Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests 562
schwit1 sends this news from the Washington Times:
"Pennsylvania police this week were pulling people to the side of the road, quizzing them on their driving habits, and asking if they'd like to provide a cheek swap or a blood sample — the latest in a federally contracted operation that's touted as making roads safer. The same operation took place last month at a community in Texas. Then, drivers were randomly told to pull off the road into a parking lot, where white-coated researchers asked if they'd like to provide DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol at given times. With uniformed police in the background, the researchers also offered the motorists money — up to $50 or so — for the blood or saliva samples."
Um.... (Score:5, Funny)
Who'd really buy into that?
"Here, take my biological information. You want to use it to create an army of biologically superior clones? That's nice. Oh, $50? Even better!"
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tons of people. People are taught to always listen to cops. Lately I'm more scared of the police than any criminal. Police can ruin your life and easily kill you without repercussions. Cops are trained to always maintain control of the situation no matter how minor or petty. That is why so many people are tazed, beaten, or outright murdered when they tell cops they are wrong or the cops are doing illegal things.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the people who have something to hide because they're drunk or stoned behind the wheel are exactly the same people who won't buy into it. So, the statistics gathering will be highly skewed. Researchers probably know this because it's obvious, and it's likely just a cover story.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't the same people. I wouldn't buy into it, and I've never been stoned, and am almost a non-drinker. I would just find getting pulled over and being asked for a cheek swab to be a bizarre and highly intrusive request.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what he said. He said people with something to hide will be in that category, not that everyone in that category has something to hide. And he's right; this can't be considered an unbiased sample set.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not anonymous. It has your DNA on it, which uniquely identifies you.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And in most cases, they could tie the DNA sample to your name using your car registration number.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Informative)
There is a huge amount of information to collect based on subjects' reactions to these requests for DNA. At the very least, the cops must be compiling a naughty/nice list indexed to license plate based on who accepts a cheek swab. Making the link from license plate to individual is pretty easy, especially if they're also taking video of their proceedings. People are forced to play the game and there's no way to win.
That was my thought, also. So you're driving home at 2:00 AM from a late night code hacking marathon, the cop checks your plate, which is common practice for cars on the road late at night, [1] sees that you declined an optional cheek swab 3 months ago, and pulls you over for "weaving". It's easy to imagine getting extra scrutiny in the future for declining a swab now.
[1] I worked nights for an 18 month contract once, going home in the wee hours, and was pulled over... oh, maybe eight or nine times during that stint, for really bizarre reasons, including "weaving" and not signaling a lane change when two lanes converged into one. (Seriously?) They'd check my papers, and let me go. I finally asked an officer, respectfully, why this was happening so often, and in a rare moment of candor, he said they consider a single car late at night to be a warning sign, and "we have to pull you over for something" in order to check you out.
Re:Um.... (Score:4)
Eh? What?
Re: (Score:3)
Why use the cops to pull people over? Why not run advertisements?
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Insightful)
shoots you?
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Either the test is voluntary, and suffers from selection bias, or it is involuntary, and is draconian.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The point though was that those that are drunk or stoned are very unlikely to consent. Other groups that aren't stoned or drunk will be unlikely to consent as well, but it still skews the results to the point that they are useless.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be exactly what the researches are actually looking for. It sounds crazy, but it actually makes much more sense than such a poorly constructed study.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That goes along with my theory that the TSA exists to trick people who don't like having their rights violated into limiting their travel and associations.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, there's a few bad cops out there, and a fair number of them have been caught, exposed, and turned into headlines.
The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true of individual policemen / women. Whether it applies to the political and financial designs of the 'Police Department' (and associated governmental agencies) is another thing entirely.
Two Kinds Of Cops... (Score:5, Informative)
There are only two kinds of cops: 1.) Bad cops and 2.) Accessories after the fact.
Re:Two Kinds Of Cops... (Score:4, Interesting)
In college I worked with a lot of police, I was associated with on-campus security.
I noticed there were essentially two types of cops, and they seemed to inhabit both ends of the spectrum.
The first type was the actual caring, honest, hard working, do anything to protect others type. He became a cop to actually help and serve. I saw one climb out on a ten story ledge to bring in a jumper, and that cop had a documented fear of heights.
The second type was the exact opposite: He loves the power, and got into the police so he could push people around. He's the guy who really enjoys giving jawalking tickets.
It's almost like the job description pulls the best and worst of society, with not a lot of middle ground in there.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Interesting)
When internal affairs isn't reviled by every cop is when the cops have started acting right.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops are the ones that refer to non-cops as "civilians".
Look, all cops have to do to win back support is to start arresting bad cops on the spot.
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Shit like that is why OWS happened. Yeah, there were a few well-publicized cases of someone outside LA who never lived there claiming a loss. But the cast majority of the time and effort was spent on people with actual loss. Many of whom were punished for making an honest mistake, then lying about it because they were embarrassed. That agent quit when her sentence to Katrina fraud was continually extended.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, right, you stupid motherfucker, this Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] was written just for kicks, right?
I've got multiple relatives in law enfrocement, and they are shitheads. They think tazing people is actually downright hilarious, and no, they never ever report on each other's fuckups. I just had ate Thanksgiving dinner with a couple of them, and you are beyond clueless. They range from podunk local cops to big city cops (and one county deputy thrown in; no state folks). Most of them are prior military (as am I), but the problem is they think they're still in the USMC and the US Army. Everybody else are little people.
They're all bad, and in my mind they're all potential danger to the average law abiding citizen. This is why the Five Seven [wikipedia.org] should be your best friend, along with just about any decent long gun that'll punch the ticket on a punk wearing level II or IIIA body armor.
Oh yes, and this is the norm [youtube.com]. One dog was caged (and shot in the cage) and the other was a fucking Corgi.
These are your 'good cops'.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask any cop if they've ever witnessed another cop doing something that would get a non-cop in trouble. Then ask them what they did about it.
The universal stock answer is that their jobs are hard so they much more leeway.
There's a reason why psychopaths and sociopaths are attracted to law enforcement professions.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask them if they've ever seen a fellow LEO break the law or infringe on someone's civil rights. If they say yes, ask them if they arrested them on the spot or pursued the matter.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bad compared to what? To the ideal Officer of the Law? The one that hangs out with the ideal Communist Citizen and the ideal Hereditary Autocrat?
Or bad compared to a gang member, a warlord's soldier, or even security consultant?
I have never lived in a neighborhood where law enforcement dares not thread, or a country where warlords are the only authority. They do exist on this planet, though. On the other hand, I've lived in post-Communist Bulgaria, and saw what happened when the police becomes, for one reason or another, unwilling or unable to enforce the law.
One month, you could spend the night in the park, with your girlfriend, on a blanket.
The next, thugs were dismantling public property and infrastructure (from park benches to power transformers) and crooks were running gambling operations everywhere, beating up everyone who dared explaining their tricks to their marks.
One month later, no house, store, or vehicle was safe unless you were willing to defend it yourself. A lot of people learned that being in right does not make you invulnerable.
A few months later, those who had been successful at defending theirs, started defending other people... for a price. So your property was safe, if it bore a sticker saying "This X is insured by Y until Z." Well it was safe until Y was on the top of the heap, and of course, only until Z. And Y's members were raping, beating up and extorting as much as they conscience allowed them. Some had pretty enabling consciences.
I do not know what had happened since. I left. I know that I will take the worst policeman I've ever encountered in the US, before I trust the best 'security consultant' I've heard of.
We need law enforcement. What we have is less than perfect. We should strive to make it better. It is still in a whole different category than not having law enforcement. And anyway, 'Not having law enforcement' is unsustainable. There's enough people who would pray on others that it becomes inefficient for society's member to defend themselves individually. Soon enough, someone steps up to provide the service, and chances are it's not the one you wish would.
And yeah, it is true that those some of those people end up in law enforcement. At least, many of them have incentives to at least pretend to play by the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
One month, you could spend the night in the park, with your girlfriend, on a blanket.
If cops found you spending the night in the park, you'd be arrested and probably charged with a sex crime. Your life would be over.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they want to serve the public, they can start by opposing our government. Being hired muscle for the aristocracy doesn't help anyone but the aristocracy. All the property crime in the country doesn't add up to even a percent of the fraud committed by banks. All the violent crime in the country doesn't add up to the lives that could be saved by throwing a wrench in the military industrial complex, or the agriculture industry, or the insurance industry.
No "good person" can support this government in any respect. The "actual bad guys" are the ones in Congress and corporate board rooms throughout the country. Find me a cop who is willing to arrest James Clapper, and I'll show you a good cop. The rest of them are "good Germans" at best.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.
If you really believe this you are either willfully ignorant or a child,
... or a cop.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, not necessarily; for example, I know plenty of folks who are willfully ignorant children, but not cops.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you were also only privy to what they didn't mind you seeing or knowing about. The other 90% were just more careful.
Like you said, the other 90% already displayed that they were criminals by covering up for the 10% that were brazen with their criminal activities.
"People are taught to always listen to cops." (Score:4, Interesting)
I sure don't teach Them to do that. Every defense Lawyer, Prosecutor, and police Officer I have ever spoken with has consistently told Me the same thing: if the Police say They want to talk with You, You give one answer, "Not without My Attorney's approval."
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's long past time that Americans followed in the footsteps of Russians. Everybody should have a dash cam. Everybody. Seriously folks. Put it on your Christmas lists. It's way past time.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Who'd really buy into that? "
According to the news story I read, a lot of people in Texas "bought" that, because they were under the impression they had no choice. One woman, in an interview, said she was intimidated by the police questions and thought she had to comply.
That news story (apologies, I don't have a link) also claimed that their breath was being sampled by an experimental "non contact" breathalyzer device without being notified in advance and without their consent.
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The police work around our rights using intimidation, which is a form of terrorism. It doesn't help it's legal for them to lie to us, but illegal for us to lie to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Your average person, that's who, For the safeties and For the childrens.
The best part? That was YOUR $50 they gave away. Suckit, taxpayer!
Re: (Score:3)
Most everyone:
1 - Fear of saying no to a cop that just pulled you over..
2 - Trust in the authorities to do what they say they will do. "its just for this research project"
3 - Most people are stupid sheep.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember: It's only being done in red states by state police.
Re:Remember (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: It's only being done in red states by state police.
Since when is Pennsylvania a "red state?"
Better zip up, your confirmation bias is showing.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
Since when is Pennsylvania a "red state?"
In terms of the state government? 2012.
Governor - Tom Corbett, Republican
Lieutenant Governor - Jim Cawley, Republican
Pennsylvania House of Representatives - 110 Republican, 92 Democrat, 1 Vacant
Pennsylvania State Senate - 27 Republican, 23 Democrat
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - 4 Republican, 3 Democrat
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Happens all the time.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Point is no one really questions anymore.
three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
No, I do not consent to any search.
Re:three responses (Score:5, Interesting)
"No, I do not consent to any search."
Insufficient.
According to news reports of the stops in Texas, peoples' breath was being sampled by officer-worn "non contact" breathalyzers before they were notified and without consent.
A surreptitious search is still a search. There SHOULD BE lawsuits over this.
Re:three responses (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?
Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:three responses (Score:4, Insightful)
Next you'll say that officer testimony that "I smelled alcohol on his breath" should be inadmissible in court.
I suggest you don't try to predict what I'll say, because most of the time you'll be wrong.
I do think it should be admissible in court. I do NOT, however, think it should be accepted as gospel. It's just one person's word against another, and it matters not one damned bit if that other person is a police officer. They make notoriously bad witnesses.
"Personally, I think that agreeing to this type of "surreptitious search" should be a requirement for renewing your drivers' license."
You are entitled to your opinion. I do not share it, for a number of very good reasons.
Among those reasons is that breathalyzers do not accurately reflect blood alcohol. If you just had one drink and are leaving the bar, it's going to set the thing off. There is VAST potential for abuse here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:three responses (Score:4, Insightful)
"Am I being detained?"
yes...we are conducting an investigation.
"Am I free to go?"
no...not until the investigation is complete
"No, I do not consent to any search."
Fine...the dogs will be showing up momentarily.
Re:three responses (Score:4, Interesting)
Let the dogs come. Search without probable cause is illegal, and simply denying consent does not constitute probable cause.
ACLU is likely warming up the cannons over this one already. Still, it comes back to knowing your rights and standing up for them. Cops will intimidate, that's what they do. They are held to standards of legality, not decency. Just because they're scary doesn't mean you have to consent to shit, but once you do they can legally do many things they'd otherwise be prevented from.
Know. Your. Rights.
Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
[IANAL:] Unfortunately you're wrong about this. In Caballes v. Illinois the Supreme Court found that a dog can be run around any vehicle during a traffic stop. If the dog signals, the officer then has probably cause to search a vehicle. The only limitation on this is that if the dog is not on the scene at the time of the stop, that the stop cannot be prolonged to wait for the dog to arrive. They can only hold you for as long as it would reasonably take to conduct the business of a traffic stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Queue the "stop resisting" while they beat you to a pulp.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to know what the hell pretext the people were pulled over for in the first place.
If you're talking about the Texas incident, they simply pulled a couple of squad cars across the street to block it, and then officers directed victims...err, suspects...err, perps...err, citizens who happened to be driving down that street into an unused parking lot where they were detained and interrogated.
Maybe if it began costing a couple of LEO lives whenever they did this kind of totally un-Constitutional crap it would tend to reduce such violations. I say this having cops in the family.
Strat
Re:three responses (Score:4, Interesting)
I was in a Comcast office trying to trade in a set-top box for a CableCard (which is a whole separate pile of bullshit by itself). As you might expect, this inevitably resulted in the rent-a-deputy (not just a security guard, but a damn officer of the state!) that Comcast had hired to deal with irate customers (i.e. all of them) taking notice of the situation. First he told me to leave for "disturbing the peace." Then, he followed me out the door and stopped me, which is when I asked "am I being detained?" After waffling on the question, he told me to go back in the store and deal with the customer service rep because otherwise they wouldn't count the set-top-box I'd put on the counter as "returned" and keep charging me for it (as if Comcast's incompetence is his problem).
I almost should have suggested that if Comcast did fail to log the return then I could just cite him as a witness to prove it and then left anyway, but -- like I said -- I genuinely wasn't sure if he would have arrested me if I tried.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
About as much as Freedom & Peace had to do with the Iraq War.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Twenty or thirty years ago there used to be people called "journalists" whose job it was to (a) collect enough data so you could figure out what happened, and (b) write it up in an intelligible story.
Look at the linked story *critically*. How does the "reporter" know DNA was being taken? What is his source for this, or is he just guessing?
This story is basically rumor -- passing along what's on the grapevine. There's no actual reporting here. If there were, that would answer the questions a reasonable person might have. For example: are the researchers collecting DNA or not? And who *are* these researchers? Can we get a name please? Or an institution?
Back in the day a reporter would have identified the researchers and called them up for an interview, or at least a statement from the research institution's public affairs office. He'd look up the grant in the federal records and find out whether or not the researchers had been granted money to collect DNA and what they are being paid to do with it (yes, you can do that!). He'd may even have interviewed people on the institutional review board (required by US law) that approved the project.
But the "reporter" in this case did none of this. She appears not to have done *any* verification or independent research. A story like this would take a real reporter two or three days to nail down, not two or three phone calls.
I'm not saying some horrendous violation of civil liberties could not have taken place, I'm saying the writer of the article didn't do enough work for anyone to decide what did or did not happen. This is not reporting, it's *blogging* under a byline.
Re:WTF indeed (Score:4, Informative)
I don't disagree on the quality of reporting. But this NHSTA funded study is real and has been covered several times in the national press. The author of the article assumes the reader is already aware of said study. It's basically a redo of this 2007 study.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811175.pdf [nhtsa.gov]
It's covered on Ron Paul's website. I wouldn't call this a "rumor". It's a reality and a poorly written article that makes assumptions about it's readership knowledge about current events. Just because you don't know about these research projects doesn't mean it's rumor. It's good research and helps policy makers understand the real danger of impaired driving. I don't like how it's being done or that cops are used but it's still valid research that's needed in the continuous drive to make our roadways safer.
This really has to stop (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think pulling people over for research is a reasonable use of police power. Actual enforcement, maybe, but not for research.
Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?
Re:This really has to stop (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?
They do. It's this funnel-shaped thing that idiots throw coins into for some reason.
Who wouldn't trust the National Science Academy? (Score:5, Funny)
This is just a benign, voluntary research campaign. So please, listen to the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge and just hand over your DNA. We would also appreciate a few ovums from a selection of healthy, attractive ladies aged 18-25. For research purposes of course!
Not taking DNA, allegedly (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63 [pire.org]
They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.
More information and links to past examples of these "studies":
http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/ [politechbot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs.
Sounds like the claims of another government agency whose acronym also contains an N, S, and A.
Of course, those guys are liars, but surely we can trust these guys. Right?
Re:Not taking DNA, allegedly (Score:5, Insightful)
We only need to know one thing:
They abused their power and position in the community to forcibly detain motorists under false pretenses .
There is only ONE instance in which an officer can use a marked vehicle (never stop for unmarked ones) with their lights and/or sirens to pull a citizen over. The officer either witnessed a crime or has reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed.
Yes, using the lights and/or sirens is forcible detainment. It's not like you have a choice do you?
It falls under the same bullshit of a fishing expedition. The cop pulls you over just to look inside the windows and fuck with you. Asks a bunch of questions trying to trip you up, to obtain a legal reason for detaining you in the first place when all they had was a hunch .
We don't need any further accuracy into their actions. Absolutely nothing justifies that initial act of forcible detainment.
The state should lose a couple million dollars in nice fat settlements to everyone pulled over. It's the only way they ever learn.
that is why the cops are there ... (Score:4, Insightful)
to make sure everyone understands that it is voluntary.
Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (Score:5, Interesting)
If uniformed police officers are pulling you off the road in marked cars with flashing lights, your participation is hardly voluntary.
What happens if you decline to answer the questions of the men in white coats a little too firmly? Well, an officer with badge and gun is right there to show you the error of your ways!
I'm amazed the local chapter of the ACLU is merely "watching the operation closely" (per the article).
Re:Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd really like to hear from someone who was pulled over and refused to participate. If that was they end of it and they were allowed to drive away, it's still an abuse of power to have police stopping people to ask them to participate in a research study, but it's less bad than coercing people into participating.
Re:Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just having an officer present is coercion enough. Perhaps they think they have plausible deniability since they are calling it "optional".
Who the fuck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much all studies involving human subjects in the U.S. have to be approved by a review board for compliance with ethical and safety standards. This study is an obvious fail in multiple respects, and I can't imagine a reputable review board approving such a thing. And if it wasn't reviewed, the study participants^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H victims of the study probably have standing to sue.
Re: (Score:3)
US Government has a history of simply ignoring the rules it enforces for everyone else. I mean in the last century the have infected people with diseases, exposed them to radiation, dosed them with illegal drugs and exposed them to chemical weapons. Very frequently without the participants knowledge or consent. Sad truth is no matter what they say you really have no idea what is being tested. The scary thing about their past tests is that in more than one case they have actually caused people serious illnes
It was not completely voluntary according to some (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/20/texas-cops-force-drivers-off-the-road-to-give-dna-to-federal-contractors/ [rawstory.com]
This is one of those things where LE thinks how easy their job would be and how much more effective they could be if they had everyone's DNA on file and people of course worry about anyone having that kind of power.
We're not Norway (unfortunately by my lights) people. If we dont' trust each other with this level of information,maybe that's because we know each other and we therefore ought to listen to ourselves.
Sure all knowledge and power and everything could *could* be used just totally for good and never for evil. And? And? And your argument is?
Pretending that a corrosive kind of corruption isn't being enabled with these kinds of god-level knowledge of what everyone does, is, thinks, where they go and who they talk to- pretending that this doesn't enable evil (as well as good) or that the evil is just SO unlikely, is just stupid and quite frankly anyone trying to pass themselves off as incensed that I should worry about this , or to paint me as WAAAAY out there, is not even naive in my view, but most likely a manipulative liar.
We know ourselves. We grew up here , went to elementary school here, got our first jobs here and we've seen what we've seen and know what we know about ourselves. Thus the popular resistance to such measures. .
I'm mad (Score:5, Funny)
They offered $50 for my DNA and arrested me when I whipped it out and started masturbating. I want my $50, dammit.
heh (Score:3)
Seriously though, what we need to know is: Who started this idea/concept, and how do we get them out of their position of authority? Hell India is all up in arms over the recent treatment of an Indian woman by US authorities. [thehindu.com] Why can't we do something similar here?
$50 (Score:5, Insightful)
Perspective is important.
Definition of voluntary (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheeple testing (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about DNA or road safety it is a test to see how much shit people will take from their government and what additional compliance can be purchased with money.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called a Milgram Experiment
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org]
Also in St. Charles, MO (Score:3)
In all of these cases, there is no mention of how much money the jurisdictions involved received from the feds for allowing these actions to occur.
Original study site/proposal? (Score:3)
Errrm... (Score:3)
The appropriate response (Score:4, Insightful)
"You can have my DNA when you suck it out of my dick."
spidey sense is tingling... (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice how they're only doing this in a few states? I have a feeling this sample collection has nothing to do with DUI or any research..... I have a feeling they're looking for someone specific via DNA from already-collected evidence in some ongoing case.
Re:And this (Score:5, Interesting)
You want some depressing shit?
Read this for a while:
http://fear.org/ [fear.org]
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?
Re: (Score:3)
"if they'd like to provide DNA samples"
You can't detect drugs in DNA, but you can detect drugs and DNA from blood and cheek swabs. Misworded. Now people are all neurotic about their DNA being obtained when it's the content of alchohol and drugs in their system they're checking.
Yea, sure, because as we all know, the federal government has never, ever, lied, misrepresented, changed tack post facto, etc. Nope. Never.
Just ask a Native American [nrcprograms.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)