This is one sort of identify that no one than steal. But honestly, how invasive is plucking someone hair or swabbing their inner cheek?
Quote:
|
"People who are merely accused of a crime or a civil violation of law but haven't been convicted of anything are being subjected to the most invasive sort of testing," he said.
|
There was uproar when the US began the finger print program as part of border control in first port of entry (airports). Anyway, the only reason why I would be against this at this time is because we have not proved that DNA matching is 100% reliable. Here in Houston the test labs were mismanaged, samples lost or mixed up and people were convicted for crimes they didn't commit. We proved (especially in Houston) how easy it is to mismanage classification and comparison of ones DNA. If in our city we cannot manage this how do they propose to manage it with highest confidence at a country level? The CDC can't even do proper drug testing and the US public relies on them.
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.
