OwnTheRide: Well, at least this thread isn't chock-full of people pleading with the government to take away their rights.

Sad when half-full is a good thing.

We have rights for a reason, folks. People bled and died to secure and keep these rights. The least you could do is put a little thought into it before begging the government to take them away.

UltimaCS: We could catch a lot of bad guys by giving the police unfettered access to investigate and question however they like. It would also allow a lot of corrupt cops to jail innocent people. Unfortunately, it seems like more power creates more corruption, and they're incapable of policing themselves.

JesseL: jaytkay: JesseL: cman: How does the government using a public DNA database affect your rights?

How would a government operated video camera in your bedroom affect your rights?

Can you attempt an honest answer?

First off, my rights exist regardless of how well I can articulate their need. Demanding I explain why I need them is some totalitarian bullshiat.

My DNA information is mine. It potentially contains a lot of information about who I am, and I deserve as much right to protect that information as I do to protect information about what goes on in the privacy of my bedroom.

If law enforcement wants something specific out of it, they can articulate to a judge exactly what you're looking for.

cman: JesseL: jaytkay: JesseL: cman: How does the government using a public DNA database affect your rights?

How would a government operated video camera in your bedroom affect your rights?

Can you attempt an honest answer?

First off, my rights exist regardless of how well I can articulate their need. Demanding I explain why I need them is some totalitarian bullshiat.

My DNA information is mine. It potentially contains a lot of information about who I am, and I deserve as much right to protect that information as I do to protect information about what goes on in the privacy of my bedroom.

If law enforcement wants something specific out of it, they can articulate to a judge exactly what you're looking for.

But they are not getting it from you. They are taking it from a public database. A database to which anyone can access. So, once again, how does this affect you?

GodComplex: OwnTheRide: Well, at least this thread isn't chock-full of people pleading with the government to take away their rights.

Sad when half-full is a good thing.

We have rights for a reason, folks. People bled and died to secure and keep these rights. The least you could do is put a little thought into it before begging the government to take them away.

Look, having rights allows bad people to do bad things. Ergo, the fewer rights we have the fewer bad things will happen. Don't you want to be safe, citizen?

Dinjiin: Geotpf: Nobody is forcing you to give your DNA to one of these companies. If you plan on committing any murders, or have any favorite second cousins that have committed such, don't give your DNA.

True.  But now we're reaching a point where DNA is being submitted to aid with curing or preventing illness, not just because you want proof that you are 1/32 Chickasaw like you always suspected.  So while you're not being forced, the decision to decline is increasingly going to have consequences.

JesseL: cman: But they are not getting it from you. They are taking it from a public database. A database to which anyone can access. So, once again, how does this affect you?

That's where you're wrong kiddo.

With the Garden State Killer they got matches to relatives from GEDmatch (not a public database BTW) based on a sample they uploaded (from a rape test).

Contrast that with a recent case where an idiot judge signed off on a warrant giving an officer the right to demand a copy of the entire GEDmatch database to troll through.

There's an important farking difference.

Kolg8: I don't think the use of such databases presents 4th amendment issues. To use the Golden State Killer as an example, he simply doesn't have "standing" to object to the search of a genealogy website.

So, let's say police snuck into the killer's house without a warrant, went into the Killer's sock drawer, and found an old picture from the mid-70's of him posing with one of his victims.  The police violated the Killer's 4th amendment rights by searching his house without a warrant. Killer can make a motion to have the picture excluded as evidence, because Killer's rights were violated because of the search.

Now let's change the scenario.  Killer, bragging about the murder, gave the picture to a friend.  Police break into the friend's house without a warrant, and find the same picture.  Have they violated the friend's 4th amendment rights?  Absolutely.  But can the Killer object and have the picture excluded as evidence?  No. He can try, but the court will not exclude the picture, because the Killer's 4th amendment rights were not violated (only the Friend's were), so the Killer lacks standing to object to the constitutional violation.  I recognize that this may surprise some people, but trust me, its black letter constitutional law.

So what about genealogy websites?  Well, the Killer screws up somewhere by leaving a bodily fluid at the crime scene, or he licks a stamp and the police have his saliva . . . whatever.  Somehow, the police have Killer's DNA.  Next, they go to a publicly available genealogy site, where a lot of people other than the Killer have given a DNA sample.  So as they did with the Golden State Killer, they don't find an exact match between his DNA and the samples in the database.  Rather, they find similar DNA.  They find brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, etc.  The police then interview these relatives, ask if they have a relative that was in a certain area at a certain time, and viola! They found the killer.

I'm not sure anyone's rights are b ...

Dinjiin: cman: THat makes no sense. You are trying to find something to justify your paranoia that the government using public databases is somehow wrong when I can go in and access it like anyone else can.

I'd just like the ability to submit my genetics for testing without the fear that another party, may it be the testing company, a third-party company, or the government, can use the results themselves.  Fairly simple.  I shouldn't be forced to decide between my health or my privacy.

Sure, you can take that to the extreme, like the remark that Geotpf made regarding privacy and criminality.  But given that "criminality" has crossed into some dark, brutal areas in the past under totalitarian governments, I'd like for there to be a real firewall in place.  It might not prevent things completely, but if things ever turned really bad, I'd like a bit more time to flee before my family ended up on a Sonderfahndungsbuch.