This is what we are headed for among other things

[sproutster]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12743184/

British police ran the results through a national DNA database of known
criminals, but didn't turn up anyone with an exact match. They did, however,
notice someone whose DNA profile was close: a 14-year-old boy who was not
even alive when White was murdered but who had gotten into trouble with the
cops.

DNA testing of the boy's family eventually led police to Jeffrey Gafoor, the
boy's paternal uncle, whose DNA exactly matched that of the blood sample.
When questioned, Gafoor admitted to murdering White.

The case was a dramatic example of "kinship analysis," which could become
more common as the practice of collecting DNA for crimes increases and the
technique becomes more systemized and efficient, researchers said Thursday.

But widespread use of the technique raises issues about civil liberties
violations, they caution. Guilty by association

</snip>

I don't want to live in this sort of world. I'm sorry, last I heard I was born free.

[Warpy]

1. Really? You'd want a guilty relative, a monster who murdered

other human beings to go free? Now THAT is the kind of world I don't want to live in.

DNA is much more reliable than circumstantial evidence and far, far more reliable than eyewitnesses, who are infamous for wanting to please authority so much that "looks like" becomes "that's him!"

What does it matter whether or not a murderer is trapped by a smoking gun in his hand or a scumbag relative's DNA 14 years later? We want to get these guys off the street before they do it again.

[Minnesota Libra]

2. Because DNA is HIGHLY invasive and can be used for purposes...............

....other than just finding criminals. It's the "I have nothing to hide because I've done nothing wrong" argument but in a slightly different way.

I am ALL FOR catching criminals - true criminals - but when people are encouraged to give DNA or possibly be suspected of a crime they didn't commit then that goes too far.

[Warpy]

5. DNA testing is NON invasive

and requires only a mouth swab.

All the real work is done in the lab.

The human genome has been decoded, but they still don't know which sequences do what in most cases. Much of it is vestigial.

Most people who give DNA after a crime do so in order they can be ruled out completely and get the cops onto the real perp.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. It's no different than your picture or fingerprints and a lot more specific in ruling you out as a suspect.

[Minnesota Libra]

6. Is there anything more personal than DNA?? Again, when people............

....are encouraged or required to give up something that is so personal to each individual just to lear themselves of something they didn't do in the first place - that goes too far.

Demanding DNA from someone suspected of a crime - through an official search warrant is one thing - the spoke of a family member giving DNA that convicted their relative.

In other words I don't give a crap what cops think I've done I'm not "ruling myself out as a suspect" unless there is a court issued order. They can suspect me of whatever they choose - the name of this game is "probable cause and a court order".

[treestar]

3. But they don't need a data base of everybody

Just get samples where it is warranted.

[Warpy]

4. That's all they did.

Once they had the punk kid's DNA and found a high grade match, they knew where to look for the murderer.

It wasn't a general sweep, although when there's a serial rapist loose, general sweeps have been done in the UK.