Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @05:44AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @05:44AM (#1018555)

    I don't disagree. The thing I took note of was you taking an existential interpretation of one religion, and a personal one of another. Your quote above, "have you noticed that the louder a self-proclaimed Christian is the more he or she sucks pickled monkey balls at doing what Jesus said to do?" is equally accurate should one substitute in Buddhist and Buddha. Many who live in the Western world don't really realize this because they aren't generally exposed to what the mass adoption of Buddhism looks like, which is similar to the mass adoption of Christianity. People and self righteousness are a recipe for dystopia.

    However, while I do think Buddhism adopts a much more Stoic value system (which to me is more precisely of what you find so appealing in Buddhism - perhaps look into Marcus Aurelius' Meditations? [dailystoic.com]) you can find a similar worldview in Christianity in that it emphasizes the distinction between the worldly world and the one after, with the former lacking ultimate relevance. This is a recurring theme in all major religions since for a religion to achieve mass adoption it quite tautologically needed to appeal to the masses. And the masses generally lived less than pleasant lives. A way to reconcile their existence of today for something better tomorrow is where the appeal of religion came from. This is also why today as we live mostly *relatively* pleasant lives, the mass adoption of religion is dying except for in areas where life remains unpleasant.

    I suspect this is also why Stoicism never received the same adoption. The Stoics rejected any notion of a knowable afterlife. And so the virtue espoused within Stoicism is not for some greater reward or outward signaling, but simply to gain mastery of oneself. This is one of the many reasons that Aurelius' writings are so interesting. Those are the writings of the most powerful and wealthy man in the world - who could have had anything he ever wanted, not writing for an audience or some grand cause - but simply writing for himself. Clearly it's not always the case that absolutely power corrupts absolutely.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @01:21AM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:21AM (#1018921) Journal

    I know little of Stoicism but have been very impressed by what I've seen so far.

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