Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics

DNA Databases in the U.S. and China are Tools of Racial Oppression

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 07 2020, @12:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the could-just-ask-23-and-me dept.

takyon writes:

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

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
DNA Databases in the U.S. and China are Tools of Racial Oppression | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 166 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday July 07 2020, @02:59PM (5 children)

    by choose another one (515) on Tuesday July 07 2020, @02:59PM (#1017678)

    > Note that this has all happened before (60s - 70s especially, and also 80s - early 90s).

    Most things, in terms of government and the mob, have in fact happened before. Those who want to cancel history and tear down the reminders of it are in fact doomed to repeat it, they know that, that is why they want to remove knowledge of history so that everyone else cannot know it in future.

    Seattle CHOP / CHAZ apparently had racially segregated zones, presumably they think that if they topple enough statues people will not know about Jim Crow Laws or Apartheid and will believe this is a good thing.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2020, @04:08PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2020, @04:08PM (#1017730)

    It is so weird that democratic ideology does seem to be gradually headed towards 'separate but equal' all over again. I mean do people not understand that this is exactly what something like a 'racially segregated safe space' is? Does really feel like the politically correct nonsense is just an effort to do the same dumb ideas as we tried in the past and pretend it might yield a different result.

    I kind of feel like we're gradually seeing another role reversal. The republican party of Lincoln was obviously a far cry from the republican party of the early to mid/late 20th century. Yet today the democratic party aiming for racial categorization if not segregation, muzzling of free speech, equality of result, and actively working to inflame racial and social tensions at any opportunity is obviously already a far cry from the democratic party of the sixties which aimed for free speech and equality of opportunity. Democrats in California are currently trying to get rid of proposition 209. [wikipedia.org] Proposition 209 is the "Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential. Treatment by State and Other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." Here is its ballot summary:

    - Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
      - Does not prohibit reasonably necessary, bona fide qualifications based on sex and actions necessary for receipt of federal funds.
      - Mandates enforcement to extent permitted by federal law.
      - Requires uniform remedies for violations. Provides for severability of provisions if invalid.

    They are literally trying to roll back discrimination protections. The democratic party is becoming such a messed up institution.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:52AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:52AM (#1018022)

      democratic ideology

      You should actually look at what that ideology is. It's not what you think.
      https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ [democrats.org]

      DNC Platform [wikipedia.org]:

      Economic positions

      Equal economic opportunity and a base social safety net provided by the welfare state and strong labor unions have historically been at the heart of Democratic economic policy.[8] The party pursues a mixed economy, albeit with more government intervention and regulation in the economy.[13] Democrats generally support a progressive tax system, higher minimum wages, social security, universal health care, public education, and public housing.[8] They also support infrastructure development and government-sponsored employment programs in an effort to achieve economic development and job creation, while stimulating private sector job creation.[14] Also, however, since the 1990s, the party has occasionally supported centrist economic reforms, which cut the size of government and reduced market regulations.[15] The party has continuously rejected laissez-faire economics instead favoring a Social Market Economy to ensure a true Free Market and equality of opportunity

      Minimum wage
      See also: United States minimum wage

      Democrats favor raising the minimum wage and believe that all Americans have the right to a fair wage. They call for a $15.00/hour national minimum wage and believe that the minimum wage should be adjusted regularly.[21] The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 was an early component of the party's agenda during the 110th Congress. In 2006, Democrats supported six state ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage; all six initiatives passed.[22]

      Health care

      Democrats call for "affordable and quality health care," and many advocate on expanding government intervention in this area. They favor a movement toward universal health care in a variety of forms to address the rising costs of modern health insurance. Democratic politicians like Representatives John Conyers and John Dingell have called for a single-payer program or Medicare for All. The Progressive Democrats of America, a group operating inside the Democratic Party, has made single-payer universal health care one of their primary policy goals.[23] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, has been one of the most significant pushes for universal health care to become a reality. As of April 2014, more than 10 million Americans have enrolled in healthcare coverage since the Affordable Care Act was launched.[24]

      Education

      Democrats favor improving public education by raising school standards and reforming the head start program. They also support universal preschool and expanding access to primary education (some Democrats who support this through charter schools). They call for slashes in student loan debt and support reforms to force down tuition fees.[25] Other proposed reforms have included nationwide universal preschool education, tuition-free or reduced-tuition college, and reforms of standardized testing. Democrats have the long-term aim of having low-cost, publicly funded college education with low tuition fees (like in much of Europe and Canada), which should be available to every eligible American student. Alternatively, they encourage expanding access to post-secondary education by increasing state funding for student financial aid such as Pell Grants and college tuition tax deductions.[26]

      Democrats tend to support the Common Core State Standards and oppose school choice.

      Environment
      Main article: Environmental policy of the United States

      Democrats believe that the government should protect the environment and have a history of environmentalism. In more recent years, this stance has had as its emphasis alternative energy generation as the basis for an improved economy, greater national security, and general environmental benefits.[27]

      The Democratic Party also favors expanding conservation lands, and it encourages open space and rail travel to relieve highway and airport congestion and improve air quality and economy; it "believe[s] that communities, environmental interests, and government should work together to protect resources while ensuring the vitality of local economies. Once Americans were led to believe they had to make a choice between the economy and the environment. They now know this is a false choice."[28]

      The Democratic Party's most important environmental concern is climate change. Democrats, most notably former Vice President Al Gore, have pressed for stern regulation of greenhouse gases. On October 15, 2007, Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to build greater knowledge about man-made climate change and laying the foundations for the measures needed to counteract these changes asserting that "the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."[29] A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the U.S. Congress found that 180 members deny the science behind climate change, all Republicans, and that no Democratic members of Congress publicly denied climate change.[30][31]

      Renewable energy and fossil fuels

      Democrats support increased domestic renewable energy development, including wind and solar power farms, in an effort to reduce carbon pollution. The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas, and domestic oil, while wanting to become energy independent.[22] The party has supported higher taxes on oil companies and increased regulations on coal power plants, favoring a policy of reducing long-term reliance on fossil fuels.[32][33] Additionally, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution.

      Trade agreements

      The 2012 Democratic Party platform endorses fair and free trade, the KORUS FTA, the TPP, the Panama–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, the CTPA, and the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center.[34]

      Social issues

      The modern Democratic party emphasizes egalitarianism, social equality, protecting the environment, and strengthening the social safety net through liberalism. They support voting rights and minority rights, including LGBT rights, multiculturalism, and religious secularism. A longstanding social policy is upholding civil rights, which affect ethnic and racial minorities and includes voting rights, equal opportunity, and racial equality. The party championed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which for the first time outlawed segregation. Democrats made civil rights and anti-racism a core party philosophy. Carmines and Stimson say, "the Democratic Party appropriated racial liberalism and assumed federal responsibility for ending racial discrimination."[35][36][37]

      Ideological social elements in the party include cultural liberalism, civil libertarianism, and feminism. Other Democratic social policies are internationalism, open immigration, electoral reform, and women's reproductive rights.

      There's more. But I know you won't try to educate yourself. Do you get decent wifi under your bridge?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:39PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:39PM (#1018226)

        Here [wikipedia.org] is the 'Fascist Manifesto'. It was the stated principles upon which Mussolini's fascist party claimed to stand for.

        You might find something interesting. You probably agree with just about everything in it. And that's okay. They're generally good ideals. The point is that what a party claims to stand for and how that party acts are two very different things. I couldn't care less what a politician says, let alone a political group - I care how they act. And in modern times the DNC is becoming one hell of a scary organization. I tend to agree with their ideals on paper, but in practice I absolutely abhor what the DNC has turned into.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:06AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:06AM (#1018452) Journal

          > but in practice I absolutely abhor what the DNC has turned into.

          Reagan Republicans, yeah. I'm with you on that.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @05:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @05:21AM (#1018969)

    This is nuanced, more so than either side acknowledges. The Confederacy existed for the purpose of supporting and perpetuating slavery, the right of a white person to own black people as property. This is not defensible.

    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Jefferson publicly criticized slavery as being terribly wrong, yet he lacked the conviction to even refuse to personally partake in the evil. This is also not defensible.

    For a particular monument, we need to consider its purpose. This is where it gets complicated. We don't memorialize Washington or Jefferson because of their support for slavery. We memorialize them in spite of their support for slavery. Jefferson's ownership of slaves is a "hideous blot" on his character. The same can be said of Washington. We should acknowledge that Washington and Jefferson willingly participated in morally evil acts, that they are deeply flawed. But we should recognize their contributions, too, in rebelling against British rule and establishing the governing framework of the United States.

    Many monuments of people like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis do not exist to acknowledge positive contributions from these people in spite of their role in the Confederacy. Neither do they stand to be grim reminders of a past we should never repeat, which is why some concentration camps like Dachau are preserved in Germany. Instead, many of these monuments were erected to portray the Confederacy positively, to encourage people to sympathize their their cause, which was the enslavement of black people by white people. Monuments supporting the Confederacy do not belong on public property. This is wrong.

    Nancy Pelosi ordered the removal of four portraits of former Speakers of the House from the Capital because they served in the Confederacy. This is also wrong. Those portraits are not displayed to support the Confederacy. Removing those portraits really is whitewashing history. We should conspicuously acknowledge that these four men served in the Confederacy, which was wrong. But we should not remove their portraits from being displayed along with those of all the Speakers of the House. Doing so is to deny history, which is a mistake.

    History is messy. People are messy. We need to be thoughtful in our decisions to remove or not remove monuments.