DHS to Begin Collecting DNA of Anyone Arrested

Foobar of Borg writes "The AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by a federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained, whether or not charges are eventually brought. This begins to bring the US in line with the UK which, as discussed before on Slashdot, is trying to collect DNA of 'potential criminals' as young as five. DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'"

dna?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have dna

UK has been doing this for years...

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK is at the forefront of privacy invasion. This has been going on at least ten years. The governments claim that the system works. For instance Serial killer Steve Wright(Ipswich Murders) was caught [yahoo.com] because he had his DNA taken following a theft a few years previous. So yeah... the system works. *rolls eyes*

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

Exxon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of American taxpayer.

Re:Simple Solution

[Sheepy]

Uhm, no. You get swabbed if you get arrested and charged. If you don't actually get convicted, the sample gets destroyed.

That's not true.

Both DNA profiles (the string of numbers used for identification purposes) and DNA samples (which contain unlimited genetic information), are kept permanently, even if the person arrested is never charged or is acquitted.
Gene Watch UK [genewatch.org]

the permanent storage of bioinformation taken from witnesses, victims, children, and people who are not later convicted;
The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues [nuffieldbioethics.org]

Re:Simple Solution

[happytechie]

No it doesn't inocent people are actively trying (and failing) to get their DNA removed from the database now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7266130.stm [bbc.co.uk] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6768725.stm [bbc.co.uk] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979490.stm [bbc.co.uk] Whilst the existance of a DNA record for previously innocent people is questionable in terms of human rights the power it has for tracking down people who have commited crimes is huge. The recent case in the UK of the murderer in suffolk is an good example. If the police are using it to arrest criminals I have no issue with it. Once my life insurance company and employer can use it for screening I have HUGE issues with it.

Re:Shred and Incinerate

[Richard W.M. Jones]

It's not hard to collect fake evidence from someone else's trash, to place at the scene of a crime.

Don't bother with a particular person's trash, just go to a bar or a bus stop in a poorer area of town and pick up cigarette butts. Those poor people are probably on the database and are unlikely to have good, believable alibis. They'll go to prison instead of you.

Rich.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[WhiteWolf666]

In the real world, the U.S. taxcode is extremely progressive. The rich pay a far greater share of ALL taxes than anyone else.

The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10]

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

It's bullshit to say that taxation in the U.S. is somehow regressive, or that the poor pay for everything.

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[malsdavis]

"The difference is DNA is more than an identifying trait. DNA defines your physical characteristics - the basis of you." You are mistaking DNA with DNA profiles - which is what the government want. DNA profiles are more like an md5 hash of your data (i.e. DNA) rather than all the actual data which makes up you. Storing all that data would require absolutely immense processing and storage capabilities which simply don't exist. Besides, it will be a long, long time before DNA can be properly "read" and not just "compared" (which DNA analysis basically consists of at present). A DNA profile can identify you and basic traits but it can't "identify tendency to irrational behaviors" etc.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Peter Mork]

The "rich" ... who make up about 5% of the population pay the vast majority of taxes in this country.

You, sir, have a strange notion of "vast majority". According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 5% (for whom the average income is $457,400) of the population account for 41.4% of all tax revenue*. That percentage is a far cry from a "vast majority." Perhaps you meant the top quintile (average income = $214,500) who account for 67.2% of the tax revenue. The effective tax rate for this group is 25.2%.

How much blood do you expect to extract from the lowest quintile (average income = $15,800) anyway? Sure their effective tax rate is only 4.3%, but increasing their tax rate to 25% won't have much impact on the massive deficits to which we've grown addicted.

*Like so many tax critics, you have forgotten that income tax is but one source of tax revenue. Once you account for the additional sources (social insurance, corporate income, and excise taxes), the picture changes considerably. The upper quintile account for 58.5% of income tax revenue, but only 41.4% of all revenue.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Peter Mork]

My apologies that you found my post "high and mighty." However, it turns out that the minimum income needed to be in the top 5% is only ~$125K. If we define rich as income >= $200K, then the rich account for ~2% of the US population. (I don't have the exact percentage at my fingertips, but the cutoff for the top 1% is ~$300K.) I cut out the dollar definition because it did not jive with the top 5% definition, which was the definition I wanted to reply to. I then introduced the average income so that I could compare the top 5% to the bottom 20%. (These figures drawn from 2005 data, as published in Dec. 2007 by the CBO.)

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[TheWizardOfCheese]

When Morgan Chase was able to buy Bear Stearns with the 29 billion that the government gave them, it was one of the biggest handouts in US history.

Not exactly. The government is at risk for as much as 29bn should the losses on the Bear assets acquired by JP Morgan (not Morgan Chase, a different company) reach 30bn. However, 1) losses are calculated against a price that is already substantially marked down, not the face price, and 2) JP Morgan absorbs the first 1bn of losses. Since they don't really want to lose another billion, they have a strong interest in preserving the government's money too.

And last week the Fed announced plans to loan money to banks (which include brokerages that are not banks) at 2.5 percent, and then turn around and allow those banks to loan OUR money back to us at 30 percent credit card rates

Since these Fed loans are collateralized, they are not lending YOUR money but the bank's money, in more liquid form. The purpose of this is to allow the bank to lend YOU money. You know, just in case you wanted to own a house or have a job?

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Curunir_wolf]

I don't think you understand what Bear Sterns does. For the most part, they are just paid to manage *other people's* portfolios. So if they were forced into bankruptcy, not only would their own assets get frozen, so would the assets of millions of customers and their billions of dollars worth of assets.

"Hey, Bob, can you go ahead and sell that that mutual fund? The bank is breathing down my neck and I just need to liquidate some stuff to catch up."

"Oh, gee, sorry, Jim. Since we're bankrupt now, we can't do any buying and selling - have to wait for it all to get settled in court. I'm sure you'll get a letter in a few months telling you who is managing your stuff now."