61–70 of 137 posts
They don't mention this, but one major reason for this is to validate claims of family units and prevent trafficking. This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other then nebulous claims. Yes, DNA is like finger printing someone, which is routinely done for arrests, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of family relations, which is at the heart of many ICE concerns.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How close does a DNA "match" have to be to get somebody tossed in jail? Do they actually require 100%, or is a "match" something less? What's the false-positive rate? Would a non-twin sibling's DNA "match"? Yes, I'm aware that, in theory, DNA is unique. As is the theory for finger-prints. But, I'm also aware that theory is rarely reality.
Don't forget the reverse. If your DNA's an insufficient match to your children, they take your kids away. https://womenherald.com/health/the-chimerism-case-how-lydia-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slightly biased because I'm a european, but I think a european country is more likely to be trust-able with a country-wide DNA database. Only slightly more though, I still wouldn't trust them to actually do it right
> Slightly biased because I'm a european, but I think a european country is more likely to be trust-able with a country-wide DNA database. There were multiple governments operating pervasive surveillance states and using them to punish dissidents on the western part of European continent well within a human lifetime from today. What makes you think that won't happen again, this time in a completely iron-clad way?
You can just say "at this very moment".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several European countries that do this from what I understand
Iceland have a _geneological_ database, which is something of a sensible precaution against consanguinity in a small gene pool that was isolated before air travel. I don't think anywhere has population-wide genetic databases and I struggle to see how it would be compatible with GDPR? (France actually ban paternity testing without a court order!)
Because the GDPR is only concerned with data collection not explicitly required by law. If a government passes a law to set up a genetic database, then that it totally fine with the GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to wikipedia, "the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in 100 billion (100,000,000,000) although the practical risk is actually 1 in 1,000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human population", so it looks like some twins will cause an issue for DNA-based convictions, but I think a non-twin sibling is probably diverse enough? I have different eye colour, ears, food intolerances to my brother…
That is a coincidental match, though! It's the risk of a false positive when you compare exactly two samples. The problem is that we're proposing a DNA database , so you're now comparing 1 sample found at a crime scene with 300ish million people. That's a 300M in 100B chance, or 1 in 333, of some person having a false positive match. Now combine that with thousands of samples being tested every day (because let's be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that one still needs proof. My DNA on a victim's clothes does not mean I committed the crime.
In principle. In reality, juries often hold evidence like this (and also-very-unreliable eye witness testimony) in high regard, based on how it's positioned into the narrative.
They don't mention this, but one major reason for this is to validate claims of family units and prevent trafficking. This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other then nebulous claims. Yes, DNA is like finger printing someone, which is routinely done for arrests, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of family relations, which is at the heart of many ICE concerns.
They don't mention this, but one major reason for apartheid's Bantustan policy was to recognize distinct homelands and preserve cultural communities. This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other than nebulous claims. Yes, assigning people to ethnic homelands is like any other government record-keeping, which is routinely done, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of separate n…
The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds.
If you say that's bad too and that it's much like Apartheid, then all I can conclude is that maybe I need to learn more about Apartheid. Maybe it's not so bad as I have been told.
IF there was a secure and trustable way that a trusted government could retain DNA information, then I feel like people having a DNA test at birth or on becoming a citizen could be useful, both medically ("your sample indicates you may have a higher risk of dementia") and from a policing standpoint ("we found DNA on this woman's clothes and immediately matched it to this man who hasn't committed a crime before" or "w…
How close does a DNA "match" have to be to get somebody tossed in jail? Do they actually require 100%, or is a "match" something less? What's the false-positive rate? Would a non-twin sibling's DNA "match"? Yes, I'm aware that, in theory, DNA is unique. As is the theory for finger-prints. But, I'm also aware that theory is rarely reality.
I don’t remember the exact details, because I have watched it long time ago, but they don’t need an exact match. Actually it’s more scary - if your distant cousin has DNA “in the system” - you are in it too.
This 1M DNAs may “help” match an order of magnitude more people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't mention this, but one major reason for apartheid's Bantustan policy was to recognize distinct homelands and preserve cultural communities. This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other than nebulous claims. Yes, assigning people to ethnic homelands is like any other government record-keeping, which is routinely done, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of separate n…
Apartheid was bad. Immigration enforcement isn't bad... it's what alot of people want. These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country, and owning it they want to exclude people who do not own it. The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds. If you say that's bad too an…