DNA Testing Proposed For All Felony Arrests In New Mexico 155
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The AP reports that a proposal to expand DNA testing to anyone arrested for a felony in New Mexico has passed the state House, expanding a 2006 state law requiring DNA samples of those arrested of certain violent felonies, such as murder, kidnapping and sex offenses. 'We must give law enforcement the best possible tools to prevent crime and convict criminals, and requiring DNA samples from those arrested for felonies is simply the modern-day equivalent of fingerprinting,' says Governor Susana Martinez. Under the measure, already enacted in a dozen states, suspects 18 and older will have to provide DNA samples — from a cheek swab, for example — when they're booked at jails for any felony, as supporters says the expanded testing can help prevent crimes. But opponents contend the testing violates a person's right to privacy and could cause police to make arrests on a pretext to obtain a DNA sample."
Re:Booked for a felony no (Score:2, Informative)
You'd better study a bit before making statements :)
The DNA fingerprint taken for identification purposes gives NO information about clinical status, prone-ness for diseases or whatever else; what one could derive from different analysis on the "biological sample" is an entirely different story (systematic SNP typization can and does give deep clinically relevant information and that IS a privacy issue).
The information extracted to perform identification of subject gives far less information than your social security number; and I am pretty sure you don't object your local police department having access to your SSN.
Point is that in several countries (England, Italy, ...) what is kept and stored is NOT ONLY the DNA fingerprint so extracted (that is a sequence of 20-30 letters/numbers that, really, doesn't say ANYTHING, you can believe it since... this is my job) but also the PHYSICAL SAMPLE; and there yes, any other thing can be done with that; note that keeping the sample makes definitively no sense for any investigation purpose.
I personally think that in a modern country the DNA *fingerprint* should be collected and stored on record at birth for all citizens (and to foregneirs entering the country), there is no risk whatsoever in that and that would help investigations and past-disaster identification.... what really makes no sense is keeping the biological samples; that exposes to the risks you cite and is also completely useless.
Basing assertions on correct information is important, otherwise it is just to easy to make confusion; sorry if I seemed a bit rude.
A.