Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Aidan how about making all adult men move on airliners away from children under the theory if seated next to a child they are likely to abused that child on an airliner of all things?

This show massive distrust of all men beyond any sane reason.

Brimming with the genetic patterns of more than 3 million Americans, the nation's databank of DNA "fingerprints" is growing by more than 80,000 people every month, giving police an unprecedented crime-fighting tool but prompting warnings that the expansion threatens constitutional privacy protections.

With little public debate, state and federal rules for cataloging DNA have broadened in recent years to include not only violent felons, as was originally the case, but also perpetrators of minor crimes and even people who have been arrested but not convicted.

Now some in law enforcement are calling for a national registry of every American's DNA profile, against which police could instantly compare crime-scene specimens. Advocates say the system would dissuade many would-be criminals and help capture the rest.

"This is the single best way to catch bad guys and keep them off the street," said Chris Asplen, a lawyer with the Washington firm Smith Alling Lane and former executive director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. "When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on."

But opponents say that the growing use of DNA scans is making suspects out of many law-abiding Americans and turning the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim on its head.

"These databases are starting to look more like a surveillance tool than a tool for criminal investigation," said Tania Simoncelli of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York

The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 9,110,007 offender profiles and 346,613 forensic profiles as of November 2010.

Hawkeye you can multiply the numbers of citizens in the data bank by a factor of ten or more as it is now possible to check if someone not in the bank happen to be in a close family relationship with someone who is.

Second, how long do you think that it will be before the military DNA bank is merge into the law enforcement one

Third, this information can or will be able in the future to be used for many other purposes then just IDing someone such as predicting your likely future health and likely lifespan

our government is not in the habit of letting available info slip by, the state is very good at data mining in part because they have had so much practice.

What is that kind of information is likely to be worth on the open market therefore how likely is it that some lowly federal employee will sooner or later sell the database to others outside of the government?

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html#ixzz1AAdDDwVW

This show massive distrust of all men beyond any sane reason.

So, why does it even bother you when others do exactly the same sort of thing you do?

our current policy is everyone who is arrested must be DNA banked.

Right now we grab dna from all those arrested,

our current policy is everyone who is arrested must be DNA banked

Come on, Hawkeye. Prove this statement this isn't another one of your paranoid delusions or flat out lies.

Quote:

Monday, November 01, 2010
By Shannon P. Duffy, The Legal Intelligencer
When a federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled that prosecutors cannot, without a warrant, routinely collect DNA samples from arrestees for inclusion in a national database, he sparked an appeal now set to be argued before all 14 judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

At issue in United States v. Mitchell is one of the most important privacy rights issues facing the courts: whether routine DNA sampling should be considered no different from fingerprinting or photographing, or whether the government ought to be required to get a warrant, or wait for a conviction, before taking a genetic sample.

The Justice Department's appeal in Mitchell was initially argued before a three-judge panel in April. But the court has taken the rare step of slating the case for en banc re-argument without releasing a decision from the three judges.

In November 2009, U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone of the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled against the government, and held that DNA sampling of arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment.

Defendant Ruben Mitchell, indicted in March 2009, had been charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Mr. Mitchell, of California, lost track of more than 41 pounds of cocaine, which was stored in his luggage but lost on a Southwest Airlines flight to Pittsburgh. At his first court appearance, Mr. Mitchell objected to the collection of his DNA pre-conviction, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan issued an order blocking the collection until a decision by the district court.

In the federal case, prosecutors argued that Congress authorized such DNA sampling of arrestees, and that it serves the compelling government interest of identifying a suspect more accurately than fingerprints or photographs can.

But Judge Cercone reasoned that DNA testing goes too far because a genetic sample can reveal much more than a suspect's identity. Although arrestees have a "diminished expectation of privacy," Judge Cercone concluded that the practice of routinely obtaining genetic samples from all arrestees must be struck down as unconstitutional.

Courts, including the 3rd Circuit, have already held that those convicted of certain crimes may be subjected to DNA sampling, but Judge Cercone said that he found "no compelling reason to unduly burden a legitimate expectation of privacy and extend these warrantless, suspicionless searches to those members of society who have not been convicted, are presumed innocent, but have been arrested and are awaiting proper trial." Instead, he concluded that Mr. Mitchell had "the highest expectation of privacy" in his genetic code, and that this was not outweighed by any governmental interest in collecting the information.

On appeal, Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Schleich Irwin argued that Judge Cercone's ruling should be reversed because his analysis "relied largely on the notion that the presumption of innocence alters the Fourth Amendment calculus and gives arrestees and pretrial detainees greater privacy rights in their identifying information than those convicted of a crime."

That logic, Ms. Irwin argued, "is flatly inconsistent with decisions holding that the presumption is a trial right and has no bearing on an assessment of privacy interests for Fourth Amendment purposes." She also argued that the judge's concerns about DNA's broader privacy issues were a "red herring" because Congress included safeguards in the law to prevent any use beyond identification.

But Assistant Federal Public Defender Elisa A. Long urged the appellate court to uphold the ruling, arguing in her brief that the government cannot "forcibly extract" a DNA sample from her client based solely on his status as an arrestee and pretrial detainee, without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion to believe that it will produce evidence of a crime.

In April, Ms. Irwin and Ms. Long argued the appeal before 3rd Circuit Judges Marjorie O. Rendell and Julio M. Fuentes and U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler of the District of New Jersey, sitting on the 3rd Circuit by invitation.

Ms. Irwin faced a barrage of questions from Judges Rendell and Fuentes on the issue of whether DNA testing is more intrusive than fingerprinting



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10305/1099036-499.stm#ixzz1AArmMEVX

So, you believe all Muslims who attend mosques in the United States, and particularly in NYC, might be planning terrorist attacks? And, you feel, that justifies your view that no new mosques should be built in NYC.

Sort of the way you distrust all women, and even children, who report they have been raped, "beyond any sane reason".

There are a lot of things that I don't agree with her on but that does not mean that she is wrong about everything.

What exactly do you agree with Schlafly about?

I am not in the habbit of proving my statements unless challanged with documentation

Opposing the unjustified assault on civil liberties driven by the feminists.