The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
So I listened to a nice interview of SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein, and they talked about cameras in the Supreme Court. A clip of a past interview with Scalia was included in which he voices his opposition, due to the risk of the media taking sound bites out of context. At the risk of proving Scalia right (to which I would still say, "so what?"), I'm going to pull this quote of his from that interview out of context:
Today’s unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, expands government power, invades our liberty, and undermines our constitutional rights. The Court held that the police can forcibly take DNA samples from people who have been arrested—but have not been tried or convicted—of a serious offense. So now the government can capture, without a search warrant, the most personal information about an individual, and use it to search vast databases for unrelated offenses.
All 50 States already collect DNA from convicted felons. So this intrusion of liberty will matter only for those not convicted: the innocent and wrongly accused or those for whom there is insufficient evidence to convict.
As Justice Scalia rightly noted in dissent, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
All of us should be alarmed by this significant step towards government as Big Brother. The excessive concentration of power in government is always inimical to liberty, and a national database of our DNA cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment.
Accumulating DNA from arrestees—without warrant or probable cause to seize the DNA—is not designed to solve the crime for which the person has (rightly or wrongly) been arrested. Rather, it’s to test the DNA against a national database to potentially implicate them in other unsolved crimes. But the Constitution requires particularized suspicion of a specific crime; indeed, the Fourth Amendment was adopted to prohibit the British practice of “general warrants” targeting individuals absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.
Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent is right: If we really want a DNA database to solve more crimes, then why not require DNA samples to fly on airplanes, get driver's licenses, or attend public schools?
If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.
Law enforcement is a paramount function of government. But we cannot allow that government function to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. And, as recent events involving the IRS have demonstrated, unchecked government power—and intrusive personal databases maintained on the citizenry—poses real risks to our liberty.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 2:00 pm Posts: 382 Location: Buffalo, NY
Green Habit wrote:
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=342973
Ted Cruz wrote:
Today’s unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, expands government power, invades our liberty, and undermines our constitutional rights. The Court held that the police can forcibly take DNA samples from people who have been arrested—but have not been tried or convicted—of a serious offense. So now the government can capture, without a search warrant, the most personal information about an individual, and use it to search vast databases for unrelated offenses.
All 50 States already collect DNA from convicted felons. So this intrusion of liberty will matter only for those not convicted: the innocent and wrongly accused or those for whom there is insufficient evidence to convict.
As Justice Scalia rightly noted in dissent, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
All of us should be alarmed by this significant step towards government as Big Brother. The excessive concentration of power in government is always inimical to liberty, and a national database of our DNA cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment.
Accumulating DNA from arrestees—without warrant or probable cause to seize the DNA—is not designed to solve the crime for which the person has (rightly or wrongly) been arrested. Rather, it’s to test the DNA against a national database to potentially implicate them in other unsolved crimes. But the Constitution requires particularized suspicion of a specific crime; indeed, the Fourth Amendment was adopted to prohibit the British practice of “general warrants” targeting individuals absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.
Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent is right: If we really want a DNA database to solve more crimes, then why not require DNA samples to fly on airplanes, get driver's licenses, or attend public schools?
If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.
Law enforcement is a paramount function of government. But we cannot allow that government function to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. And, as recent events involving the IRS have demonstrated, unchecked government power—and intrusive personal databases maintained on the citizenry—poses real risks to our liberty.
Hard to argue with Scalia on this one. He's absolutely correct. IMO.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Today’s unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, expands government power, invades our liberty, and undermines our constitutional rights. The Court held that the police can forcibly take DNA samples from people who have been arrested—but have not been tried or convicted—of a serious offense. So now the government can capture, without a search warrant, the most personal information about an individual, and use it to search vast databases for unrelated offenses.
All 50 States already collect DNA from convicted felons. So this intrusion of liberty will matter only for those not convicted: the innocent and wrongly accused or those for whom there is insufficient evidence to convict.
As Justice Scalia rightly noted in dissent, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
All of us should be alarmed by this significant step towards government as Big Brother. The excessive concentration of power in government is always inimical to liberty, and a national database of our DNA cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment.
Accumulating DNA from arrestees—without warrant or probable cause to seize the DNA—is not designed to solve the crime for which the person has (rightly or wrongly) been arrested. Rather, it’s to test the DNA against a national database to potentially implicate them in other unsolved crimes. But the Constitution requires particularized suspicion of a specific crime; indeed, the Fourth Amendment was adopted to prohibit the British practice of “general warrants” targeting individuals absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.
Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent is right: If we really want a DNA database to solve more crimes, then why not require DNA samples to fly on airplanes, get driver's licenses, or attend public schools?
If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.
Law enforcement is a paramount function of government. But we cannot allow that government function to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. And, as recent events involving the IRS have demonstrated, unchecked government power—and intrusive personal databases maintained on the citizenry—poses real risks to our liberty.
Hard to argue with Scalia on this one. He's absolutely correct. IMO.
Agreed. I'm gonna beat the shit out of the next person I hear say, "It's just like fingerprinting." Are you really that fucking stupid?
To play devil's advocate, how is taking DNA different than taking fingerprints?
DNA is our genetic blueprint. A fingerprint is an impression that my finger leaves. I personally don't like the thought of having something stuck in my mouth either.
My big problem here is the term "serious crime." That's a rather large slippery slope. Is a bar fight a serious crime? Is a DUI? I can tell you that in PHX, this will mean Sheriff Joe will be swabbing the mouth of every brown person.
Also, I'm not a kooky conspiracy person, but I must admit that the thought of a giant government DNA database scares me. Who knows where this could lead? Will they send the DNA drones for one of my grandchildren when it's determined that he/she is genetically predisposed to question the authority of our supreme leader/sentient android overlord?
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:24 pm Posts: 2868 Location: Death Machine Inc's HQ
turned2black wrote:
broken iris wrote:
To play devil's advocate, how is taking DNA different than taking fingerprints?
DNA is our genetic blueprint. A fingerprint is an impression that my finger leaves. I personally don't like the thought of having something stuck in my mouth either.
I don't want some minimum wage DMV-level govvie sticking anything in my mouth either, but your post explains (again, from a devil's advocate position) exactly why this is needed. Fingerprints, especially partials, are not unique but DNA is.
turned2black wrote:
Also, I'm not a kooky conspiracy person, but I must admit that the thought of a giant government DNA database scares me. Who knows where this could lead? Will they send the DNA drones for one of my grandchildren when it's determined that he/she is genetically predisposed to question the authority of our supreme leader/sentient android overlord?
Sorry bro, this is already in existence. The question is what are the valid uses of that information and who should be allowed access. I would be much more worried about the establishment of one in the private sector that would be used for discrimination. Do you really believe that all the blood samples your insurance company takes are just to check if you have low vitamin D levels?
I don't have a problem whatsoever with a giant DNA database.
It makes it much harder to hide from crimes like Rape.
Privacy doesn't exist anymore, we barely have any property rights, this is a new age form of fingerprinting. It's better form of fingerprinting of which there have been several national and international databases.
The Marcia Clark's of the world, will still find ways to fuck this up.
I don't know why we don't use DNA instead of fingerprinting on ID. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Shouldn't we want serious unsolved crimes to be solved? I'd much rather bust a murderer than a petty drug offender.
Could this not help to ensure that innocent people are not jailed for years on hearsay for crimes the didn't commit?
To play devil's advocate, how is taking DNA different than taking fingerprints?
DNA is our genetic blueprint. A fingerprint is an impression that my finger leaves. I personally don't like the thought of having something stuck in my mouth either.
I don't want some minimum wage DMV-level govvie sticking anything in my mouth either, but your post explains (again, from a devil's advocate position) exactly why this is needed. Fingerprints, especially partials, are not unique but DNA is.
Agreed, but again, to compare DNA swabbing to fingerprinting is ridiculous. They are trying to bypass the privacy issue by turning it into a procedural act.
broken iris wrote:
turned2black wrote:
Also, I'm not a kooky conspiracy person, but I must admit that the thought of a giant government DNA database scares me. Who knows where this could lead? Will they send the DNA drones for one of my grandchildren when it's determined that he/she is genetically predisposed to question the authority of our supreme leader/sentient android overlord?
Sorry bro, this is already in existence. The question is what are the valid uses of that information and who should be allowed access. I would be much more worried about the establishment of one in the private sector that would be used for discrimination. Do you really believe that all the blood samples your insurance company takes are just to check if you have low vitamin D levels?
Oh, I know it exists. There are NO valid reasons for the government to use or share my genetic code.
I don't have a problem whatsoever with a giant DNA database.
It makes it much harder to hide from crimes like Rape.
Privacy doesn't exist anymore, we barely have any property rights, this is a new age form of fingerprinting. It's better form of fingerprinting of which there have been several national and international databases.
The Marcia Clark's of the world, will still find ways to fuck this up.
I don't know why we don't use DNA instead of fingerprinting on ID. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Shouldn't we want serious unsolved crimes to be solved? I'd much rather bust a murderer than a petty drug offender.
Could this not help to ensure that innocent people are not jailed for years on hearsay for crimes the didn't commit?
So you think there should be a gigantic database where all the world's police forces and governments share the DNA information of the world's population?
I don't have a problem whatsoever with a giant DNA database.
It makes it much harder to hide from crimes like Rape.
Privacy doesn't exist anymore, we barely have any property rights, this is a new age form of fingerprinting. It's better form of fingerprinting of which there have been several national and international databases.
The Marcia Clark's of the world, will still find ways to fuck this up.
I don't know why we don't use DNA instead of fingerprinting on ID. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Shouldn't we want serious unsolved crimes to be solved? I'd much rather bust a murderer than a petty drug offender.
Could this not help to ensure that innocent people are not jailed for years on hearsay for crimes the didn't commit?
So you think there should be a gigantic database where all the world's police forces and governments share the DNA information of the world's population?
Just typing the question made me shudder.
They already share fingerprints and all manner of other information about us, not to mention a person with the right knowledge can find out virtually any piece of data about us on the internet in less than 2 minutes.
I'm not sure how being able to confirm that the DNA on a rape victim, is that of another person is going to be anymore of an invasion of privacy than fingerprinting already is.
I'm less afraid of law inforcement than I am of the politicians that control them.
I'm more concerned with thier ability to retain the integrity of the database (and that it would actually work properly) than the fact that they would have one.
I don't have a problem whatsoever with a giant DNA database.
It makes it much harder to hide from crimes like Rape.
Privacy doesn't exist anymore, we barely have any property rights, this is a new age form of fingerprinting. It's better form of fingerprinting of which there have been several national and international databases.
The Marcia Clark's of the world, will still find ways to fuck this up.
I don't know why we don't use DNA instead of fingerprinting on ID. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Shouldn't we want serious unsolved crimes to be solved? I'd much rather bust a murderer than a petty drug offender.
Could this not help to ensure that innocent people are not jailed for years on hearsay for crimes the didn't commit?
So you think there should be a gigantic database where all the world's police forces and governments share the DNA information of the world's population?
Just typing the question made me shudder.
They already share fingerprints and all manner of other information about us, not to mention a person with the right knowledge can find out virtually any piece of data about us on the internet in less than 2 minutes.
I'm not sure how being able to confirm that the DNA on a rape victim, is that of another person is going to be anymore of an invasion of privacy than fingerprinting already is.
I'm less afraid of law inforcement than I am of the politicians that control them.
I'm more concerned with thier ability to retain the integrity of the database (and that it would actually work properly) than the fact that they would have one.
They widely fail to test rape kits as it is. I'm not sure that a mountain of more DNA will make it easier to solve crimes.
I don't have a problem whatsoever with a giant DNA database.
It makes it much harder to hide from crimes like Rape.
Privacy doesn't exist anymore, we barely have any property rights, this is a new age form of fingerprinting. It's better form of fingerprinting of which there have been several national and international databases.
The Marcia Clark's of the world, will still find ways to fuck this up.
I don't know why we don't use DNA instead of fingerprinting on ID. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Shouldn't we want serious unsolved crimes to be solved? I'd much rather bust a murderer than a petty drug offender.
Could this not help to ensure that innocent people are not jailed for years on hearsay for crimes the didn't commit?
So you think there should be a gigantic database where all the world's police forces and governments share the DNA information of the world's population?
Just typing the question made me shudder.
They already share fingerprints and all manner of other information about us, not to mention a person with the right knowledge can find out virtually any piece of data about us on the internet in less than 2 minutes.
I'm not sure how being able to confirm that the DNA on a rape victim, is that of another person is going to be anymore of an invasion of privacy than fingerprinting already is.
I'm less afraid of law inforcement than I am of the politicians that control them.
I'm more concerned with thier ability to retain the integrity of the database (and that it would actually work properly) than the fact that they would have one.
They widely fail to test rape kits as it is. I'm not sure that a mountain of more DNA will make it easier to solve crimes.
Easier? No. More accurate, perhaps faster, that's possible.
I don't see how it is unreasonable however. We have to submit a blood sample to test for DUI if we decline a breath test for instance. This is a mouth swab. The quality of police work and or prosecutors is not really on trial.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:24 pm Posts: 2868 Location: Death Machine Inc's HQ
Electromatic wrote:
I'm more concerned with thier ability to retain the integrity of the database (and that it would actually work properly) than the fact that they would have one.
Ah, this is a good point that I hadn't really considered.
GH, or any that knows, are federal records (in this case a description of a certain number of DNA segments) enough to count as evidence in a criminal trial or does the prosecution need to produce the actual DNA sample for defense testing as well? Seems like this would be ripe for abuse. Like for example I bet 'they' would have no problem finding Julian Assange's DNA in there. By pure coincidence, of course.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
broken iris wrote:
GH, or any that knows, are federal records (in this case a description of a certain number of DNA segments) enough to count as evidence in a criminal trial or does the prosecution need to produce the actual DNA sample for defense testing as well? Seems like this would be ripe for abuse. Like for example I bet 'they' would have no problem finding Julian Assange's DNA in there. By pure coincidence, of course.
I have no clue.
What's really troubling about this case is not DNA collecting in general, but why it was collected, and how it was used. I predict that a generation from now, almost everyone's DNA will be collected when they're in school, like they've done before with fingerprints. I also seriously doubt there will be many problems with this, and it will make this controversy moot.
But until then, what we had was a person arrested on suspicion of a crime completely unrelated to the one that he was charged with using his DNA. That's where I think the police fail the ol' probable cause test.
Its totally fucked up and im not sure anyone has talked about it in this way but...
OFficers being able to collect DNA on anyone that has been arrested - Im sure most people think about people who are arrested for serious crimes...but what about those people arrested for ridiculous ones? Peeing in public, scruff outside of a bar, SUSPICION of DUI (something I am too familiar with) etc... That is insane.
An officer can arrest you on suspicion of DUI. One can be under the legal limit but opted for a blood test. Arrest is taken place, person is brought to detox, car impounded..... Blood work comes back three months later and suspect was under the legal limit. But suspect was arrested. DNA collected. Boom. Completely unnecessary. Everyday citizens arrested on petty crimes can now have DNA collected. With the legal limit possibly being reduced to .05 (that is 1 drink) the entire population will be arreste at some point....
Im rambling. Sorry.
This whole thing is frightening and now on top of Verizon turning over ALL phone records to the NSA...
Anyone want to move to canada? Or go off the grid?
Its totally fucked up and im not sure anyone has talked about it in this way but...
OFficers being able to collect DNA on anyone that has been arrested - Im sure most people think about people who are arrested for serious crimes...but what about those people arrested for ridiculous ones? Peeing in public, scruff outside of a bar, SUSPICION of DUI (something I am too familiar with) etc... That is insane.
An officer can arrest you on suspicion of DUI. One can be under the legal limit but opted for a blood test. Arrest is taken place, person is brought to detox, car impounded..... Blood work comes back three months later and suspect was under the legal limit. But suspect was arrested. DNA collected. Boom. Completely unnecessary. Everyday citizens arrested on petty crimes can now have DNA collected. With the legal limit possibly being reduced to .05 (that is 1 drink) the entire population will be arreste at some point....
Im rambling. Sorry.
This whole thing is frightening and now on top of Verizon turning over ALL phone records to the NSA...
Anyone want to move to canada? Or go off the grid?
#Patriot Act. Privacy is dead. We have no ability to assume privacy. We chose security over freedom.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
