News and Politics | April 18, 2009 | 16 comments

F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases - NYTimes.com

Image
mik661
Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.

More Profiles in the DNA Database Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will also collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.

The F.B.I., with a DNA database of 6.7 million profiles, expects to accelerate its rate of growth from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 — a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs — which now stand at more than 500,000 cases — to increase.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Politics corrupt government corrupt courts
  3.     
    |

16 comments // F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases - NYTimes.com

  • igordy
    • 0
      igordy [removed]  
    • Artemis - what you and I think won't change shit - sorry - we have to deal with what we've got.

      Mik - Obama is thousand times worse than Bush or Putin - I am totally not convinced whose interests he represents - but let me assure you - it's not yours or mine. Hussein has an agenda - and it will pain us all to find out what it is - I just have this nasty feeling.

      Scarabus - you seem like an old wise man - maybe not that old - perhaps its that St. Nick beard. So tell me - are you proud of your president? Do you want him to succeed in building socialism here? When our European allies tell us that nationalized healthcare is a mistake - do you think he should listen? From where I sit - oh, you know what I see from where I sit. I see a mole - and not the one on his face - but him as a mole of something sinister. I hope I am wrong - but none - I repeat - NONE of his choices or actions so far exhibit behavior I would be proud to call American! I thought dealing with Somali's was the 1st - but apparently he delayed it by 2-3 days too, while seeking advice on how it would make him look. Man oh man - you guys have picked a really dangerous man for this job - a wolf in sheep's clothing. Maybe more than a wolf - a hyena!

      I am thankful that I live in America though, where I can say these things and not be afraid that someone will be knocking at my front door - at least for now. I mean he is buddy buddy with Castro and Chavez - maybe he will learn some new tricks from those dictators - and try to step on my freedom of speech. Will you support me then, I wonder?

    • 3 years ago
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  
    • I propose that anyone running for office , say like the presidency must have a record of effective public service , and have contributed to the betterment of communities , say 100 different times . I also thing you should have the right to keep your DNA private from everyone until you lose that right by breaking the law . Now watch how fast weed gets legalized . You know even politicians use it !

    • 3 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • Well I can see your point of view seeing how Putin was even a bigger asshole than bush by comparison Obama must seem disappointing.

    • 3 years ago
  • igordy
    • 0
      igordy [removed]  
    • Hussein is the worst you could have done for this country. I don't need to try harder - the evidence of this is everywhere and anywhere. C'mon buddy, you're a proud American - you like him apologizing and sniveling? You like him bowing down? You like his past associations and present misdeeds? You think he is looking out for your best interests?

    • 3 years ago
  • titvol
    • 0
      titvol  
    • igordy:

      The Jeremiah Wright fiasco alone should have been enough to keep Obama from getting elected. Obama sat under the man for TWENTY years yet didn't share his views??? It would have been laughable it it wasn't so tragic.

    • 3 years ago
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  
    • igordy:

      An old saying: There's some people that, if they don't know, you just can't tell 'em.

      You guys see me that way. I see you that way. Don't you think it's sad that our democratic system has been reduced to this level?

    • 3 years ago
  • titvol
    • 0
      titvol  
    • igordy:

      I think Bush was a sinister globalist. I think Obama is a sinister globalist. What the hell is there not to agree on? Truely it is sad times for the Republic.

    • 3 years ago
  • Scarabus
  • igordy
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  
    • Ha! Yes, 661! In my more cynical moments I've often said that no one who seeks public office could possibly be morally and ethically qualified for public office.

      Kind alike the old joke about not wanting to belong to any organization that would be willing to have me for a member.

      And, quite honestly, I thinks that's way too often true. But, fortunately, it isn't always true. Persons of intelligence, education, character, integrity, and compassion do occasionally seek and attain public office. It's vital that we recognize the distinction.

      We should always remember that there is no intelligence test for election to congress. There is no "civics" test. There is no education or understanding test. There is no moral or ethical test.

      Result? No one should ever be surprised to find stupid, baffled, uneducated, clueless, immoral, and unethical persons in congress. Not ever! But so what? Let's grant that many members of congress are stupid, ignorant, venal, and driven purely by narrow ideology. In other words, let's accept reality.

      We gotta remain alert, support watchdog organizations, join together to multiply the strength of our voices, etc. Because what's the alternative?

    • 3 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • Scarabus:

      Actually my thoughts were that the individuals most qualified and likely to clean this up could never withstand the scrutiny and hypocrisy entailed in obtaining national office.

    • 3 years ago
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  
    • Scarabus:

      Yeah. My wife was telling me about a movie she saw yesterday. Jeff Bridges played a president who nominated a woman to replace a vice president who had died. She was subjected to truly evil interrogation by a congressional committee and the usual enablers. That was fiction, but fiction not really different from fact.

    • 3 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • I have always felt that the best canidates for President would both be unelectable and uninterested in being elected because as you say many great men are in some ways also very bad men.

    • 3 years ago
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  
    • Above the entrance to the original library at the college where I teach is carved the assertion that "Knowledge is power." (Written first by Francis Bacon, but repeated by others.)

      The assertion is usually understood as positive and idealistic. In reality, though, power is like the ring in Tolkien's novels. It might be used for good. But...

      As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Scary enough in itself, but what Acton goes on to say is even scarier: "Great men are almost always bad men."

      Yeah, I know. What does he mean by "great"? I infer he means men/women who have a huge influence on the world.

    • 3 years ago
  • kennymotown
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • Image
    • Recent technological developments have made it possible for scientists to sequence an entire human genome, but these advances may be a mixed blessing. While much has been made of the benefits of whole-genome sequencing, from improved disease diagnosis to rational drug design, the impacts on the privacy and autonomy of individual participants has received much less scrutiny. In a new essay Timothy Caulfield and his colleagues argue that the ability to sequence a person's entire genome has created a whole new set of moral challenges that standard research ethics guidelines were not designed to solve.

    • 3 years ago
more from News and Politics:

top videos