My thoughts exactly. Should be upon a felony conviction even if its reduced.Bunch of crap! So much for innocent until proven guilty.
My thoughts exactly. Should be upon a felony conviction even if its reduced.
Hopeful? Yes. Optimistic? Nope.Wait a second, guys. DNA swab on felony conviction *even if reduced*? Maybe for a violent felony, but do we really need a DNA sample from the Martha Stewart types? This slope is not just slippery, it is the North Face of Everest, ice and all. The bar should be very high, if indeed this act is even being contemplated. And just because the tech isn't there now to use a swab as a profile for other purposes does not mean it won't be in 5 or 10 years.
Caution should be the word of the day. I am hopeful the Senate shoots this one down.
Blessings,
Bill
Funny. That was my first thought, then I realized I hated the idea of yet more data collection. Let them get a warrant to collect it.Viscerally, I don't like this...but intellectually, I'm trying to figure out how this is substantially different from fingerprinting and mug shots.
Do we still have any?If this is OK'd to "fight crime", the logical conclusion will eventually be that EVERYBODY will be required to submit DNA for a government database to "fight crime" even "better".
This will be a part of an ever expanding surveillance state that will eventually rob us of ALL privacy.
Yes of course we still have privacy left.Do we still have any?
Excellent question.Yes of course we still have privacy left.
Or else why would they need this latest Bill?
Viscerally, I don't like this...but intellectually, I'm trying to figure out how this is substantially different from fingerprinting and mug shots.
It's physically invasive and actually removes a small physical portion of your body. The other 2 don't. I don't know if that meets the substantially part, but that is a clear distinction.
And I'm not sure that yo can use fingerprints to plant fingerprints......