How can DNA data be misused?
A2A!Thanks Shivam Tiwari!There are many ways of misusing DNA data.Some of them are :-1.Some Prosecutors have learned how to misuse the statistical analysis of DNA test results. If they really want a particular subject whose DNA is similar, but not exactly perfectly a match, they will sometimes get the scientific examiner to offer a statistical analysis that incorrectly concludes that the man before the jury "could" be the right person who left that DNA sample behind at the scene of the crime.They do this by misrepresenting the DNA analysis and misleading the judge and jury with statistics that really don't prove what they're saying.2. If DNA can be used in cloning then surely this allows for the possibility of cloning (and planting) genetic evidence?A DNA database held by a well funded entity such as a government has the power to discover what diseases individuals may be prone to, what diseases they have contracted, their parentage, and potentially even the ability to clone them (or at the very least experiment with cloning humans). Cloning of humans is very dangerous as it can lead to many serious problems of identity!3. An insurance company purchases access to your data and discovers a hereditary predisposition to some potentially fatal illness. As a result your life insurance premiums double overnight…..4. How about the possibility the state may decide to profit by selling your personal information to private companies?5. If DNA offers a unique code to every individual, is it not possible to create toxins or diseases that only target a specific genetic structure? A poison could be fed to everyone at a banquet, but would only affect one victim with the targeted genes…..Thanks! :)Hope this helps!
Would Putin make total DNA database of all people in Russia if it was guaranteed that no punishment would follow?
First of all Mr Putin has other things to tend to.Second, having comprehensive DNA database is extremely useful for healthcare not only to security services. So it would be eventually done in every country. Having such database is not evil per se, abusing it is a bad thing to do.
3. Should the government create a law mandating a balanced federal budget? Support your position with evidence?
No. Deficit spending was an integral strategy in ending the great depression. TARP prevented a huger meltdown of the American and world economies.
To DNA or not to DNA?
Just read answers regarding everyone being DNA'd and whether it's a good idea. I think it is but of those who thought there shouldn't be a nationwide DNA date base no-one explained why they thought that way. Having everyone's DNA taken would take a long time but, eventually, crimes would be much easier to solve. Innocent people would not be accused of crimes they did not commit and in the long run criminals would realise they were going to get caught sooner rather than later. I hear people in the media saying its against human rights to do this but what about the human rights of the victims of crime. Please will someone answer this question sensibly. DNA will prove the guilty guilty and the innocent innocent so what is wrong with giving your DNA?
What exactly does "legally omitted" mean on a birth certificate?
When I got married a few years ago I got a copy of my birth certificate and I noticed that where my father's name should be it said "legally omitted." So, on my marriage certificate it is completely blank where my father's information should be (I'm from Wisconsin). My mother has the original copy of my birth certificate and all of his information is on there. I have a letter that he wrote her that says he relinquished all of his rights to me as of March 2, 1987. I would have been a little over 2 years old at the time. They ended up getting back together about a year later then split up again when I was 9 (They were never married). He ended up paying child support until I graduated high school but the paperwork I have indicates that they never did a DNA test. I've asked him about it but he says he doesn't know why his name isn't on there. My guess is when he "relinquished" his rights he had his name removed from the birth certificate. But I don't understand how he would end up paying child support if his name wasn't on my birth certificate and if they never did a DNA test. I've looked all over the internet to find out exactly what "legally omitted" means in reference to my situation and have found absolutely nothing. Also, would that mean that "legally" he isn't my father? Thanks in advance!
When amnesty passes will you apply to get another identity and all the benefits the illegals will get?
First of all don't be to sure it will pass. There are many loud voices being raised as to the real reason behind this massive "give away" of the rights and privileges that the legal citizens of this nation have fought to gain and maintain. This plan is fraught with the open opportunity for deceit,corruption and total misuse. Its just like opening the gates of a prison and giving each prisoner the keys to the city. While some released prisoners become law abiding the majority just become more greedy,more skilled at their crimes and take everything in sight without exception. Why not, there is no fail safe in this amnesty,and it is amnesty no matter what supporters try to call it. Here in Las Vegas we are not going to simply play dead and watch this great nation be looted by a group of people that are by definition law breakers. To get amnesty you have to have committed an offense of some kind, other wise its not called amnesty is it ? They will get these benefits the same way they get them now .They will lie .Don't be so naive, there is no way they can check the background of every person. The system is already over taxed by the legal applications . Add 20 million and what do you think it will become? A rubber stamp that's all.
Why isn't everyone's DNA required by law to be examined and placed in the FBI’s CODIS system to assist law enforcement and the courts in solving crimes (and in deterring crime)?
A couple reasons.From a civil rights perspective (the “left"), because we are constitutionally protected from random search and seizure, which a DNA collection is. The police/FBI cannot take everyone's DNA without a reasonable link to a crime.From a expenditure perspective (the “right"), because it is a stupidly expensive thing to spend tax dollar on. Every DNA sample costs real, actual money- money that could otherwise be spent on Kevlar for soldiers or welfare or healthcare for congressmen.And of those millions of samples that would be added, only a frasction would be of use. Every convicted felon is ALREADY in CODIS, and in several states every felony arrestee is entered as well. Some states even include those convicted of misdemeanors. So the only added benefit would be of those criminals never before caught. Yes, there would be some benefit. But the cost would be enormous.Given both the cost and the civil rights implications, it is simply not going to happen. While the money could be obtained, overriding the Constitutional guarantee of security from governmental reach in addition isn't realistic.And the implications of such a constitutional change are monumental. If the government can take and use the very DNA from your cells at will, why can't they also search your home? It is the same search and seizure law.Those of us who work or have worked in the forensic field are very aware of the power of the system, as well as the implications. We don't care about tracking most of the population. Only those that have put themselves on the radar.