. I'm not particularly worried about the police , I am more worried about community reaction if it was found out you did not go for testing. I can safely say I would never submit to a DNA test to "solve" a crime.

I hate this whole "if you haven't done any wrong, you don't need to worry". It's my info and if I have a choice whether to hand it over or not I'm not going to hand it over. If the police could do their jobs properly, I wouldn't have to worry at all.

with CCTV the police have enough Info to solve crimes.

Bullockist wrote:
With police seeming now to need DNA and more cameras to solve crimes, I'm wondering how they used to solve crimes before these things were in use.

They solve more crimes now, thanks to DNA and CCTV evidence. Every advance in investigation helps, like fingerprints, blood typing...

Bullockist wrote:

I'm so against any kind of "voluntary" DNA testing.

Would you prefer it to be compulsory? DNA is one of the best forensic methods available. It isn't going away.

Bullockist wrote:

I'm not particularly worried about the police , I am more worried about community reaction if it was found out you did not go for testing.

So take the test. The "community" is not so worried about vague fears of a theoretical government conspiracy to harvest your DNA for possible future persecution as it is about identifying a rapist.

Bullockist wrote:

I can safely say I would never submit to a DNA test to "solve" a crime.

I can imagine what my wife, mother and daughter would say if I refused in such circumstances.

Bullockist wrote:

I hate this whole "if you haven't done any wrong, you don't need to worry". It's my info and if I have a choice whether to hand it over or not I'm not going to hand it over. If the police could do their jobs properly, I wouldn't have to worry at all.

with CCTV the police have enough Info to solve crimes.

Would you advocate setting up CCTV in Catholic Girls Schools? The lavatories, showers and changing rooms are probably where most rapes take place.

I guess at this point, the whole paranoia thing about how the government is out to get me and harvest my organs or something really becomes secondary to the fact that I have kids and if one of them got raped I would want the police to use every and any tool at their disposal to find the perpetrator, even if it meant testing the whole country. Without wishing to sound patronizing, I think it really is one of those things you can't appreciate unless you have children yourself (and yes, I am aware not everyone who has kids thinks the DNA testing is a good idea).

You have to bear in mind with this case that it has been about 6 months I believe since the offence and it looks very much like the police are out of ideas and out of options so a blanket test is really the last shot at catching whoever did it.

I agree, we should harvest citizen DNA at birth.

Wouldn't hurt to tattoo barcodes on everyone's forehead and right palm either, for easier ID.

Goliath wrote:Ah, reading comprehension fail on my part.

I would agree that that sort of thing is abuse of due process, and is almost always unnacceptable. (Though what would your opinion be on situations where a sample gets a partial match on someone, so tests are performed on their family members?)

Interestingly, getting to see the breakdown of every chromosome you have wouldn't actually be that useful, as most genes are shared, so DNA profiling largely takes place using 'junk' DNA between genes that makes up something like 1% of your DNA. Kinda like comparing two copies of Harry Potter to identify someone using missing apostrophes every few pages or so.

I feel like if you had enough evidence to force a sample from someone, but only ended up with a partial match, that partial match could be used with other existing evidence to get a subpoena for another person's DNA. I'm fine with that, as that is done in the course of an investigation.

I am not fine with "We think it's you but can't prove it, so I'm going to pull your brother over and force a brethalyzer to get HIS dna which I will then use to lasso you."

And yeah, I knew a bunch of DNA sequences are shared, even between species. We match like 20 something percent of fungus DNA I think? Higher for species closer in relation (e.g.: primates and such). I do look forward to our understanding of genetics advancing enough to help solve/cure illnesses and diseases as well.

Mr. Burning wrote:I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?

Still cannot see a problem with the swabbing. It eliminates most everyone and may catch a sex attacker.

Police work should be able to eliminate suspects without a blanket swabbing of everyone who was anywhere close to the building, that also happens to have a penis. I'm all for catching the perp, but I'm not for trampling the rights of 500+ other people in the process, especially when there isn't even a guarantee that any of them IS the perp.

 filbert wrote:
I guess at this point, the whole paranoia thing about how the government is out to get me and harvest my organs or something really becomes secondary to the fact that I have kids and if one of them got raped I would want the police to use every and any tool at their disposal to find the perpetrator, even if it meant testing the whole country. Without wishing to sound patronizing, I think it really is one of those things you can't appreciate unless you have children yourself (and yes, I am aware not everyone who has kids thinks the DNA testing is a good idea).

You have to bear in mind with this case that it has been about 6 months I believe since the offence and it looks very much like the police are out of ideas and out of options so a blanket test is really the last shot at catching whoever did it.

Ah yes, the ole "you can't understand if you haven't been there", appeal to emotion nonsense. Wherein we allow emotion to override logic, and we all know emotion makes for such a fantastic basis for justice...

 insaniak wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
... and inform you that if you decline to "volunteer" to allow the search, you will become one of their main suspects.

... At which point they very quickly find that there is no other evidence linking you to the robbery (assuming, of course, that you didn't do it), and everyone gets on with their lives.

Then why place any limits on the scope of police behaviour or state surveillance at all? Afterall, if you have no intention of committing a crime, you should be perfectly happy to have your life observed and catalogued 24 hours a day, every day, from the moment you leave your mother to the moment they bury you in the ground, with no limitations on how the state can use those observations. Why not allow the police to stop any person, at random, and conduct searches without any cause? Why put any limits at all on how police can gather and store evidence? Why even bother with trials or presumption of innocence - it's all so messy and inconvenient, just gets in the way of catching crims, surely any law-abiding person would have nothing to fear if we just allowed the police to operate on their own recognizance, free to investigate as they wish, use any methods they wish, decide their own standards of proof, right? How efficient and tidy such a system would be - no annoying human rights lawyers, no criminals getting off due to legal technicalities, and of course no wrongful convictions because by definition, if you are arrested you must be guilty.

Reductio ad absurdum? It would be, except for the fact that we have concrete examples from our own history -hell, from our own present- that compromising even seemingly minor elements of due process does lead to abuses of power. Afterall, what possible harm could there be in giving up just a wee bit of our legal protection if it allows the government to protect us from those dastardly terrorists, eh?

 filbert wrote:
I guess at this point, the whole paranoia thing about how the government is out to get me and harvest my organs or something really becomes secondary to the fact that I have kids and if one of them got raped I would want the police to use every and any tool at their disposal to find the perpetrator, even if it meant testing the whole country. Without wishing to sound patronizing, I think it really is one of those things you can't appreciate unless you have children yourself (and yes, I am aware not everyone who has kids thinks the DNA testing is a good idea).

You have to bear in mind with this case that it has been about 6 months I believe since the offence and it looks very much like the police are out of ideas and out of options so a blanket test is really the last shot at catching whoever did it.

I highly recommend you watch a TV series called Broadchurch(it's only 8 episodes), starring David Tennant. First because it's a good watch, but also because it has special relevance to the "think of the children" argument you're deploying, and the consequences when people put it into practice. Pay particular attention to the sub-plot involving the shopkeeper.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How can they abuse DNA?

Keeping samples long after they should have been disposed of, and then refusing to dispose of them

And how bad is that really. It's not like they can really do anything with them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How can they abuse DNA?

Keeping samples long after they should have been disposed of, and then refusing to dispose of them

And how bad is that really. It's not like they can really do anything with them.

Assuming you are 100% correct (and I seriously doubt you are) then there is a BIG reason to dispose of them. It costs the tax payers money to catalog and store the samples. If there is really nothing they can do with them it is a waste of resources to maintain them.

That being the case, why would anyone advocate for more government waste?

The more samples you have in a database, the more chance there is of false positives and other errors.

However, as long as the French database deletes the samples from the exonerated testees, that isn't a problem.