"Everybody Should be forced to take a DNA test" (1 Viewer)

[Omium]

Discuss the statement

""Everybody Should be forced to take a DNA test and their results stored"

Do the benefits of this justify the loss of privacy ?

 

[MC Squidge]

why would u say that

 

[whatashotbyseve]

Sup Gattica.

 

[Kwayera]

Gross invasion of privacy.

 

[Omium]

why would u say that

Just thought about it for a sec watching a Crime show on TV.

It would greatly increase the efficiency of investigations.

However there is that other issue...

Gross invasion of privacy

 

[darkwolfzx]

No.

Aside from privacy issues holding the key to everyones genetic information leaves the door open for widespread abuse. The government can become big brother in two days, and nobody will live in the peace of mind that some part of their soul still belongs to them and them alone.

Google offers many parallels to this sort of question. Here is an image about google I found on digg today

 

[Kwayera]

Do the benefits outweigh the loss of privacy ?

I don't know.

There's a sci-fi trilogy everyone should read called The Neanderthal Parallax, by Robert J. Sawyer. We find a parallel world in which Neanderthals became the dominant human form instead of us, and their society is a utopian one that is totally different to ours. In it, they have a technology that is sort of like a highly sophisticated, "sentient"/AI PDA fitted to their wrists at birth, which, amongst other things, records every single second of the wearer's life in audio and video.

These recordings are stored in a large archive that can be accessed at any time by the wearer, and by court order. Given that every second of everyone's lives is recorded - the perfect alibi - crimes are only committed by deranged or temporarily insane individuals, and the crime rate itself is almost zero. It's the perfect deterrent for crimes - as is the punishment for crimes, which involves the medical sterilisation of the criminal and anyone that shares 50% of their DNA.

The morality of these methods and issues form a large part of the series' themes, with an interesting "what if?" hypothesis for the measure of benefit and cost.

 

[Serius]

I don't know.

There's a sci-fi trilogy everyone should read called The Neanderthal Parallax, by Robert J. Sawyer. We find a parallel world in which Neanderthals became the dominant human form instead of us, and their society is a utopian one that is totally different to ours. In it, they have a technology that is sort of like a highly sophisticated, "sentient"/AI PDA fitted to their wrists at birth, which, amongst other things, records every single second of the wearer's life in audio and video.

These recordings are stored in a large archive that can be accessed at any time by the wearer, and by court order. Given that every second of everyone's lives is recorded - the perfect alibi - crimes are only committed by deranged or temporarily insane individuals, and the crime rate itself is almost zero. It's the perfect deterrent for crimes - as is the punishment for crimes, which involves the medical sterilisation of the criminal and anyone that shares 50% of their DNA.

The morality of these methods and issues form a large part of the series' themes, with an interesting "what if?" hypothesis for the measure of benefit and cost.

Other people have actually read that? awesome.

Storing everyones DNA has repercussions out side of crime investigation.... You could tailor viruses to individuals genomes, have a baby without their consent, clone them, a whole heap of shit would be possible with it in the near future....so no i think its a pretty bad idea.

 

[Kwayera]

Storing everyones DNA has repercussions out side of crime investigation.... You could tailor viruses to individuals genomes, have a baby without their consent, clone them, a whole heap of shit would be possible with it in the near future....so no i think its a pretty bad idea.

Well I guess it would depend on how and by who the information was stored, who was allowed access to it, how it was encrypted, etc.

 

[volition]

No there should not be forced DNA tests, because that violates the right of people to choose what they will do with their own property (their own body)

 

[SnowFox]

No and crime shows are generally bs about the technology in the DNA winners.

Doing a match is frigging hard (Unique DNA ~ 600MB per person, I think)

It requires a set amount of DNA found at the scene and a matching DNA sample in the database. In most cases recorded DNA samples are only found in that states database.

And crime shows are BS about everything really. The main characters arrest, interrogate, do detective duties and have a diploma in Genetics.

 

[Tully B.]

Nope. Right to privacy, etc. etc.

 

[incentivation]

No. DNA like other forms of forensic procedures are not perfect. There would be a greater capacity to fabricate evidence if it was known every individual had DNA stored on a database.

There are methods that are legislated in which investigators can obtain DNA from suspects via court orders and the like, and for the most part, DNA does not serve to prove an offence, but merely supports the other evidence that exists. Moreover, DNA technology is not at the level depicted in these 'crime shows' yet.

Then of course, there is the privacy debate.

There are too many unscrupulous individuals in government who may abuse the possession of such sensitive information.

 

[undalay]

You have to realise that the OP is only talking DNA for DNA matching.
The "junk DNA" used for DNA matching is impossible to gain any genetic information from.
No genetic information is contained.

DNA matching is done by comparing the various amounts of junk sequences.

 

[fleckar]

Yes. Privacy concerns? I don't give a fuck if someone is looking at my blood. Why would I? That shit would be all regulated anyway, its not like just anyone would have access to it.

 

[annabackwards]

I don't believe that everyone's DNA should be taken.

I have no problem if convicted criminals have their DNA stored so they can be connected to any future crimes that they may commit. However, taking the DNA of everyday citizens would just create too many possible problems that previous posters have identified.

 

[SylviaB]

Of course not. This is an extreme violation of personal freedom and is ridiculous. They have to knock me out before they could get a sample from me.

Yes. Privacy concerns? I don't give a fuck if someone is looking at my blood. Why would I?

Oh, so if YOU don't mind, then nobody would? Pft.

That shit would be all regulated anyway, its not like just anyone would have access to it.

Oh! Well, lucky people in positions of power are never corrupt/abuse their power for personal gain...

 

[SnowFox]

Of course not. This is an extreme violation of personal freedom and is ridiculous. They have to knock me out before they could get a sample from me.




Oh, so if YOU don't mind, then nobody would? Pft.






Oh! Well, lucky people in positions of power are never corrupt/abuse their power for personal gain...

The movie "6th Day" comes to mind.

 

[Sir-BigBoyJames]

yes. Privacy concerns? I don't give a fuck if someone is looking at my blood. Why would i? That shit would be all regulated anyway, its not like just anyone would have access to it.

what an idiot.

Of course not. This is an extreme violation of personal freedom and is ridiculous. They have to knock me out before they could get a sample from me.

THIS.

 

[fleckar]

Of course not. This is an extreme violation of personal freedom and is ridiculous. They have to knock me out before they could get a sample from me.

Why? Why do you honestly care?

Oh! Well, lucky people in positions of power are never corrupt/abuse their power for personal gain...

People are corrupt, we know. There would be measures put in place to limit it though.