21–30 of 283 posts
Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.
... The concept of DNA sample collection existed in 1983?
Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.
What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns.
This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen.
Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information or how often it's given to law enforcement, but there's been proposed legislation to make this more transparent.
Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.
This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen. Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples…
Was it inaccurate?
Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be weird if that didn't shape their perception? It's not surprising that people are less trusting when an authoritarian is in power.
But the assumptions should always be that one day someone like that could take power and gain access to that data.
What's happening right now is not because the government had a database lying around and an unspecified authoritarian picked it up.
What's happening is that after a specific authoritarian staged a coup against the government, he was nevertheless allowed to continue his anti-democratic efforts. Trump should have a 27 year sentence like his Brazilian compatriot Bolsonaro, who in monkey-see-monkey-do fashion, similarly affected a coup against his government. Had we actually prosecuted those crimes the way Brazil did, we could still be talking about how to prevent theoretical authoritarian governments from abusing their power. But now we have a specific instance, and in this case, all the anti-authoritarian measures in the world mean jack if the government just allows actual insurrectionists to run for president, which is barred by the Constitution for a good reason. In that case they're just asking for it.
Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.
Do you have a source? I know there is an index[0] of the information on California birth certificates from 1905 to 1995 and technically, despite the privacy implications, birth records in California are considered "public record". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Birth_Index
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen. Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples…
> This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. Was it inaccurate?
It's not a "DNA sample" in the way that most people would consider it these days, no more than a used cup would also be called a "DNA sample". But to your point, it can still be used for surveillance and tracking.
Also, your phrasing is designed to make it seem like a huge overreach, when this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities. I have personally experienced this.
So yes, I do think your framing here is inaccurate through omission of key facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen. Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples…
> This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. Was it inaccurate?
It's weird how many people's perception of this type of behavior is shaped by the person sitting in the White House. EDIT: It's also weird how my comment is being perceived exclusively as criticizing the critics of this administration rather than criticizing the supporters of this overreach. My comment was intentional phrased very generally, if you think it is specifically about you, that reveals something about you.
Wouldn't it be weird if that didn't shape their perception? It's not surprising that people are less trusting when an authoritarian is in power.
How is this news, the usgov has been taking my biometrics for the past 5 years
Have they? They haven't taken mine.
https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/preparing-for-yo...