It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA-collection bill signed into law

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

DNA-collection bill signed into law


www.montrosepress.com

DENVER — Area legislators hailed Thursday’s passage of Colorado’s version of Katie’s Law as a means of protecting the public and exonerating the innocent.

“We created legislation that is going to save people’s lives,” Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez said Thursday, just before Gov. Bill Ritter inked Senate Bill 241 into law. “I couldn’t be more pleased or excited to see the bill go through.”

Tipton, with Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction and Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, sponsored the bill, which requires DNA samples from anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
New US Policy Mandates Expanded DNA Database - Implementation Soon




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Yet another law mandating DNA collection, not just from felons, but from those who the authorities "suspect". There was, at one point, a provision that these records be destroyed eventually, but it was removed from the law:


The bill once required the state to pay $25,000 if records weren’t properly expunged when required, but that provision was eliminated amid concerns about unfairly burdening smaller agencies.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


About 20 states now have DNA collection laws. Are we moving towards a National DNA database, for all individuals? Would that be a bad thing? Think of the possible medical applications - studing susceptibility to health problems, infectious disease, etc. Current federal laws forbid discrimination based on DNA information - why are "privacy advocates" so concerned about this?


www.montrosepress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Look up Iceland and National DNA database, they debated it for a couple of years as a medical research tool (no names attached just DNA) and in the end they found that too many of the companies supporting the idea had some pretty unpleasant ideas of other uses for the idea. In the end they scrapped the part of it already build and decided it was too invasive and abused privacy because they decided that an individual owns there own DNA and companies couldn't pattent sequences.

I read one article about a company there trying to pattent a sequence they found in one family that increased immunity to something (it's been a year since reading this stuff). Personally I don't like the idea of someone pattenting my DNA and then charging me a license fee because I'm using thier pattent. If you don't think it won't happen look up Monsanto and the lawsuit against farmers who's crops picked up DNA sequences pattented by them from Bees naturally.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I'm going to have to wonder the same thing... What are people so concerned about?

1)It will help prevent repeat offenders from getting away
2)It will offer material for study
3)How will it affect privacy exactly? It's not like your neighbor... or even yourself for that matter even have a clue what your DNA looks like, nor does anyone really care.

For the people seeing conspiracy in this one... honestly, what COULD someone do with your DNA anyway?

edit: didn't think of the patent thing... I can honestly say that someone patenting my sequence would be f'ed up. But I can say if someone tries to get money for me posessing that sequence without their permission, I would probably kill that person.... after all his case would mean that I would need to be dead to stop infringing on his patent, in which case I would plead self defense... which would be perfectly OK, since he's trying to take away my right to life... and with him dead, the patent would revert to his family, who would likely do the same thing, resulting in their imminent death due to the same circumstances.... a cycle repeating until the patent expires or is rendered illegal....

See how ridiculous that sounded? I don't think there's much to worry about involving your DNA.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by judgiebegoode]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
My DNA is too superior. No way I'll have it collected and patented.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the concept of "prior art" prevent patenting human DNA? I can understand people wanting to patent DNA sequences that they create themselves, but stuff that already exists?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I'd be interested in learning how the 4th and 5th Amendments could be used to fight this.

With the 4th, unreasonable search and seizure, wouldn't collecting DNA samples without the consent of the individual in question or a warrant, presuming due process was applied to obtain the warrant and not just a phone call to a judge saying "we suspect X individual was involved", for the purpose of connecting one with the commission of a crime... would that not violate that amendment?

And then, what about the right of the individual to not self-incriminate (5th Amendment), which arguably DNA sampling would do, since DNA is the most reliable way of identifying an individual and is in essence one's self? How is it possible that one cannot be compelled or coerced to admit having an association with a crime via oral or written testimony yet be compelled to provide molecular proof one's self was involved?

Then I'd ask how this would affect brothers and sisters, who arguably could have matching mitochondrial DNA, and twins? I could imagine it being possible for a relative to be blamed and convicted of a crime which they did not commit and have no way to exonerate themself.

And for the record, I'm not against DNA testing to establish paternity, etc. Often, it's concluded that an accused father is not the father of the child so it can work in either's benefit. But the DNA 'print' should be discarded or otherwise sealed to prevent its use elsewhere. As well, criminals convicted due to voluntarily submitting DNA evidence have voluntarily submitted DNA and thus, I believe, should have DNA kept on record due to recitivism but I think it would be fair to expunge the recorded DNA after a period of time based on the nature of the conviction, sentence and duration of incarceration. And I'm not going to go into my rationale for that, how long it should be kept based on which crime, etc.

*cheers*



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by judgiebegoode
I'm going to have to wonder the same thing... What are people so concerned about?

1)It will help prevent repeat offenders from getting away


The part I am concerned about is what happened with the UK one. They found that if there was a rape and they rounded up a bunch of people just because they lived in the area and DNA tested them to figure if any of them were the rapist they were supposed to delete the ones who had no criminal record (ie the innocent) a few years later it was found they were not deleting them and were using it to compare to items found on sites of future crimes.

I'm concerned because they took out the provision to remove data pertaining to innocent people.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the concept of "prior art" prevent patenting human DNA? I can understand people wanting to patent DNA sequences that they create themselves, but stuff that already exists?


You can patent a sequence if you are the first to decode what it does. I don't think you can patent a whole person though. I have an associate who is a geneticist. I'll email them and find out the exact way it works, we've discussed it before and I may be a little off.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the concept of "prior art" prevent patenting human DNA? I can understand people wanting to patent DNA sequences that they create themselves, but stuff that already exists?


You can patent a sequence if you are the first to decode what it does. I don't think you can patent a whole person though. I have an associate who is a geneticist. I'll email them and find out the exact way it works, we've discussed it before and I may be a little off.


In copywrite law if it is changed a bit it can be patented, but not always. There is no real line where ownership lies, it must be decided by a judge. So they will be adding on a few molecules that do nothing and then saying it is their own sequence.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
They can have my DNA when I'm dead.

Otherwise they can buy it for the bargain price of $1,000,000.

Fair price for something unique don't you think?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
You can't patent a DNA sequence, perhaps the methodology for sequencing it in the lab, but not individual DNA; that's just nonsense imo.

Anyway, back to the OP:

This whole DNA thing is dangerous and it annoys me when people say “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. You have everything to hide...YOUR PRIVACY!!

Basically DNA profiles are captured using SGM Plus, which compares DNA sequences with database acquisitions.

However, the danger lies in the fact that many samples provide only a partial profile or match. Some samples from crime scenes have resulted in multiple matches on the national database!! If the sequence count is low*, then they replicate the sequence in a lab to determine a match, thus falsifying the original 'partial' sequence.
*(Refer to low-copy number DNA: Source - Wiki).

So these partial profiles can point the finger at more than one suspect, sometimes many more. The police then have to rely on other evidence, which leads to subjective investigation and even guilt by association.

Another danger in relying on DNA is second-party transmission; if i shake your hand and then touch the door handle of my car. The car is later involved in a crime – they find your DNA! Try proving you're innocent in a court of law.

Also, false DNA traces, such as cigarette butts taken from a bar, could be planted at crime scenes to mislead police.

I have created a thread about the UK going live with a child database that captures the profile of EVERY kid in the kid, called ContactPoint; thread is here.

I feel that RFID passports and the ContactPoint database, are all leading to a state of affairs where your individuality is negated. The only important thing the authorities need is your biometric profile. If you are a suspect, then you've got Bob Hope and no hope of proving your innocence.

If you haven't seen the excellent film Gattaca, i'd highly recommend you watch it. It gives a glimpse of the way DNA is used to segregate the wheat from the chaff from birth:



Regards
PoS



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981

You can patent a sequence if you are the first to decode what it does. I don't think you can patent a whole person though. I have an associate who is a geneticist. I'll email them and find out the exact way it works, we've discussed it before and I may be a little off.


You, or anyone else should not be able to patent the dna sequence of another person, EVER.

I really don't give a crap that geneticists "think" that they can solve all the problems in the world by being able to own another person's dna sequence.

The fact is if geneticists are given a green light to own the dna patent of another person, it simply means that person is the property of someone else, and with these new claims by the DHS that "possible terrorists" include returning veterans, people who own firearms, people who want to defend the second amendment or any, or all amendments, people who do not like, or fear Communism, people who question the government, and it's policy.

The PRB are moving ever closer to being able to own everyone, and being able to do anything they want with them.

People will be turned into "MANDATORY/Voluntary" guinea pigs. Yes I know it is an oxymoron but the present administration has made MANDATORY that people VOLUNTEER themselves according to H.R. 1388.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by judgiebegoode
..............
For the people seeing conspiracy in this one... honestly, what COULD someone do with your DNA anyway?
...........
See how ridiculous that sounded? I don't think there's much to worry about involving your DNA.


You are kidding right? You can't be this naive.

Geneticists, or, and the government owning people's dna sequence means they can do anything and everything to that person. The person would have to undergo tests, for the benefit of big pharma, and the government and they wouldn't care one bit, just like they don't care now, that such a person could develop serious health problems, jsut like is happening all over the world due to vaccines, and other government/big pharma testing.

This should never become law, and if geneticists are able to patent the dna of people already, this is an infrigement on the rights of those people whose the government/big pharma have a pattent of their dna sequence.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I am not sure if this belongs here or not.

I think my DNA might be unique in that I have a VERY strong immunity to infections.
I could get stabbed with a stick covered in Feces and not get an infection from it.

What would cause something like that?

I wonder if I can EBAY my Infection Resistant DNA?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join