• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Open wide, felons

Regular readers know I've expressed concerns about some privacy issues. I don't see this as one to worry about:

But with as many as 16,000 additional Indiana felons expected during the next year to provide DNA samples -- a swab is rubbed inside the offender's mouth -- some question whether the benefit of comprehensive testing outweighs individuals' rights.
"I'm not sure simply being convicted of any felony ought to subject you to . . . that kind of intrusion," said Paula Sites, assistant executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council.

How does DNA differ from fingerprints, which have been collected from those arrested (and not just felons) for a long time? If felons have some kind of right not to have an identifier on record, it was violated a long time ago. As the story notes, DNA can exonerate as well as implicate, to which some guys who used to be on death row can testify.

Posted in: Hoosier lore

Comments

Bob G.
Mon, 07/31/2006 - 5:06am

I'm sure that a mouth swab intrusion (to collect DNA) is preferable to OTHER types of intrusion for felons....think about it.

You don't want to be "intruded" upon...don't become a felon...simple, hmm?

B.G.

Doug
Mon, 07/31/2006 - 7:10am

I think the concern is less about the rights of felons and more about the sense that this sort of database will keep expanding to where DNA will replace the Social Security number as a universal identifier. Sooner or later, the government will have us all cross-referenced to a fare-thee-well and everything about us will sooner or later be at the tip of every bureaucrat's finger.

First they came for the felons and I did nothing because I wasn't a felon, etc. etc.

Jeff Pruitt
Mon, 07/31/2006 - 8:02am

Doug,

That slippery slope is too slippery for me.

I think there are egregious violations of privacy being carried out on non-felons by this administration. I'd rather focus on those.

tim zank
Mon, 07/31/2006 - 7:12pm

Fellas, you're gettin' a tad "Orwellian" aren't ya?

Jeff Pruitt
Mon, 07/31/2006 - 8:58pm

Tim,

Not me, I don't agree w/ the slippery slope argument presented by Doug

Doug
Tue, 08/01/2006 - 5:45am

I don't think I'm being all that Orwellian. Keep in mind that the Social Security Number was originally going to be limited to tracking one's Social Security benefits. We all saw how that worked out.

There is always going to be a good reason to expand a database that provides a reliable identifier. Right now it's felons. Next maybe it will be misdemeanants for similar reasons. Then maybe the military will require soldiers to get registered for reasons of making the military more efficient. Then maybe there will be a push to get one's children's DNA registered for safety reasons. Before too long, we'll see a push for DNA registration as a condition of registering to vote to combat voter fraud. Once a sizable chunk of the population has their DNA registered, then credit card companies will require registration in an effort to combat identity theft. Hospitals will require registration to make sure records are accurate. Insurance companies will seek to use DNA information in order to adjust their risk based on risks associated with certain genetic markers.

That's how I see the progression off the top of my head. I know it strikes some of you as Orwellian (by which I take it you mean, unlikely). Which step listed above strikes you as unlikely?

tim zank
Tue, 08/01/2006 - 7:02am

Doug, by Orwellian I didn't mean unlikely, I meant your comments sounded a tad paranoid about big brother. Some of the things you list above are in fact somewhat likely to occur, which I don't necessarily see as a bad thing.

Quantcast