An interesting piece on national DNA registers..

[LibLabUK]

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA5A0.htm

Here's the idea: whenever a baby is born, it is given a 'heel-prick' test, which involves taking a tiny sample of blood from the heel to test for certain blood disorders. So why not extract a smidgeon of the baby's DNA from each sample and store it, together with the baby's name, date and place of birth, and parents' names? We would thus have a national register of the DNA of every individual born in this country after a given date. And policemen of the future, when investigating serious crimes where the criminal had left DNA at the scene, could find the culprit's name at the click of a mouse.

...

The point of this scheme is not to come over all Daily Mailish about the need for stiff punishments for these evil criminals. Stiff punishments may satisfy people's self-righteous anger, but they are not much use as a deterrent. High probability of detection - that's the real deterrent. The National DNA Register would not cause more criminals to be banged up; it would result in far fewer serious crimes being committed. If we acted now we could make a safer world for our children and grandchildren.

Annnd...discuss.

[orthogonal]

1. Paternity will be disproven up to one baby in five

Passing over the obvious objections based on rights of privacy, civil liberties, and misuse of the data to discriminate based on congenital medical conditions, are proponents willing to accept that (according to various studies) this will prove that the putative father is not in fact the biological father in some 10 to 20 per cent. of births?

[LibLabUK]

2. Questions..

"Passing over the obvious objections based on rights of privacy, civil liberties"

How does it invade privacy or infringe on civil liberties?

"misuse of the data to discriminate based on congenital medical conditions"

You do realise that the DNA fingerprint used in crime detection is useless for pretty much anything else. You cannot tell anything about the phenotype of an individual by looking at a DNA fingerprint.

"are proponents willing to accept that (according to various studies) this will prove that the putative father is not in fact the biological father in some 10 to 20 per cent. of births?"

Ummm again.. you are under the false belief that the DNA fingerprint will magically reveal information about the individual. Without a comparitive print from the father it would be impossible to tell anything about the paternity of the child. Why would this be an issue anyway? Why would the DNA registry be interested anyway?

Isn't your objection really just a poorly concealed mysogynistic attack?

[slackmaster]

3. You're not thinking ahead very far, LibLabUK

Ummm again.. you are under the false belief that the DNA fingerprint will magically reveal information about the individual. Without a comparitive print from the father it would be impossible to tell anything about the paternity of the child.

Once an entire generation has been logged into the DB, the paternity of their children will become transparent to anyone who cares to check.

[LibLabUK]

4. Umm...

"Once an entire generation has been logged into the DB, the paternity of their children will become transparent to anyone who cares to check."

But why would they check?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of this particular "objection".

If I'm being shortsighted, then please explain to me how anyone knowing my parentage would infringe on my liberty.

What about my liberty to not be raped and/or murdered?

As the article argues, the massively increased threat of detection would, without a doubt, reduce the rates of murder and rape.

[slackmaster]

5. Here's one possibility the author didn't mention

Knowing that arrest carried a near certainty of conviction murderers and rapists would, upon getting caught by police, become more likely to use deadly force against police officers in order to evade capture.

[iverglas]

9. perverse/unintended effect

The one you cite --

Knowing that arrest carried a near certainty of conviction murderers and rapists would, upon getting caught by police, become more likely to use deadly force against police officers in order to evade capture.

-- if we assume for now that it is a reasonable expectation, that we can show some facts and argument for thinking this could be expected, is one such perverse/unintended effect.

And it does have to be taken into consideration in assessing the merits of the proposal in its own right, even before weighing its intended/claimed good effects against its intended/inherent bad effects (the interferences with the exercise of individual rights and freedoms).

There are all sorts of others we could imagine. For instance, the likelihood and effects of corruption -- the people in charge of the registry being paid off to switch records, for example, leading to the conviction of innocent people if we rely too much on the registry -- always have to be considered.

[LibLabUK]

10. Umm...

Don't the police already take that into consideration?

The reason why we have SO19 and you guys have SWAT teams.

Ofcourse, it wouldn't be so much of a problem here, we don't have nearly the same levels of firearm possession.

It's pretty difficult to take down a body-armour wearing, CS-spraying, ASP swinging bobby with nothing but a knife or bat.

[slackmaster]

11. Consider that under control at your own risk

Ofcourse, it wouldn't be so much of a problem here, we don't have nearly the same levels of firearm possession.

You may not now, but if authorities up the ante the guns will show up.

[LibLabUK]

15. Hmm

"You may not now, but if authorities up the ante the guns will show up."

So, in other words, you're saying that if the cops get too good at detecting crime... the crime rate will go up inregards to firearm offences and assault/murder of police officers?

So, what... we should just let a certain number of crimes go undetected so as not to piss off them off too much?

[slackmaster]

17. Ability of police to detect crime is not the issue

I'm talking about the near certainty of conviction. A crook who knows he hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of getting acquitted may be more likely to assault or kill police in order to avoid trial. I don't have any hard evidence to back up my SWAG, but I think it makes sense.

Here's my problem with the whole idea: Attempts to reduce crime by imposing more control over the general population don't work. Crime rates go down when people are happy, healthy, educated, and prosperous, not when Big Brother is watching them.

[LibLabUK]

18. Okay..

So what you're saying is that in order to keep the peace a certain number of prosecutions have to fail through lack of evidence regardless of whether the defendant was innocent or not?

[slackmaster]

19. Sorry, I edited my post before you replied

In order to keep the peace we need good education, health care, and jobs. Those SHOULD be the core focus of the Democratic Party in the US, and it's a shame that some of us here have lost sight of those ideals.

[LibLabUK]

20. Hmm...

You don't think crime should be a focus for the Democratic party, and you don't think it and ways of reducing it should be discussed here?

[slackmaster]

21. Wrong, wrong, and I just gave three ways to reduce it

I think the suggested DNA database may have merits for health-related and research purposes, but as a crime control measure it's a Byzantine, wrong-headed plan.

I prefer a society that produces happy, morally well-adjusted people who don't commit crimes because they know right from wrong rather than because they know they will probably get caught.

[LibLabUK]

24. Hmm...

"I prefer a society that produces happy, morally well-adjusted people who don't commit crimes because they know right from wrong rather than because they know they will probably get caught."

Does CCW reduce crime?

[slackmaster]

26. CCW and crime reduction

Does CCW reduce crime?

Available evidence does not show a correlation one way or another.

My personal SWAG is that it has no measurable effect on crime either positive or negative, therefore giving people the choice to carry is good because liberty is inherently good.

[LibLabUK]

28. Okay...

I'm not sure what SWAG means, other than loot/booty/ill-gotten gains...but.

If liberty is good..

And DNA libraries can be shown to lower the rate of murder and rape through the increased detection of crime.

And you consider the freedom from rape and murder an essential liberty.

Then..

[slackmaster]

30. SWAG = Scientific Wild-Assed Guess

IOW a thoughtful opinion without concrete data to back it up.

If liberty is good..

And DNA libraries can be shown to lower the rate of murder and rape through the increased detection of crime....

A benefit that has yet to be demonstrated. What's being proposed is a mass experiment on an entire population to see whether or not that effect pans out as planned.

...And you consider the freedom from rape and murder an essential liberty....

Another component of liberty is privacy. In the absence of hard evidence that using a DNA database to cut crime actually works, I prefer to not put privacy at risk.

[LibLabUK]

33. Okay

"A benefit that has yet to be demonstrated. What's being proposed is a mass experiment on an entire population to see whether or not that effect pans out as planned."

Could not the same argument be made about CCW?

[MrBenchley]

37. With the added fillip

that the proposal for the CCW experiment turned out to be academic fraud...

[slackmaster]

39. CCW one more time, mass experiment on a population

Could not the same argument be made about CCW?

Yes, one that has been going on for more than 20 years in some US states.

And so far the null hypothesis (no measurable effect on crime rates) seems to be winning.

[LibLabUK]

45. Experiments...

You don't think doing experiments on the public at large without their explicit informed consent is a gross violation of their rights?

[slackmaster]

46. Don't blame me, I live in California

My state still has dicretionary issue. If I felt very strongly that CCW was an important civil rights issue I'd move somewhere else.

You don't think doing experiments on the public at large without their explicit informed consent is a gross violation of their rights?

The people who live in states that have liberalized concealed-weapons laws elected the legislators and governors who put those laws into effect. Though some strident anti-CCWers will momentarily claim it's all the result of the VRWC using underhanded tactics to subvert the will of the people, at the end of the day the people do have the power to throw out leaders who abuse their power.

So far no state has overturned a CCW statute or even substantially toughened requirements to get a permit.

So far the rivers of blood in the streets have not materialized.

Interpret the facts any way you wish.

[LibLabUK]

48. Hmm...

I'm from a clinical trials background and that's why I'm interested in the concept of informed consent in regards to experimentation.

I suppose you could argue that by electing a representative you have given your consent to their platform, but what about those who didn't vote that way and thereby give their consent?

[slackmaster]

54. Sometimes things just don't go your way in a Democracy

Or however you wish to describe our representative form of government.

Frankly I think a comprehensive database of peoples' genetic makeup has a lot greater potential for negative consequences than a tiny percentage of people who have (in all but Alaska and Vermont) been screened for clean criminal backgrounds and passed some other objective eligibility requirements for carrying a loaded weapon of localized destruction.

Think of the implications for insurance coverage, discrimination in employment, etc. if the technology becomes available to know in advance with accuracy who is prone to fall victim to diseases that have a component of genetic predisposition. To me that's a much bigger issue than a few people carrying guns for self-protection.

[LibLabUK]

57. Ahh....misconceptions..

"Frankly I think a comprehensive database of peoples' genetic makeup"

The key misconception about DNA fingerprints.

You can't tell anything about an individual from their DNA fingerprint. You really can't. It doesn't sequence genes. It doesn't even look at genes at all.

It looks at the ratios of certain meaningless sequences of bases (A,C,T and G).

It would provide no insight into propensity for disease or you eye colour.

[slackmaster]

58. Thanks for the correction

But would not a database of DNA fingerprints provide the perfect starting point for a database of complete genomes?

I know, slippery slope fallacy, but that is my ultimate concern.

[LibLabUK]

62. No problem...

"But would not a database of DNA fingerprints provide the perfect starting point for a database of complete genomes?"

Simply, no.

But...

If you were to store the original samples then yes it could.

However, the logistics of collecting and storing all those samples centrally would probably (I say probably, because I wouldn't totally rule it out) be overwhelming.

You could mandate that the original sample be destroyed after the fingerprint is created.. in that way there would be no way of finding out anything about the individual, and the slippery slope would come to an abrupt end.

The benefit of a DNA registry would be a rock solid primary ID, on which all other ID's could hang (ie. it's possible that identitiy theft could be wiped out).

I agree that there would be issues to be addressed, namely who would have access, what the information could be used for... but I think that those issues could be overcome through thoughtful consultation and legislation.

As for regulating the registry and it's guardians, I see this as no different from how the other functions of government are regulated.

I would also hope that the judicial system wouldn't become totally dependant on DNA evidence, but instead use it as a tool to discover suspects rather than determine convictions.

1. Collect sample from crime scene
2. Compare to registry
3. Arrest suspect
4. Collect sample from suspect
5. Compare suspect's sample to crime scene sample
6. Try suspect

as opposed to..

1. Collect sample from crime scene
2. Compare to registry
3. Arrest and try suspect

I think your concerns are valid.

In the UK we're having a huge debate over mandatory/voluntary ID cards... I'm opposed to them, as I see absolutely no benefit to having them as they are currently envisioned... or at least no one has convinced me of the benefits.

I also don't think we'll ever have a DNA registry... but I think it's a useful excercise to discuss it.

[slackmaster]

64. Thanks for a thoughtful, rational discussion

Friday has arrived.

:toast:

[MrBenchley]

56. What about Missouri?

In which the electorate voted "No" to concealed carry and got stuck with it anyway.

What about Michigan? It was pushed through by a lame duck legislature, signed by a lame duck Governor...and then, when opponents got enough signatures to force it to a referendum, a judge rulked it couldn't be contested by the electorate.

[iverglas]

49. aw, c'mon

The people who live in states that have liberalized concealed-weapons laws elected the legislators and governors who put those laws into effect.

Wouldn't that apply just as perfectly well if the people of some jurisdiction elected legislators who enacted laws requiring the taking of samples of newborns' blood and the recording of their DNA information?

Really, that -- majority rules -- isn't an argument that prevails over individual rights in a liberal democracy.

The thing is, of course, I see no point in framing the public's interest in security from homicide and assault (be the immediate issue DNA samples or concealed weapons) as a "liberty" interest.

It is a security interest. And anyone's favourite misrepresentation of what Benjamin Franklin said notwithstanding, security interests *are* proper considerations in governing ... else why would we have speed limits, or governments at all?

[hansberrym]

65. Analogies are never perfect, but hat one is really weak.

We accept registration of automobiles and and licensing of thier operators in part to make it easier to identify and track down speeders and other threats to public safety caused by drivers. If people don't like registration and licensing, there are alternatives (other means of transportation such as Cabs, trains, buses, walking, riding a bicycle, etc).

But registration of our bodies? What is the alternative?
We don't get to live?
We don't get to live freely?
Tough Shit, were gonna take your child's DNA or else?
Or else what?


This Brave New World stuff freaks me out, but the responses from intelligent persons such as yourself are even more chilling.

When the black helicopter crowd was insisting that it would only be a matter of time before the government mandated insertion of computer chips (with personal ID Codes that can be tracked) underneath every child's skin, I thought they were completely wacky. But hell, what's the use of knowing who committed the crime if the Authorities can not locate that person quickly and unerringly. Right?





(forgive my spelling, it be's 2:43 AM)

[iverglas]

66. I suppose I should forgive you

It have bee'n 2:43 a.m. and all.

I can't even see how your reply relates to anything I said. You just picked a post at random by someone you figured you could count on to have said something that required negative comment, and blobbed your thoughts down in "response"?

I was responding to the "majority-rules" argument as it was made in relation to concealed weapons licence laws.

I pointed out that the argument would apply no less well to DNA sampling laws.

*I* did not make the analogy. I was responding to posts in which the analogy had been made by one poster and rejected by the other.

I said that the argument was not a good one:

Really, that -- majority rules -- isn't an argument that prevails over individual rights in a liberal democracy.

Was this perhaps somehow unclear?

I then responded to the general approach that both posters had been taking -- that the only interests at play in these issues were individual "liberty" issues -- and pointed out that this is not an accurate characterization of the issues.

The interests at play are individual liberty and collective security, it always having to be remembered that "collective" security includes the security of the individual members of the collective.

"Majority rules" is *still* not a proper way of resolving conflicts between those interests in a liberal democracy in which individual interests are protected against majority interference where the interest that the majority is asserting does not justify the interference.


This Brave New World stuff freaks me out, but the responses from intelligent persons such as yourself are even more chilling.

The post to which you responded provided absolutely no basis for making this kind of allegation about myself. There was nothing "chilling" about what I said in that post. What I said in that post was simply

- a statement of the nature of the conflicting rights in the situations that had been raised, and

- a statement that neither of the two posters who had addressed the issues had done so appropriately.

Perhaps you would like to read my other posts in this thread, and try to find something in any of them that you could honestly characterize as "chilling". You might start with my first post, entitled "marshalling the arguments". If anybody had bothered to heed some of what I said in it, a lot of the backing and forthing in this thread could simply have been avoided, that being precisely what my aim had been.

It is obvious to anyone who considers the proposal raised in good faith that it has advantages and it has drawbacks. It should also be pretty much obvious what most of those advantages and drawbacks are. It can also be expected, as with any policy proposal, that it would have unforeseen and/or unintended advantages and drawbacks.

A worthwhile discussion of that proposal, like any other, would involve identifying as many of the potential advantages and drawbacks that it is reasonable to foresee as possible, and then -- based on whatever common principles can be established (specifically, the basic consensus of a liberal democracy: that the state does have a role to play in providing and enhancing collective and individual security, and that individuals do have broad discretion in conducting their own affairs and living their own lives) -- advancing opinions about the merits of the proposal, including alternative ways of achieving the goals it is meant to achieve.

Maybe when you wake up your eyes will be less clouded by the preconceptions that seem to have guided your fingers in this instance.

[hansberrym]

69. Actually I had hoped that someone as alert as yourself would

see that the proponents of the DNA database justify this mandatory registration on the basis that a person is a POTENTIAL criminal, and is a potential danger to society simply because he lives, and not because of any particular thing he chooses to own, or actions he might choose to undertake.

That is indeed a chilling revelation of how we are sliding into a Brave New World mode of governance.


IMO, the database is an unwarranted infringement on personal liberty, and is different from other registrations required for public security in that there is no alternative but to comply this particular type of registration.

A person can elect not to drive a car on public road if they do not wish to register their car.

A person can elect not to own certain types of weapons that require registration, if they do not wish to identify themselves as an owner.

A person can elect not to put in a swimming pool if that person does not want to go through the registration/permit process which allows government some oversight to make sure that safety practices are followed.

A person who wishes to be a doctor goes through a process to be sure they are qualified, if they do not wish to go through the process they have the option of trying another profession.


But the DNA database leaves no option for persons other than to violate the law, or maybe stop living, since it can not be avoided.
Furthemore the database is required simply because the person exists, and not due to what potentially dangerous objects they own or risk involving actions they intend to perform.

[iverglas]

71. me, I'd hoped

Actually I had hoped that someone as alert as yourself would
see that the proponents of the DNA database justify this mandatory registration on the basis that a person is a POTENTIAL criminal, and is a potential danger to society simply because he lives, and not because of any particular thing he chooses to own, or actions he might choose to undertake.

... that a person as purportedly interested in fruitful discussion as yourself would have heeded my advice, and actually addressed some relevant arguments (such as those I referred to myself in this thread) in good faith. Oh well. There just isn't much difference between ignoring what 'the other side' says and making up things to put in its mouth.

As for what you've said here, it just strikes me as, um, dumb. Like I always say: speed limits are imposed, and people are punished for breaking them, even though people who speed are only a POTENTIAL danger to the motoring public.

A person can elect ... a person can elect ... a person can elect ...

Is it mandatory where you're at to register births? As you may have seen, it's mandatory where I'm at -- and I believe it should be, to protect the interests of children, even though it then provides a ready means of identifying everybody for any purpose. (I have already stated the possible distinction that recording DNA info of an individual at birth is not necessarily in the interests of the individual whose DNA is recorded, although it could be, for instance if the newborn is inadvertently switched, or the child is later abducted -- but of course recording the fact of a birth is not necessarily in the interests of any particular individual either.) Can a person elect not to be born?

I believe it's mandatory for someone where you're at who is engaged in employment or self-employment, or earning income from investments, to have a social security number. This is done not only to protect the individual by enforcing membership in collective retirement pension benefit plans, but also to make it possible to collect taxes from him/her. Can a person elect not to work/invest? Sure, if s/he doesn't want to eat.

I'm sure someone will portray me as being in favour of DNA-at-birth registries. No one would actually be able to find a statment by me to that effect, or even a statement by me from which my support could be inferred.


Furthemore the database is required simply because the person exists, and not due to what potentially dangerous objects they own or risk involving actions they intend to perform.

Y'know, not everything is about firearms, and it isn't all that useful to attempt to compare everything in the world to a firearm.


IMO, the database is an unwarranted infringement on personal liberty

Of course, the database isn't anything yet, since it doesn't exist yet.

And when you say that it is, in your opinion, unwarranted, without addressing any of the real arguments for the opinion that it is justified, you really haven't said anything at all.

[hansberrym]

80. Yeah, Like YOU always say: speed limits are imposed...

and people are punished for breaking them, even though people who speed are only a POTENTIAL danger to the motoring public.


However in your example speeding causes a potential danger, and speeders are rightly punished for what they DO.


The alert reader will notice the difference between speeding and simply existing.



Is a person's existence a POTENTIAL danger to the state?

Why are you avoiding the question begged by your own arguments?




Signed,

hansberrym (the dumbass who keeps trying to get a straight answer from Iverglas when experience should have taught him to quit)

[DavidMS]

60. *Raises hand*

A crook who knows he hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of getting acquitted may be more likely to assault or kill police in order to avoid trial.

Slackmaster, that isn't a SWAG.



At the time TMF was written, New York State and a few others had a law enforcement tool called the Baumes Law, which allowed for automatic life imprisonment of any criminal convicted over three times, no matter how petty the offenses or how old the person was. When Spade inquires, "Baumes rush?" of Wilmer, he is guessing that the boy left New York for California (a non-BL state) because he is a three-time loser and is afraid of being caught again. Wilmer's silence answers the question. Those of you who have read or seen Sidney Kingsley's play/movie _Detective Story_ know how career criminals responded to police who tried to arrest them on a fourth offense. This nothing-to-lose attitude is one reason the Baumes Law was eventually repealed.
From RARA-AVIS: Baumes Rush. http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/archives/199712/0011.html

TMF stands for "The Maltiese Falcon," one of my favorate books.

[Jack_DeLeon]

61. Why do people check records of anyone else?

People are always checking records and whatever of other people.

People always hire private investigators to dig up dirt and whatever of other people for various reasons. Mostly political.

You can find out if someone is a "bastard," or how many "bastards" they have fathered.

Also I doubt DNA records would stop rape and murder. It would increase the conviction rate, but convictions dont stop rape or murder, they happen after the fact.

[LibLabUK]

63. Umm....

"Also I doubt DNA records would stop rape and murder."

Serial offences would surely decline.. would they not?



"People always hire private investigators to dig up dirt and whatever of other people for various reasons. Mostly political.You can find out if someone is a "bastard," or how many "bastards" they have fathered."

You would have to have access to the system and be authorised to run searches queries in order to run it. Corruption exists at all levels of government.. so I guess you couldn't just rule something like you're suggesting out.

Thinking about the actual searches you'd have to perform... I'd imagine determining paternity in this way would actually be quite difficult... it probably wouldn't be something you could just do quickly whilst no one was looking..

[DoNotRefill]

6. The problem is that it's a search and seizure.

They're seizing your blood, and searching it for DNA. As such, it must be reasonable, and must be based upon probable cause, at least in the US.

Here, that would be a HUGE invasion of privacy. And just because you're invading the privacy of an infant instead of the privacy of an adult doesn't somehow make it less of an invasion.

[LibLabUK]

13. Another question..

"They're seizing your blood, and searching it for DNA. "

Is that your opinion, or has that been tested in court?

[DoNotRefill]

14. it's a court thing...

you can't get a DNA sample without a warrant

[LibLabUK]

16. Umm..

Are there no mandatory things done when a child is born?

Don't you have a law that says births muct be registered with so-and-so?

[iverglas]

23. there ya go

Don't you have a law that says births muct be registered with so-and-so?

I mentioned that very thing.

And I pointed out that it was straw-flinging to say that taking a DNA sample was like implanting a microchip in every infant's ear, just as it would be straw-flinging for anyone who opposed registering births to say that registering births was like taking a DNA sample.

We can all distinguish pretty readily between taking DNA samples and implanting microchips, and between registering births and taking DNA samples.

But heck, maybe the exercise would be valuable. Anybody want to do it -- both of them? Distinguish between the two things in each set based on a factor that is relevant for our purposes and that provides a basis for saying "this one good, that one bad"?

[DoNotRefill]

27. Births have to be registered if they take place at a hospital.

but I've never heard of somebody being arrested for failure to file a birth certificate if the child is born at home.

[iverglas]

29. uh huh ... and ...

1. Births have to be registered if they take place at a hospital.

2. I've never heard of somebody being arrested for failure to file a birth certificate if the child is born at home.

Are we suggesting that we should conclude:

Births do not have to be registered if they take place at home

?

Looks like dodgy logic to me. The fact that no one has ever been arrested for not doing something really is not a sound basis for concluding that no one is required to do it.

Best evidence rule and all that. Surely, if births do not have to be registered if they do not take place at a hospital, the law that requires registration of births that take place at a hospital, for instance, would make this plain.

Where I'm at, for very sure, *all* births must be registered, completely regardless of where they take place.


But in any event, even if you are/were correct, if what you are saying actually is that births that do not take place in hospitals are not required to be registered, your point is ...?

Is the reason why this is not a requirement relevant to the issue of whether DNA samples should be taken at birth? I'm not saying it wouldn't be, I'm just not seeing what connection you're making.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Iverglas, I'm not at all sure....

that there's a legal requirement to register babies in the US. This is something WAY out of my area of practice, but I can think of a bunch of different constitutional issues that such a law would raise.

[iverglas]

43. well it sure is here

Since 1869, I gather.

http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/v-4/20040503/whole.html#P312_16487

Vital Statistics Act

Duty of medical practitioners

8. (1) Every legally qualified medical practitioner who attends at the birth within Ontario of a child shall give notice of the birth.

Duty of nurse

(2) Where no legally qualified medical practitioner is in attendance at the birth, the nurse in attendance shall give the notice of the birth.

...

(A slight change is in the works to make this apply to anyone who attends at a birth, since we now have licensed midwives practising in Ontario.)

9. (1) ...

Statement by parents

(2) Within thirty days of a child's birth in Ontario, the mother and father shall make and certify a statement in the prescribed form respecting the child's birth and shall mail or deliver the statement to the division registrar of the registration division within which the child was born.

(with provisions for when either parent is incapable, etc.)

Offences
Failure to give notice or to furnish particulars

55. (1) Every person who neglects or fails to give any notice or to register or to furnish any statement, certificate or particulars respecting the birth, marriage, death, still-birth, adoption or change of name of any person, as required by this Act, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a corporation.

It is the child's rights that are in issue here. A child whose birth is not publicly known is a child at greater risk than a child whose birth is publicly known. Especially if that child goes on to be "homeschooled" ... as one might expect to happen to children whose parents object to registering their births ...

Just as the child's rights are in issue in the business about testing blood for diseases. I realize that parents are regarded as having broader "rights" to do what they want with their children in the US than in Canada, but a parent here would have a hard time fighting a law that required the testing of newborns for easily detectable, readily treatable diseases after birth. Whatever interest a parent might assert in preventing such testing (?), the child's interest in not dying an entirely preventable death would govern.

And this, of course, is what makes registration of births readily and obviously distinguishable from taking of DNA samples at birth.

Registration is in the interests of the child. The taking of DNA samples from anyone is unlikely to be in his/her interests.

[LibLabUK]

55. qui bono?

"The taking of DNA samples from anyone is unlikely to be in his/her interests."

If the registry reduced the rate of homicide/assault would that not be in the child's interest?

[iverglas]

59. very possibly

(although the evidence/argument is far from conclusive)

If the registry reduced the rate of homicide/assault would that not be in the child's interest?

But the taking of the child's blood for that purpose is not in the child's interest.

There's no point in muddying the waters by calling a fish a bicycle. "The registry" and "taking my blood" just aren't the same thing.

It would arguably be in the child's interests (or my interests, or your interests) if everybody else's DNA info were recorded in a registry.

It would arguably be in the public interest if everybody's DNA info, including the child's and yours and mine, were recorded in a registry.

But it is hardly arguable that it is in any individual's interest, as an individual, to have his/her own DNA recorded in a registry to be used in detecting and identifying criminals.

Individuals, of course, and general sentiment hereabouts notwithstanding, DO have interests not just as individuals but as members of collectives. The individual's interest in the security of him/herself as a member of a secure society may, and obviously does, outweigh his/her interest in privacy/liberty etc. in many instances -- people consent to all sorts of restrictions on the exercise of their individual rights and freedoms for precisely that reason. Speed limits. Perjury laws. Income tax.

The casual disregard for and dismissal of individual and collective security interests seen in the US is virtually unique to the US. And when they do agree with measures that are plainly based on the preference for collective security over individual rights and freedoms (speed limits, limitations on speech), they just as casually dismiss the rights and freedoms in question as "privileges". It's quite bizarre, and it makes reasoned discussion of conflicts between collective/security interests and individual/liberty interests damn near impossible, but I haven't really found a chink in the mindset yet.

[LibLabUK]

31. Okay...

The article mentions that it's routine (at least in the UK) for a new-born to be given a blood test to check for diseases.

Would there be an issue in using a small amount of the blood surplus to the test as part of the birth registration?

Does search and seizure rules cover waste materials in this manner?

Does S&S rules cover the sloughed off skin and other materials you might leave in a hospital room?

[DoNotRefill]

34. Here, at least....

any testing done at birth is done by private concerns (the hospital). There's a tremendous difference between giving blood to a private concern and giving that blood to the government. And if you don't want them to draw blood from your baby, you can say "no", and they can't draw it, period, even if it's a private concern and it's supposedly the law. (such a law would be struck down here practically instantaneously). the US takes medical decisions and medical privacy issues VERY seriously.

Search and seizure rules DO cover waste materials. They cover anything where there's an expectation of privacy.

Even if it's NOT really waste materials, and isn't invasive, the government STILL can't force people to do stuff without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. For example, in order to be subjected to exhaling into a cardboard tube (a "breathalyzer") there must be PC that you've been driving while intoxicated, and that's a HELL of a lot less intrusive than trying to get your DNA. If the government went around randomly telling people "here, breathe in this tube", it'd be an unreasonable search and seizure, and they're prohibited from doing it.

[LibLabUK]

38. Ahh.. I see.

Thanks.

Do some states still require a bloodtest before you get married?

[DoNotRefill]

40. Not any that I'm aware of....

eom

[slackmaster]

42. Yes, some US states require a blood test

To check for STDs.

See http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml

[LibLabUK]

44. Interesting...

Is that not a huge violation of one's privacy?

You have to present the result of a STI test to a government employee?

[slackmaster]

47. Not were I live (California)

Though my ex and I did voluntarily get blood tests before we were married. It's a good idea knowing in advance the exact blood type (specifically Rh factor) of a person with whom you may some day breed children, and also nice to know for sure your partner doesn't carry syphilis, HIV, etc.

[LibLabUK]

50. I have no problem...

with people doing as you did. I think it's probably quite sensible infact.

Why haven't the bloodtest laws been struck down as violations of privacy in the states that have them?

[PopeyeII]

22. Alternate DNA sources.

.......they could be stealing our underwear from the laundry hamper.

[iverglas]

7. marshalling the arguments

That's the first step - and that involves recognizing that, as in most debates, there IS an argument for "the other side".

"Stiff punishments may satisfy people's self-righteous anger, but they are not much use as a deterrent. High probability of detection - that's the real deterrent."

That's as true a fact as can ever be provided by the social sciences.

A quick self-check demonstrates it. If one is driving down a dry, straight, sunny divided highway with nary a car in sight, how likely is one to obey the speed limit? Double the fine for speeding, and how much more likely will one be now to obey the speed limit?

Now, put hay stacks all along the highway, and a radar-equipped police car behind a hay stack at random locations every few miles, and how likely is one to obey the speed limit?

How successful has the availability of the death penalty ever been in deterring people from killing other people? How successful has the actual use of the death penalty ever been in deterring people who haven't yet killed anyone from killing someone? Not very.

If what we really want to do is stop people from doing certain things, then it makes sense to do the thing that is most likely to have that effect.

However, of course, the fact that it makes sense to do something does not necessarily mean that we should do it. There may be excellent, and better, reasons for not doing it. What we shouldn't do is pretend that that it doesn't make sense to do it.

That is -- it makes sense to do it if we want to accomplish a particular goal. In this case, the goal is to prevent people from being killed and assaulted, and we pretty much have a consensus that this is a good goal. The fact is that we have good reason to believe that if some people know for certain that if they commit some crimes (more on the "some" later) they will be identified, they will be less likely to commit those crimes in the first place.

However, we can't say that preserving DNA information will in fact make homicides and assaults a thing of the past.

Will would-be killers and assailants actually behave rationally -- more rationally than they have to date? Are people who commit these crimes like speeders? People do, today, kill and assault other people in situations in which there already is a 100% probability of being identified. Nonetheless, there are pretty certainly people who are not going to kill or assault others unless they think that they can get away undetected. And perhaps if we all grew up in a context in which people were routinely identified by DNA info when they committed crimes, we'd all believe more in the near-certainly of being detected than we do now, and more people would be deterred by that belief.

Will DNA info actually make it possible to identify everyone who commits homicides and assaults? In some cases, there is no DNA evidence. People wanting to commit these crimes might get smart, and start wearing a lot of latex. If they're rational enough to be deterred by the relative certainty of detection, would they not be rational enough to take measures to avoid detection?

So ... while it may be true that high probability of detection is the real deterrent ... we are left with:

- some people still aren't going to be deterred by the high probability of detection any more than by the possibility of severe punishment, because they act impulsively rather than irrationally -- and in fact, this group accounts for a large proportion, and the really problematic group, of people who kill and assault others;

- some people who kill and assault others still aren't going to be detected because, whether by design or good luck, they aren't going to leave DNA evidence on their victims;

- our knowledge and skills are not perfect, and even with this tool available there is always a possibility (perhaps even higher than at present) that it will lead us to false conclusions and result in innocent people being punished -- and guilty people going undetected.

So is it really correct (in the sense of: can we really confidently predict) to say that this measure would result in far fewer serious crimes being committed?

I tend to think that it isn't. In fact, what it might actually do (those perverse/unintended effects) is make it more possible to punish people, since we'll be at least somewhat more able to detect and identify the irrational, impulsive offenders. That might be a "good" thing, it just wouldn't be the thing that the measure was intended to accomplish. And it would mean (again, see later) having to assess the measure using different criteria.

Now, regardless of the likelihood of achieving the important goal of reducing the numbers of homicides and assaults in a society, the measure taken to achieve that goal still has to be looked at from the other perspective: the extent to which it interferes in the exercise of individual rights and freedoms.

- Is the goal sufficiently important to justify a trivial interference in that exercise?
- Is the interference trivial or substantial?
- Is the action taken rationally related to the goal?
- Is the action taken in fact likely to have effects that are very different from the intended/claimed effects? (In this case, to do little or nothing to deter homicides and assaults, but to make it easier to detect and identify people who commit them.)
- Even if the likely effects are indeed the intended/claimed effects, is it necessary to take that action, and thus to interfere in the rights and freedoms, in order to achieve that goal, or are there other less intrusive measures that would be equally, or acceptably, effective?

Maybe I'll just ask the questions and get on with the work I have to get done today before going to the info session for election-day party workers.

My point is that just stating the objections to any plan, without recognizing any merits that it probably has (most plans do have some), amounts to tilting at straw folk.

If we do want to reduce harm -- the numbers of homicides and assaults -- then we ought to seriously consider proposals that would at least arguably have that effect.

And we have to acknowledge, at the outset, that no one's interests (in this case, the interests in privacy and liberty and security of the person that are plainly adversely affected by this proposal) automatically trump anyone else's (in this case, the interest in not being killed or assaulted: life and security).

[slackmaster]

8. A better solution IMO would be a tag-and-release program

Put a microchip in every child's head at birth. Soon it will be possible to monitor the location of everyone at all times by satellite, so nobody could get away with any crime.

(Hint for anyone who missed the point: This is SARCASM.)

:argh:

[iverglas]

12. well

You had a good point with the perverse-effect argument. This one isn't one of your more stellar efforts.


Put a microchip in every child's head at birth. Soon it will be possible to monitor the location of everyone at all times by satellite, so nobody could get away with any crime.

Who knows? There might be circumstances, in some future world of or beyond our imagining, when this could, perhaps, be justified. (Just as, as I always say, there might some day be such a population crisis -- imminent extinction as a result of over-reproduction or under-reproduction -- that denying women reproductive choice could, perhaps, be justified.)

Since no one is actually proposing it here, and it is not like the proposal that is being made, any more than registering the fact of one's birth is like preserving a sample of one's DNA, I think the whiff of straw is a little strong.

[DoNotRefill]

36. shiat....you WANT to start a world war?

that's something GUARANTEED to do it....

[Liberal Classic]

25. While we're at it might as well insert a digital tag

That way we can home in on people if they walk by electronic sensors. That'll help with catching them, too.

Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

[iverglas]

32. gosh

Now there's someone who carefully reads what other people have had to say before plonking his/her thoughts down in a thread.

Post #8, right above yours.

And oh look, my reply to it.

[Liberal Classic]

41. Hey, I did post a handy quotation

:P

[LibLabUK]

52. Quotation..

Who guards these guardians..

Who watches the watchers...

Couldn't that be applied to almost any function of government?

Isn't that why we have laws, elections, judges, juries etc etc etc.

[Liberal Classic]

53. Yes, of course this sentiment has wide application

That does not, however, invalidate it in any way.

It's been a concern before Juvenal wrote it, and ever after since.

[Liberal Classic]

51. Related thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x64882

[Liberal Classic]

67. Police defend DNA sweep on black men (Omaha, Nebraska)

Here's a perfect example of some of the concerns surrounding the collection and use and potential for misuse of DNA sampling.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=1636&u_sid=1133334


Police defend DNA sweep on black men

BY TODD COOPER
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

The black men subjected to surprise DNA tests this week by Omaha police dubbed the process degrading and likened it to a cattle call.

...

The battle between public safety and personal privacy shifted this week to Omaha when police obtained a court order allowing them to obtain the names of every black man working for the Omaha Public Power District.

Police culled the list down to about 36 men between the ages of 20 and 40.

Plainclothes detectives in unmarked cars then showed up at the homes - asking if the men would be willing to submit to a swab for a DNA culture from their mouths.

[iverglas]

68. so ... what's the real problem here?

Police defend DNA sweep on black men

If the person described to the police by the victims of a sexual assaualt were white, and the police had the same other information -- that he had claimed to work for a particular employer, and had certain physicial characteristics (height, weight) -- and the police had done exactly the same thing, would this have been news? "Police defend DNA sweep on white men"?

Of course there are other questions, the first one being: would police in fact have done exactly the same thing if the person they were looking for had been described as "white"?

If not, then there's a problem.

Does the problem have to do with the danger that DNA testing will be used for bad purposes? What's bad about identifying a violent criminal so that society can be protected from him?

Or is it really a problem with police policies, and more generally with social attitudes? Is the problem that requiring (or requesting) DNA samples is an unacceptable violation of individual rights -- or is it that police might (do?) use their ability to get DNA info discriminatorily (only against vulnerable groups/individuals), or for a purpose other than identifying people who commit crimes (e.g. harassing minority communities)?

Is the problem that police are seeking authority to obtain DNA info as a substitute for doing their job - investigating crimes, *without* interfering in individual rights and freedoms? But isn't using DNA info a way of investigating crimes and ultimately identifying criminals so that society can be protected from them? Is the interference with individual rights and freedoms involved in having one's cheek swabbed and info extracted (as long as that info is not retained or used for any other purpose) really a big deal?

Yes, this practice is problematic in all sorts of ways, even if it is not engaged in discriminatorily. Info could be retained or used improperly; false identifications could be made, as with fingerprints and eye-witness evidence; people could be harassed for failing to comply with requests (hey, a DNA-at-birth registry would solve that problem).

But it simply is not proper to condemn a technique because of how it is used when it has been used by applying improper criteria for deciding when and how to use it or has been used for improper and unintended purposes.

It may be that in some circumstances there can be no guarantees that a technique will *not* be used improperly, or for improper purposes. *Then* it would be proper to oppose its use. But that would need to be demonstrated, or at least demonstrated to be a serious possibility.

Which brings us back to: would the police not have done this if the person they were looking for had been described as "white"?

I don't know, and I'd need a good deal more information before venturing an opinion.

[Liberal Classic]

70. I'm looking for a reference

I do not believe this is the very first time this sort of thing has been done. I seem to remember a news report from a year or more ago in which police in a rural community performed a similar search. It was in a small town, and nearly the entire town was sampled during the course of a murder investigation. Nearly the whole town had the opportunity to commit the crime, being quite isolated, and all the authorities had to go on was a biological sample. They didn't ask for a particular race or gender only, they asked for everybody. Also they didn't just show up at people's doorsteps, instead they publically announced it in the paper asking people to please visit the police or sheriff's office to have a swab rubbed in the mouth. No censure came to those who failed to submit, though they were asked to provide an alibi of their whereabouts at the time of the crime. However, I cannot remember exactly where or when, so that makes it hard to search for online. Wish I could be more specific, I'm sorry.

I believe the real question is this: Is genetic material evidence, or is it identification?

As you may know, our U.S. Supreme Court recently passed a ruling about gathering identification of potential suspects. If identification must be given to the authorities upon demand, and at some point biological samples become commonly used for identification purposes, it might seem that a person will have no choice but to submit to DNA sampling. Though I am sure some day the technology will exist, we do not now have instant biological sampling and DNA profiling techniques. We do seem to have the expectation that we are ablidged to pee in a cup on demand. It does not seem a strecht to add a swabbing of the mouth.

I believe it is a big deal. Of course, that could be because I am one of those grouchy freedom minded people, always up in arms about the steady erosion of privacy and liberty. I believe that just because a technique can be used does not necessarily mean that it should in all cases. When the highest law in my country states...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...then I, being such a grouch and stickler for the rules tend to think that it means what it says. In my humble layman's opinion, I believe that the police pounding on at my door at the crack of dawn demanding I let them stick a cotton swab in my mouth is rather unreasonable. The first thing I am likely to ask them is where is their search warrant.

I believe there is the concern of self-incrimination, as well as privacy issues involved.

As I said to UKLibLab in the other thread I referenced in this one, I am a supporter of DNA testing. DNA profiling done correctly exonerates the innocent and incarcerates the guilty I have no problem with convicted felons having their DNA profile stored on file. I do have a problem with a shotgun approach to the issue and profiling everyone in advance. In my country there is a presumption on innocence before guilt. The proper place for such measures is after a person is under investigation for a crime or has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact a criminal. If they are, then I have no problems with keeping biological samples on file somewhere as part of the public record.

Like any new technology people tend to jump on the bandwagon and begin applying it in places where it may not be appropriate or cost effective or sensitive to other issues, privacy being among them.

[LibLabUK]

72. Okay.

"Like any new technology people tend to jump on the bandwagon and begin applying it in places where it may not be appropriate or cost effective or sensitive to other issues, privacy being among them.

DNA fingerprinting not appropriate for use in the detection of crime?

What exactly are the privacy issues? People keep making the claim that it infringes privacy, but haven't said HOW it infringes on privacy.

"I believe there is the concern of self-incrimination"

I'm not familiar with this concept... are corroborated confessions not admissable in the US under the same statute (is this the "pleading the fifth" you see in films?)

[Liberal Classic]

73. Because the U.S. legal system operates (in theory) under the presumption

Of innocence before guilt, there is a long standing prohibition against the government compelling someone to bear witness against themselves. Yes, you've probably seen this in crime dramas, where someone 'pleads the fifth' as the saying goes. Most applications of the fifth amendment to the constitution are verbal in nature, such as an interrogation before an attorney is present in which the suspect cannot be compelled to speak. This is the 'right to remain silent' you also see in american crime dramas. However, there are other ways in which a suspect can incriminate himself. They don't have to be verbal, but most of them do involve speech.

New technologies tend to push the boundries in unexpected ways. DNA sampling and profiling is an interesting case because it is sometimes a form of identification (something allowed to be taken from a suspect without a warrant) and other times evidence (which may not be taken without a warrant). It is an interseting edge case, though I think traditional fingerprints aren't a bad analogy. There's a lot more information contained in a DNA sample than a fingerprint, though. Thus the privacy issues.

Note I am not a legal or forensic expert, just a layman.

[LibLabUK]

74. Errr...

"There's a lot more information contained in a DNA sample than a fingerprint, though."

There's no more information in a DNA fingerprint than a traditional fingerprint. You CANNOT tell anything about the phenotype of an individual from a forensic DNA fingerprint. That means you can't tell hair, skin or eye colour. You can't tell whether someone has a disease, or whether they have a propensity for any disease. You can't tell, without other samples, who any one is related to. You can't tell what their sexual, religous or political orientation is.

What you can do is...

Compare the sample provided by an individual to samples taken from crime scenes and see if there's a match.

And that's about it.

"Thus the privacy issues. "

You still haven't stated what the privacy issues are.. other than to say that they exist...

[Liberal Classic]

76. Please note I said

There's no more information in a DNA fingerprint than a traditional fingerprint.

Here's what I wrote with emphasis added:

"There's a lot more information contained in a DNA sample than a fingerprint, though."

You still haven't stated what the privacy issues are.. other than to say that they exist...

Perhaps it is because I am discussing it in the context of U.S. law that we are not communicating. I have mentioned the standards of procedure in my country governing the conduct of the police in searches for and seizures of evidence, and note that having the police pounding on my door to collect samples may be a violation of our privacy rights. I have also mentioned that in my country we have the right to not be compelled to bear witness against ourselves in court, and I have raised the question collecting samples before being under investigation may violate this as well. There's also the news article entitled "Police defend DNA sweep on black men" which may have violated some people's civil rights.

Nevermind, LiblabUK. I guess I am just spouting nonsense. Please ignore further mad rantings on my part. Sorry to waste your time.

:(

[iverglas]

78. spouting nonsense

Perhaps it is because I am discussing it in the context of U.S. law that we are not communicating. I have mentioned the standards of procedure in my country governing the conduct of the police in searches for and seizures of evidence, and note that having the police pounding on my door to collect samples may be a violation of our privacy rights. I have also mentioned that in my country we have the right to not be compelled to bear witness against ourselves in court, and I have raised the question collecting samples before being under investigation may violate this as well.

And all that would be something other than irrelevant -- i.e. "nonsense" in our context -- if it demonstrated some distinction between "U.S. law" and the law in some other pertinent jurisdiction.

Do you actually imagine that it does?


(html fixed)

[Liberal Classic]

79. I'm not familiar with the legal systems in commonwealth nations

Nor do I presume to tell Canada and the UK how to run their affairs. That is why I was taking care to note that I am talking about my country's laws, so as not to paint with too wide a brush. Some things which might be considered a violation of privacy here may not be in other countries, of course.

And all that would be something other than irrelevant -- i.e. "nonsense" in our context -- if it demonstrated some distinction between "U.S. law" and the law in some other pertinent jurisdiction. Do you actually imagine that it does?

No, of course not. Please ingore my mad rantings. I have nothing worthwhile to contribute, and I am just polluting the forum with my irrelevancies.

:cry:

[PopeyeII]

75. For those that approve of a DNA registry.

How do you feel about random or mandatory drug testing?

My opinion is they are both invasions of privacy.

[slackmaster]

77. Depends on who is doing the testing and why

I conditionally approve of the DNA registry, as long as controls are in place to ensure the information is not used to deny health care for someone who has a predisposition for genetic-related diseases or behavior problems.

If drug testing is a condition of employment I have no problem with it; you always have the option of not working there. I recently had to make that choice myself. I chose to take the test and prove my "clean" status in order to land a very good job.

As a condition of being able to exercise a government-sponsored privilege like driving or to obtain government-issued benefits like welfare when the recipient has not been convicted of or admitted to being an illegal drug user I have a big problem with it. Likewise I oppose mandatory testing of students as a condition for participation in public school-related activities. OTOH when someone has a criminal record involving drug use I can see requiring testing for some of those benefits.

As a condition of probation when someone has been granted a reprieve from a jail sentence for a crime involving illegal drug use I have no problem with it. But once the probationary period has ended so must the drug testing.