U.S. Set to Begin a Vast Expansion of DNA Sampling

U.S. Set to Begin a Vast Expansion of DNA Sampling

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/washington/05dna.html?hp&ex=1170738000&en=4f5fb3a245f37a20&ei=5094&partner=homepage

By JULIA PRESTON
Published: February 5, 2007

The Justice Department is completing rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities, a vast expansion of DNA gathering that will include hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, by far the largest group affected.

The new forensic DNA sampling was authorized by Congress in a little-noticed amendment to a January 2006 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides protections and assistance for victims of sexual crimes. The amendment permits DNA collecting from anyone under criminal arrest by federal authorities, and also from illegal immigrants detained by federal agents.

Over the last year, the Justice Department has been conducting an internal review and consulting with other agencies to prepare regulations to carry out the law.

The goal, justice officials said, is to make the practice of DNA sampling as routine as fingerprinting for anyone detained by federal agents, including illegal immigrants.
Until now, federal authorities have taken DNA samples only from convicted felons.

snip-->

Under the new law, DNA samples would be taken from any illegal immigrants who are detained and would normally be fingerprinted, justice officials said. Last year federal customs, Border Patrol and immigration agents detained more than 1.2 million immigrants, the majority of them at the border with Mexico. About 238,000 of those immigrants were detained in immigration enforcement investigations. A great majority of all immigration detainees were fingerprinted, immigration officials said. About 102,000 people were arrested on federal charges not related to immigration in 2005.

While the proposed rules have not been finished, justice officials said they were certain to bring a huge new workload for the F.B.I. laboratory that logs, analyzes and stores federal DNA samples. Federal Bureau of Investigation officials said they anticipated an increase ranging from 250,000 to as many as 1 million samples a year.

More at link....

------------

First it's federal..and then....?
"rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested"

:wtf:

Gotta get rid of the gays.

And anyone who might get sick and need insurance.

Yup.

:grr:

Do you regain your privacy???

Does that mean if you're just questioned, they can take your DNA???
Detained means no charges, doesn't it? Being interviewed?

This is totally fucked up!!! Holy shit!! :grr:

nor safety" - Ben Franklin

I don't think the Feds (Gonzales) give a rats ass!

Besides, nobody's 'giving it up' voluntarily! :grr:

.

I believe it was in the 70s, maybe 80 or 81, but think it was 70s sometime. I remember reading a newspaper article about how Congress insured the safety of the future genetic industry and patents. If any of us owned our own DNA, any patent that was based upon it would be in jeopardy.

There have been times I wish I had clipped the article, but at the time it made me too damn mad, and it would probably be long gone by now in some file folder or box stuffed away somewhere obscure and never to be seen again.

It was another damn property grab. Guess who lost? Guess who won?

How does anyone exert property rights and privacy over something you don't own? And if you don't own your own body, then who or what entity does?

*Life* liberty and Happiness: my my, what lies are told for money. If anything represents biological *life*, DNA does.

were in the majority and looks to have been attached to a women's sexual assault bill.

Typical neo-con underhanded bullshit!!

I have heard of what you're talking about. Ownership over our DNA...

But I hadn't heard it was removed, although I've read recently that companies are filing patents on genes.

But besides that...they want to DNA sample "just because they can!!" :wtf:

"The FBI's DNA Program"

June 12, 2001

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/dwight061201.htm

snip-->

How does CODIS work? For example, a sexual assault is committed and an evidence kit is collected from the victim. A DNA profile of the perpetrator is developed from the sexual assault evidence kit. If there is no suspect in the case or if the suspect's DNA profile does not match that of the evidence, the laboratory will search the DNA profile against the convicted offender index. If there is a match in the convicted offender index, the laboratory will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator. If there is no match in the convicted offender index, the DNA profile is searched in the forensic or crime scene index. If there is a match in the forensic index, the laboratory has linked two or more crimes together and the law enforcement agencies involved in the cases are able to pool the information obtained on each of the cases.

snip-->

One of the underlying concepts behind CODIS is to create a database of a state's convicted offender profiles and use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects. Recognizing this, as early as the late 1980's, the states began to enact laws that required offenders convicted of sexual offenses and other violent crimes to provide DNA samples. These DNA samples were to be analyzed and entered into state DNA databases. As you know, all fifty states now have such DNA database laws

snip-->

The DNA Identification Act of 1994 provided the statutory authority for creation of the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and specified the type of data that could be included in this national index. Only the following types of DNA data may be stored in the national index administered by the FBI Director:

* DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes;
* analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes;
* analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human remains; and
* analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons. See 42 U.S.C.S. §14132(a).

In accordance with the DNA Act, the FBI recommends that states include all felony offenders and misdemeanor sex offenders within the scope of their database laws. A review of other states' experiences indicate that it is valuable to include what may not be traditionally characterized as violent felony offenses, such as burglary and some drug-related offenses. States have been identifying offenders for subsequent offenses based upon their inclusion in the DNA database for such non-violent felonies.

----------

Next it'll be traffic stops and failure to yield right!!

:grr:

My own tinfoil
believes the authorities already have complete DNA profiles on all citizens, and that articles such as this simply serve to notify, in a gradual acclimation process, what they have already been doing.

I'm reminded of Bush's continued use of the phrase "ownership society" and look around at all the natural "ownership" that has been removed from common citizens. One of Bush's Initiatives, I think it was "mental health", relayed the information that ownership of medical records is by States and shared with 27 Federal agencies.

I wonder how many "private contractors" are involved in this data theft?

edited for typo.

for a Defense Department "study" (TIA?) - there was an "opt out" option (prolly in the small print that folks don't read) rather than an "opt in".

is making the individual "presumed guilty" before trial, if there is a trial. I understand taking fingerprints as that is routine police procedure.

The DNA is troubling on a lot of levels. If there is a sexual crime, the prosecutor can move for a compulsorily DNA sampling and usually can get it and the sample does not go beyong the particular trial.

The federal government collecting and possibly disseminating DNA to anyone or any institution or who knows what is patently illegal. Hoover would've loved this!

Does anyone know if this is being challenged by an individual and/or the ACLU?

searched for that info. yet. Did you?

It doesn't say ONLY WHEN ARRESTED...it says DETAINED!

And what their qualifications for doing so are.

hospitals and nurses, medical people, etc.

Just like if someone has a DUI, the police take the accused to the ER for blood draws.

I don't think PCR tests are cheap either.

Since they've been doing it longer, we can see what it's led to over there:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/18/dna_database_figures_higher/

Less than two thirds of people whose profile is stored on the National DNA Database are there for having been cautioned or convicted of a criminal offence, Home Office figures have revealed.

In response to a parliamentary question, John Reid last week responded that 3,457,000 individuals are on the database, but 1,139,445 have no criminal record. The figure is eight times the total of 139,463 reported by the Home Office Earlier in March.

~snip~

The National DNA Database is the world's largest repository of human DNA profiles. Anyone who is arrested by the police for any offence has a sample taken for the database. The project has been broadly condemned by civil liberties groups, and by Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who developed DNA fingerprinting.

In November he said: "Now hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent people are populating that database, people who have come to the police's attention, for example by being charged with a crime and subsequently released."


Also found this small item about this in action in the UK. It's an email question and answer a father sent to a news column there:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=judge-tread--no-escaping-the-dna-file-&method=full&objectid=18574098&siteid=62484-name_page.html

JUDGE TREAD: NO ESCAPING THE DNA FILE
Ollie Mishcon

Q MY son was asked by the police to attend one of their stations after a motorcyclist came off his bike. The rider accused my son of causing him to spill from his bike by making a U-turn in the road ahead of him. There was no contact and the rider and bike were OK.

I went to the station with my son where he was questioned, his DNA and fingerprints taken and he was photographed. After a 90-minute interview we left. Later a PC called to advise there was no evidence to suggest my son was involved and no action would be taken.

But he added that under a Home Office directive my son's details will be held indefinitely on their database and he will be "known to the police".

Surely this could be open to abuse?

A IT sounds wrong, it sounds unjust and it sounds as if it is open to abuse but it is true. The police can keep the records of innocents, even if a case never reached court. This was challenged recently, but the House of Lords decided the benefits of expanding the police DNA data base outweighed concerns over civil liberties. I'm sure we'll hear more about this topic in the future.

This sounds very troubling to me.