DNA in private hands

If you are under 34 and were born in Victoria, a private company has your DNA on file - and people are worried. Tom Noble reports.
A child's birth is a special moment - the labour, the joy, the chaos. And about 48 hours into a new life, each baby has a medical test that has saved countless children's lives.....

www.theage.com.au...

I have just come across the above article and was quite shocked. I was born in Melbourne, Victoria in 1974, and couldn't believe that my DNA is in the possession of a private company. What could this possibly mean for me and countless others who were born within this period?
I did a search in Google to see if this was being done in other countries other than Australia, but could not find any info. Does anybody here know whether this is common practice elsewhere?

From the same article -

"Genetic Health Services Victoria is a non-profit company, a wholly owned subsidiary of another company, the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. Neither is subject to freedom of information laws nor are they required to report to Parliament."

If that's the same Murdoch as I'm thinking of.....!

The process seems to be more widespread in Oz than I'd imagined -

Genetic Health says it follows national pathology guidelines, but the guidelines say cards need be kept only 25 years.

In Western Australia, cards are destroyed after two years and in NSW after 18 years.

I'm gobsmacked. This is gonna take some getting used to.

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Even if they were to introduce laws, whereby the DNA samples should be destroyed, how would we 'really' know whether they truly got rid of them?
The deed is done, and they could do whatever they want, whenever they want.
I consider my personal DNA as being my property. I find it disturbing that there are others out there like this private company, who think otherwise.

Im surprised someone hasnt tried to file a lawsuit. I would. Thats my damn DNA beetches!

South Carolina has defused a recent controversy over its practice of freezing and storing infants' blood samples in perpetuity, samples that critics feared could be used someday for DNA testing without the subjects' permission or anonymity......

abcnews.go.com...

Looks like this practice is more widespread than I had initially thought. Although the above article makes no mention of the DNA samples being privatley owned, are we also able to trust our Governments in holding our DNA?

just finished listening to this part 3 talks about dna data bases here are parts 1 to 3 click a link for the audio to play (part 3 talks about dna) boss.streamos.com... boss.streamos.com... boss.streamos.com...

[edit on 5-7-2004 by ThePunisher]

the US military routinely collects and preserves DNA samples of each member, If I remember correctly they told us it would remain on "file"
for 50 years. Does it worry me?...not at all...if someone really wanted your
DNA it would be pretty easy to obtain without your permission.

With the dawn of cloning on the horizon I find this very distrubing. Imagine the military opportunities that a stockpile of DNA would present if cloning were to be used to develop an endless supply of military personnel. And how convenient if they decide you need to be replaced or framed for something. I know it's the stuff good sci-fi is made of but then again.....good sci-fi is made of considering all possibilities potential realities.

I was recently arrested and upon sentancing was basically forced to agree to a DNA sample.

So, i can no longer vote and big brother has my DNA sample. I don't feel much like an American citizen any more.

Big Brother definitely appears to be extending his territory. How do all these things come to pass while we only become aware of them when they're a fait accompli? I assume that Australian citizens under arrest also have to give DNA samples, will have to check.

We seem to follow the US in everything. Disenfranchising all prisoners seems to be next on the cards in Oz too
www.apo.org.au...

So far, I don't think that anyone has got hold of my DNA yet. But is it only a matter of time?

How would you people feel if you had a child, and DNA was taken from them without your permission?
Do you feel that as a parent, it is your responsibility to make that decision on behalf of your baby?

Or are you happy to 'leave that decision' up to the Government to make, without your knowledge?

What kind of precedent does it set when it becomes acceptable that our Government can take something from us, without our knowledge?

Is this Big Brother or for a higher purpose?

Can you imagine the power someone would have if they could prove someone was a direct decendant of Christ?

It would be phenomenal.

I person connected with a new world order would have such a purpose.

We can throw this issue back and forth all day, pro and con.

Although I like the advances man has made in the medical field, I do not like all the possibilities science has afforded us. This can be used against us, as in cloning.

Here's an interesting link:

www.wsba.org...

According to this article dated December 2002:


The majority of DNA sampling statutes apply to only certain sex offenders, or to all violent offenders. At least four states already require samples from anyone convicted of a felony.

All fifty states have enacted laws requiring certain classes of convicted offenders to provide DNA samples to be placed in DNA databases.


Here we go again.........do we minimize the victim(s) or do we claim the perp is entitled to more protections than the victim by saying this method of holding a perp accountable is a violation of their constitutional rights?

The whole purpose of this mandatory DNA sampling is to create a database where DNA from unsolved crimes can be potentially matched with a known offender.

Originally posted by mako0956
Here we go again.........do we minimize the victim(s) or do we claim the perp is entitled to more protections than the victim by saying this method of holding a perp accountable is a violation of their constitutional rights?

The whole purpose of this mandatory DNA sampling is to create a database where DNA from unsolved crimes can be potentially matched with a known offender.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the heck, why don't we just toss out the constitution, the supreme court refuses to follow it anyways, so it serves no purpose. Lets have a bonfire on the capital mall and burn it.

Random breath/blood tests is testifying against yourself, yet the SCOTUS upholds this travesty as legal. The state seizing property cloaked under the guise of a civil action is seizure of property without due process, but the SCOTUS whores in black robes say its just fine and dandy. So I have no doubt that SCOTUS will uphold collecting DNA . It won't be long till they are collecting it for a national data base at birth, with the blessing of SCOTUS of course.

Until found guilty at trial an individual is not a perpatrator (perp). I suppose the presumption of innocent till proven guilty will be down the toilet too if SCOTUS has its way.

Be sure the visit the "Fully Informed Jury Association", as a juror you have the right to decide on the facts as well as the law. www.fija.org...

No judge will tell a jury that fact.

And a defense attorney is prohibited from telling a jury that fact.

Don't Let SCOTUS Steal Our Rights.
.

With any testing, genetic or this type of sampling, the majority are done by private agencies, hospitals or medical labs.

There is always a chain of custody which anyone who receives custody has to acknowledge that custody by their signature.

In drug screening or DUI tests results, if there is a problem with documentation or in proper handling of the sample, the results are challenged in court. In most cases, the samples are thrown out and the case dropped.

The possibility for someone stealing, planting or mixing up DNA evidence is pale compared to the crimes DNA testing can solve.

I don't approve of the "police state" concept of government by far. I do not think think people should have DNA samples taken at birth (known or unknown) and put in a database. This is just time consuming and serves no purpose.

I do applaude the use of a national database which maintains DNA samples from convicted violent felons and sexual predators.

If they don't like the consequences for their actions or these infringments on their rights to privacy, then they shouldn't committ these crimes to begin with.

If these offenders are held accountable, then perhaps someday the crime rate will go down.

**vinrock: I don't know the details of your case, (nor do I want to know), but in all honestly, do you feel more inclined to repeat the same offense or do you feel more inclined to follow the straight and narrow?

mako

Umm...hast this been going on since the very first time DNA was discovered, and it was learned how to tell people by it? Im sure it has. Nothing surprising here, and you cant do anything about it...get over it. (Glad i wasnt born here).

Originally posted by mako0956
If they don't like the consequences for their actions or these infringments on their rights to privacy, then they shouldn't committ these crimes to begin with.

Your earlier use of the comparison of the rights of "perps"versus the rights of victims is biased and assumes guilt. "Perps" implies guilt and is not appropriate till "the accused" is found guilty. The infringements on privacy and the consequences are being imposed before any guilt is proven. I suppose that is easier to swallow when you label "the accused" as "perps" before trial.
.

When a person is pulled over by the police, under probable cause, and is found to be driving while under the influence, in the state of Georgia, the person is read the "Implied Consent Law" which is as follows:

"Georgia law requires you to submit to state administered chemical tests of your blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance for the purpose of determining if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

If you refuse this testing, your Georgia driver's license or priviledge to drive on the highways of this state will be suspended for a minimum period of one year. Your refusal to submit to this testing may be offered into evidence against you at trial.

If you submit to the testing and the results indicate an alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams or more, your Georgia driver's license or priviledge to drive on the highways of this state may be suspended for a minimum of one year.

After first submitting to the required state tests, you are entitled to
additional chemical tests of your blood, breath, urine or other bodily substances at your own expense and from qualified personnel of your choosing.

Will you submit ti the state administered chemical tests of your (designate which tests) under the Implied Consent Law?"

The subject is brought to the jail where they blow into an Intoxilizer 500 series machine to gauge the blood alcohol level in the subject's lungs. This test cannot be tampered with, as this sample gauges the subject's deep breath from the lungs into the machine.

This test is performed by someone certified by The Georgia Bureau of Investigation/Forensic Division.

Random tests? No.

Tests made on Probrable/Reasonable Cause? Yes.

The tests results are then printed from the machine itself and become the EVIDENCE at court, in additonal to whatever traffic violations the person is charged with, along with the arrresting officer's testimony, witnesses.

**Random breath/blood tests is testifying against yourself**

The state of Georgia considers that any person who drives or is in physical control of a moving vehicle in violation of any provision of Code section 40-6-391, consitutes a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Originally posted by df1

Your earlier use of the comparison of the rights of "perps"versus the rights of victims is biased and assumes guilt. "Perps" implies guilt and is not appropriate till "the accused" is found guilty. The infringements on privacy and the consequences are being imposed before any guilt is proven. I suppose that is easier to swallow when you label "the accused" as "perps" before trial.
.

No, df1.

Once someone becomes a CONVICTED violent felon or sexual predator, IN A COURT OF LAW, their DNA sample should be collected an put in a national database for law enforcement to compare unsolved cases.

Calling an arrestee a "perp" by no means assumes guilt, only by your definition. There are "known perps", "unknown perps", and "alleged perps".

For the purpose of this discussion I am refering to the "known perps".