Bomb Threat results in order for DNA testing of Minor

[Klingon00]

Have you or loved one had a baby in a hospital recently? Your children's DNA is probably on file with the government. There seems to be a concerted effort to gain the DNA sample of every citizen eventually.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/ba ... l?hpt=Sbin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[glocksmith]

The government could make big $$ selling our DNA profiles to the health insurance industry. Insurers would gladly pay big bucks to know which persons to turn down for coverage.

[ohiophotog]

According to a chart that I found through a Google search, Ohio only keep newborn DNA for 2 years as of 2009.

[GatorNavy]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

[Werz]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

It's a lot easier than fingerprinting, and that's always been standard.

[Mrs. Daspirate]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

It's a lot easier than fingerprinting, and that's always been standard.

The list of nefarious things one can do with genetic material/code is quite a bit longer than what one could do with fingerprints.

[jburtonpdx]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

It's a lot easier than fingerprinting, and that's always been standard.

The list of nefarious things one can do with genetic material/code is quite a bit longer than what one could do with fingerprints.

Isn't there some law or rule out there about law-enforcement maintaining a file on people that are not the subject of an investigation? Seems to me that if somebody is found not guilty or is no billed that investigation would be over. I don't know though...

[jabeatty]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

It's a lot easier than fingerprinting, and that's always been standard.

That's a fine standard to set for one's actions, or the actions of one's overseers.

[GatorNavy]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

It's a lot easier than fingerprinting, and that's always been standard.

[Klingon00]

The list of nefarious things one can do with genetic material/code is quite a bit longer than what one could do with fingerprints.

In other words, a fingerprint is like the barcode on the packaging. A DNA sample is like the whole blue-prints and industry secret manufacturing techniques all rolled into one. One is simply an identifier and grant's little more info than that, the other seems to be a violation of the 4th amendment without warrant.

Likewise, the police can take note of your name and address (identifier) but they can't rummage through your home and read your diary without that warrant. IF DNA samples could be limited to just a simple unique ID marker and the rest is thrown away, there might be a case for its equality to fingerprinting. However, if the complete genetic code is kept, that's a whole other story.

[Werz]

Convicted is one thing, Only being charged with a felony and being held down and giving up DNA by force is nuts

It's a lot easier than fingerprinting, and that's always been standard.

The list of nefarious things one can do with genetic material/code is quite a bit longer than what one could do with fingerprints.

They don't run it for the full genome. All they get is polymorphisms at 14 alleles, none of which code for proteins, except the one for sex.