Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taking a sample to determine if you're involved in a crime, in my opinion is reasonable. Keeping that DNA info on file after you're found to NOT be involved is the problem. That info should immediately be destroyed if you're cleared of wrong doing.
The facts counter your claim. The conservative justices voted for the majority on this case. The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.
Taking a sample to determine if you're involved in a crime, in my opinion is reasonable. Keeping that DNA info on file after you're found to NOT be involved is the problem. That info should immediately be destroyed if you're cleared of wrong doing.
I got a copy of my NYC birth certificate over the web.
I had personal questions about my home phone number from 20 years ago.
If they keep my old phone numbers on record you can bet the farm they are going to keep that DNA on record as well.
Once put into a computer system it becomes "forever".
The odds are you are not just a face in the crowd any longer. Even if your picture isn't plastered all over social networking and photo-sharing sites, facial recognition technology in public places is making it harder if not impossible to remain anonymous. Lesley Stahl reports on the new ways this technology is being used that even has one of its inventors calling it too intrusive. Her 60 Minutes report will be broadcast Sunday, May 19 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Professor Alessandro Acquisti of Carnegie Mellon, who researches how technology impacts privacy, stunned Stahl with an experiment. He photographed random students on the campus and in short order, not only identified several of them, but in a number of cases found their personal information, including social security numbers, just using a facial recognition program he downloaded for free. Acquisti says smart-phones will make "facial searches" as common as Google searches in the future. And nearly everybody can be subject to such prying, even those who are careful about their Internet use.
Just another consequence for doing wrong. Many people arrested will be arrested again in their lifetime. I say keep their DNA just as they would keep a criminal record. Not sure the problem unless you were afraid of being linked to a crime in which you thought you got away free and clear of. If you were wrongly accused I still think it should be kept. You were obviously close to the crime or new someone involved in the crime enough that you were arrested. If you are innocent then its no biggy but if you are released and your DNA starts popping up on other crime scenes that may have previously gone unnoticed well now your not that innocent. Now if they wanted to go door to door, I may have a problem with that.
DNA is a powerful tool in fighting crimes, and resolving those crimes which were committed a long time ago, so I am ok with this. I do not think it is unreasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
