It looks like Californians are going to get to decide on whether to require DNA samples from all felony arrests in the state. Note that this is DNA from arrests, not convictions (which already happens, btw).
Considering our current state of fear and the ease with which proponents of invasive government and technological intrusion can manipulate public opinion, it seems naive to believe that we are not heading into a total DNA database future. As big as the pure identification problems are (DNA fingerprint), DNA is more powerful because of what it reveals about a person, be it ancestry, disease susceptibility, or perhaps even intelligence propensities. Once these databases are established, the lack of privacies laws and separation of public/private uses of data virtually insures that employers, insurance agencies, and even prospective mates and partners will mine these information treasure troves.
As bad as it can be made to sound, there are positives, of course. We do need reasoned and reasonable discussion about this issue with fair and honest analysis about the positives and negatives, devoid of hyperbole and fear, that indicate probabilities, possibilities, and potentialities. Security is always a trade-off and we must fully consider what we are getting in light of what we are giving up. Only then can we honestly render judgment as to whether or not we want any given scenario.
As it stands, right now the only benefit I can imagine for myself from being in a database would be exoneration for a crime I didn't commit but was otherwise suspected for. This security assurance is nice, but in my mind is worth enough to me to trade off for the risks of data exploitation by businesses and individuals. But I'm willing to change my mind.
I wouldn't vote for this measure in California though. If this passes on a rationale of casting a wide net helps to catch criminals, is there any reason for not just getting DNA from everyone in the state regardless of whether or not they get arrested for a felony? It would start with arrests for all crimes and then extend to voting and driver's registration, etc. Can you think of any reason why it wouldn't go this route?
Posted by Nutrimentia at June 14, 2004 01:03 PM | TrackBack