Supreme Court Ruling

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...after-arrest-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

anybody see this or have an opinion? Personally I think it is a bunch of **** and the Supreme court has really failed the US people.

I"ve been paying attention as our gov. has stated he wants to start this in our state and I happen to think it's a bad idea and was almost sure the supreme court would find against it. Guess I had more faith in them than I should have.

I understand that swabbing a mouth is not invasive by any means to attain DNA. It's nothing in terms of the actual procedure. But what is attained??? I can't think of anything more invasive than taking your DNA.

I have no problem with those CONVICTED of felonious crimes having to submit DNA to a national database. I think being able to collect it from anybody who is merely arrested is vastly overstepping boundaries. There is one giant ****ing leap from arrest to conviction.

I'm under the opinion that anybody arrested is still a protected US citizen. If they think obtaining DNA at that point is necessary, they should have to present the facts to a judge and get a warrant like anything else.

I'm appalled the Supreme Court of our land has just given the stamp of approval to force those merely arrested for a crime to give up their DNA and be added to a national database without a warrant or other procedure. I understand fighting crime is a tough job and but I gotta believe they're better than this.

I did hear about this this morning and I definitely have mixed feelings. One the one hand I can see how it will be a great help to law enforcement and could lead to stopping some pretty nasty people. On the other hand though, I do think that DNA itself is not the same thing as a finger print, and it seems to give the police a lot more power.

They're collecting DNA for id purposes. They can already take your fingerprints, they used to be able to measure your head, they're just finding better ways of doing it.

I think everything I've read has seen the DNA tests their doing does not find anything like health problems and such.

I would have to agree with you RTH.

Convicted of a crime? I have no problem with them keeping your DNA on file for future reference. When you commit a crime, I do believe you give up certain rights in society.....with some perhaps for a limited time.

Being ACCUSED? (IE arrested) No, I do not agree with that at all. I'm fairly certain we are still supposed to go by "innocent until proven guilty" no?

At the risk of sounding like a crazy conspiracy therorist.....I've felt for a long time we are moving towards this kind of thing, and IMO I can see a future with newborns having a DNA sample retained and kept in such a data base.

I'm going to sound like a complete nutjob

For now they say it is only for ID purposes. I remember when seatbelt laws in this state were being considered and it was for safety only and NEVER would it be the sole reason to be pulled over. Fast forward 20 years and we have annual click it or ticket campaigns warning drivers they will be pulled over if not wearing a seatbelt BTW, I'm against fingerprinting without conviction or warrant as well, but I'm not going to get too worked up over that.

I understand the act of swabbing a mouth for DNA is not invasive. It's nothing really, but there isn't anything more "invasive" I can think of when youconsider what you're giving up.

I think the Supreme court really let the American people down. I think anybody is a fool if they believe that this national database they are assembling will not be used for other things besides "ID" in crimes.

Right now they are lobbying for the right to patent genes, when you consent to dna testing, and I assume when you are forced to consent to dna testing, in the fine little print you are giving the testing company ownership of what they find. With newer court cases like the ones with Monsanto and others like Myriad Genetics fighting for the right to put a patent on YOUR genes and profit from them, it only takes the stroke of a pen years down the road to open up an entire database to all sorts of things.

Wait till a few with money and power think they can determine mental illness or crime propensity from dna. Should we fire up the "pre-crime" division of law enforcement?

Now I don't really believe any of this is on the horizon and we need to worry anytime soon about massive mental health sweeps based on DNA evidence or being picked up a the grocery store because my DNA says I might commit a crime.

But this does leave a pretty big door open and for what? Seriously, if you're convicted of a serious crime, your DNA goes into a database. If you're arrested and suspected, you're still innocent till proven guilty. If the prosecution believes strongly that DNA analysis will help their case, they need to present that evidence to a judge and get a warrant. at least that's what I believe should happen. they need a warrant to go thru your personal belongings in most cases, what get's more personal than your DNA?

Every year tens of thousands of innocent people are arrested and exonerated. Now thanks to our Supreme Court, they can be added to the national database of criminals. I understand fighting crime is tough work, but we're better than this.

I have really mixed feeling about this, because... I don't like it. But as a society, we are changing what privacy even IS by choosing to give up so much of our privacy every day to companies in the name of convenience or saving money or marketing. People don't think twice about all the things their smart phones or even just internet search engines keep track of about them. We're willingly (or ignorantly) choosing to allow these companies to violate our privacy so much that it's hard for me to understand why anyone really thinks privacy is something that even really exists anymore or why it's outrageous for the government to erode it but not Apple or Google. It wouldn't surprise me at all if iPhones were already databasing DNA and fingerprints and voice signatures.

Gun rights "nut jobs" have been saying it for years, the SCOTUS is packed with political appointees so more often then not they rule based on their political beliefs not on what the constitution actually says.

While I do agree with you, I think there are a couple of key differences. Google searches are not your genetic code, and you have a choice to not use devices like smart phones if it concerns you. Heck, you (collective) could decide to only use the computer at the library and have a prepaid cell. If you are arrested you don't have a choice-DNA can be required.

Well, iphones can't collect your DNA. I don't know about the other things, but the HUGE difference is that one is voluntary disclosure vs. forced. You can choose to participate in Facebook. You can choose to have an iphone. You can choose to take pictures with your iphone, or you can choose to buy a regular digital camera and use that. You can choose not to post ANY pictures on the internet at all. You can even choose a traditional camera and build a little film developing room of your own.

None of those choices changes the definition of privacy. Privacy is still privacy and is still our right. And some people choose to air all their dirty laundry all over the internet for billions of people to access.

The ruling itself, really makes me upset. I was talking to a 90 year old lady the other day, and she randomly started ranting about how America now is exactly like Germany was between WWI and WWII. She pointed out, they can even disappear you now with no explanation and it's perfectly legal.

but it makes us "safer"

I wasn't really being serious, but my husband and I were joking about it.

We may not be changing the literal dictionary definition of the actual word "privacy," but we are changing our cultural expectations of privacy more and more each day.

Like I said, I don't like this ruling, but it's hard for me to get really raging mad about it because I just don't see it as all THAT different from what we already choose to do to ourselves (as a culture, not necessarily all individuals). I just think we're heading in a direction where privacy is becoming sort of an irrelevant relic societally speaking. I don't like THAT, either, but I'm probably going to get swept up in it whether I like it or not.

every five years, I have to have to be finger printed by the TX racing commission when applying for a grooms license. Where does that information go? does the state/govt have access to it? every year they also swab test me for drugs, most companies do this, so why would the govt/state have to also do it? couldn't they simply request that info from the companies? or is it classified?