SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DNA Databases in the U.S. and China Are Tools of Racial Oppression
Two major world powers, the United States and China, have both collected an enormous number of DNA samples from their citizens, the premise being that these samples will help solve crimes that might have otherwise gone unsolved. While DNA evidence can often be crucial when it comes to determining who committed a crime, researchers argue these DNA databases also pose a major threat to human rights.
In the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a DNA database called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) that currently contains over 14 million DNA profiles. This database has a disproportionately high number of profiles of black men, because black Americans are arrested five times as much as white Americans. You don't even have to be convicted of a crime for law enforcement to take and store your DNA; you simply have to have been arrested as a suspect.
[...] As for China, a report that was published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in mid-June claims that China is operating the "world's largest police-run DNA database" as part of its powerful surveillance state. Chinese authorities have collected DNA samples from possibly as many as 70 million men since 2017, and the total database is believed to contain as many as 140 million profiles. The country hopes to collect DNA from all of its male citizens, as it argues men are most likely to commit crimes.
DNA is reportedly often collected during what are represented as free physicals, and it's also being collected from children at schools. There are reports of Chinese citizens being threatened with punishment by government officials if they refuse to give a DNA sample. Much of the DNA that's been collected has been from Uighur Muslims that have been oppressed by the Chinese government and infamously forced into concentration camps in the Xinjiang province.
Related:
EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
EFF Sues Justice Dept. Over FBI's Rapid DNA Plans
Kuwait Creating Mandatory DNA Database of All Citizens, Residents--and Visitors
San Diego Police Department Accused of Unlawful DNA Collection From Minors
Massive DNA Collection Campaign in Xinjiang, China
Study Predicts Appearance From Genome Sequence Data
GEDmatch: "What If It Was Called Police Genealogy?"
Bavarian Law Broadens Police Surveillance and DNA Profiling Powers
DNA Collected from Golden State Killer Suspect's Car, Leading to Arrest
Another Alleged Murderer Shaken Out of the Family Tree
Indiana Murder Suspect Found by Using Genealogical Website
Public Ancestry Data Can be Used to Narrow Down the Identity Behind an Anonymous DNA Sample
Rapid DNA Analysis Machines Coming to Police Departments
FamilyTreeDNA Deputizes Itself, Starts Pitching DNA Matching Services To Law Enforcement
Genealogy Sites Have Helped Identify Suspects. Now They've Helped Convict One
U.S. to Collect DNA of All Undocumented Migrants
US Court Let Police Search GEDmatch's Entire DNA Database Despite Protections
China Uses DNA to Map Faces, With Help From the West
Cousin Took a DNA Test? Courts Could Use it to Argue You are More Likely to Commit Crimes
Ancestry Says Police Requested Access To Its DNA Database
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Tuesday July 07 2020, @03:15PM (8 children)
I sort of agree with you but then I have to question if that position is a form of neo-luddism. What is the fundamental difference between a DNA database and what Alphonse Berillon [wikipedia.org] did? I could imagine a similar argument take place in the 1840's with the police starting detailed records of physical measurements and pictures of people used to prosecute criminal investigations. It's the beginning of a surveillance police state when what came before was so limited.
Maybe it's only the national aspect of it and it is acceptable to have local police do it? Again, I feel the need to agree but then I think of Alphonse Bertillon.
B3
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 07 2020, @03:27PM (2 children)
If the national aspect of DNA collection is a problem, why move DNA databases to the local police level where they cannot be consolidated? If we moved DNA databases to the global level, then they could be consolidated across nations. For our protection! Sort of like a benevolent older male sibling. Think of the children. We could collect DNA at birth and have a global registry. I nominate Facebook to operate it to ensure privacy.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Tuesday July 07 2020, @03:49PM (1 child)
>If the national aspect of DNA collection is a problem, why move DNA databases to the local police level where they cannot be consolidated?
Local police have biometric records of suspects and criminals in their jurisdiction. There are federal crimes, investigations, suspects, and criminals that have biometric evidence that is recorded. Who should hold the biometric evidence for federal crimes?
Now let's say a suspect for serial murder is moving between states. New York has biometric evidence of crimes that look like they also took place by the same murderer in Mississippi and Texas. When does this interstate investigation fall under federal jurisdiction and can the FBI utilize the DNA databases of the 3 states to investigate? If the FBI has constant access to all State DNA databases, what is the functional difference than if there was a single database?
Like I said, I am inclined to agree with you but it's good to question your own positions and knee jerk reaction.
> We could collect DNA at birth
That's China. No thank you.
B3
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 07 2020, @05:59PM
(I didn't use any no-sarcasm tags.)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Kitsune008 on Tuesday July 07 2020, @04:31PM (4 children)
I realize sarcasm is hard to detect online, but DannyB's comment history will give you a clue.
Hint: Usually when he posts a serious comment, there will be a 'not sarcasm' label displayed. Otherwise, consider 'unlabeled' comments as humorous/sarcastic benign trolling. :-)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 07 2020, @04:37PM (3 children)
People who do this irritate me. If you're never going to take a conversation seriously, why are you acting like you're contributing to it in the first place?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Kitsune008 on Tuesday July 07 2020, @05:53PM
Why are you asking me about someone else posting a comment? You do realize I'm not DannyB, or do you not?
I was just pointing out a pattern to DannyB's comments for the benefit of the poster I was replying to, not making DannyB's comments for him.
Go bother someone else, as I could not care less about what irritates you.
BTW, not all conversations deserve to be taken seriously, like this one you are trying to start.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 07 2020, @06:02PM (1 child)
<no-sarcasm>
Sorry to irritate you.
I feel like I am actually contributing, in some part.
The phrase "benevolent older male sibling" was perhaps a clue. (big brother)
If all national DNA databases were taken to a global DNA database, imagine the level of control, globally, that could occur. People could be tracked globally. And facial recognition.
</no-sarcasm>
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:10AM
It is contributing, to point things out whether directly or indirectly. Sarcasm is a tool. If you over-wield it, at least you are not a bullshitter - you care about the truth, and you point out your subjective feelings by phrasing the opposite in ways which seem ludicrous, so, good job.