Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest

[The Bread Guy]

Let's also remember that rules aren't normally in place for the 99.99999% of those who wouldn't break them in the first place, but for the rest who do (or, in the case of rules that change to tighten protections up, did). 

As for info in "the system"* that's not supposed to be used for anything but authorized uses, some have doubts because other parts of "the system" that are supposed to protect info haven't always worked so well all the time - here, here and here, for example.

But then why everytime there's an incident [Boston, London, etc] when the Govt. announces "they were known to them" does the inevitable cry come "Well why didn't you do something?".....................sorry, ya' can't suck and blow at the same time folks.

I think that comes down to the classic arguement, "do we let a few scumbags free to protect everyone's rights, or do we lock up a few innocent folks and make sure we catch all the scumbags?"  Anyone want to volunteer to be the innocent locked up wrongly in the latter situation knowing every last scumbag is off the streets?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Anyone?

* - I know VAC info management systems =/= law enforcement agency info management systems, but they're both government systems holding info about us.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I didn't say "lock up innocents" but, IMO mind you, more info makes weeding out the scumbags easier......

 

[The Bread Guy]

I didn't say "lock up innocents" but, IMO mind you, more info makes weeding out the scumbags easier......

No, no - I didn't mean you said it (you never did, and I'd bet you likely would never support the idea - methinks you're busy enough as is ).  When it comes to taking away people's rights, that's one of the arguements considered to calculate the costs & benefits of different approaches.  I'm using the "does anyone want to step forward?" example to highlight potential outcome of going toooooooo far one way.

 

[Nemo888]

But then why everytime there's an incident [Boston, London, etc] when the Govt. announces "they were known to them" does the inevitable cry come "Well why didn't you do something?".....................sorry, ya' can't suck and blow at the same time folks.

If you look at the number of lives lost versus the endless billions of dollars spent it is a ridiculous waste of public funds from an actuarial standpoint. Investing in infrastructure and medicine, even basic medical research would literally save more lives. As a product of the Cold War I think giving up our freedoms is ignorant and to do so in such and expensive and irrational way doubly so.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

- methinks you're busy enough as is ).

Nope,... London is busy because the Deputy Minister is a stooge,..............no wait, that would be an insult to Curly, Larry and Moe.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If you look at the number of lives lost versus the endless billions of dollars spent it is a ridiculous waste of public funds from an actuarial standpoint. Investing in infrastructure and medicine, even basic medical research would literally save more lives. As a product of the Cold War I think giving up our freedoms is ignorant and to do so in such and expensive and irrational way doubly so.

Somehow when those are your legs being held together by the kindness of strangers I'll bet you wish more money was spent,...just sayin'.......

 

[Nemo888]

Somehow when those are your legs being held together by the kindness of strangers I'll bet you wish more money was spent,...just sayin'.......

Probably not. I don't expect democracy to be free or safe. I choose to pay the cost of liberty knowing the risks. If the same money can save 12 lives somewhere else and you need to destroy your personal liberty to get that tiny additional largely psychological feeling of safety I am not interested. There are much cheaper ways to provide that safety as well. Stopping immigration from countries full of crazies and throwing out the ones we already have could solve the problem in two weeks and cost almost nothing.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I have no words..................

 

[GAP]

Probably not. I don't expect democracy to be free or safe. I choose to pay the cost of liberty knowing the risks. If the same money can save 12 lives somewhere else and you need to destroy your personal liberty to get that tiny additional largely psychological feeling of safety I am not interested. There are much cheaper ways to provide that safety as well. Stopping immigration from countries full of crazies and throwing out the ones we already have could solve the problem in two weeks and cost almost nothing.

Hmmm....like not letting a ship full of German Jewish refugees land (ah la early 1940's) because they were not the flavour of the day?

 

[Nemo888]

The remark is inflammatory. But historically when Canada was faced with similar circumstances they did not choose to spend billions taking away everyone's liberty while bankrupting the nation. They locked up all the possible terrorists and then sold their belongings at auction actually helping the economy. There were no terrorist attacks during internment. So moral outrage aside it was cheap and effective.

Could there not be solutions to the security problems we face that are cheaper, more targeted and less morally offensive? George Orwell's 1984 is supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a recipe book.

 

[ArmyRick]

Fellas,

We can implement all these measures to "prevent" and/or "help catch" these street thugs.

Guess what? There will still be murders, rapes, kidnappings, robbery, assault. There will still be victims and there will still be some criminals that getaway.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>nothing to hide= nothing to fear

No-one has the power to guarantee that will always be true.  People can misuse information; people have misused information; on balance of probability, people will continue to misuse information.

However much information I have already consented to provide to various concerns and agencies weighs exactly zero as evidence that I should have to provide more.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

However much information I have already consented to provide to various concerns and agencies weighs exactly zero as evidence that I should have to provide more.

Just don't get arrested for any serious crime and this won't apply to you......next......

 

[ArmyRick]

Don't get arrested for any serious crime? Thats not always up to the individual, be at the wrong place and wrong time, you could get the 'cuffs.

Whoa! Lets back that up. Police will arrest suspects for various reasons. Sometimes the people arrested and originally suspected at a crime are not always the guilty ones who committed the crime. There have been cases where police have made mistakes. Its not always the case that a person not convicted at a trial walks on legal technicality.

I happen to know (no names will be mentioned) a CF member accused of rape (only on a complaint from an alleged victim). I was the attending officer for this soldier and has the investigation went along, the charges were dropped because the police found plenty of evidence that showed this guy was not guilty or even in the province at the time of the alleged offence. I do believe it was the crown that dropped or withdrew charges.

So do not get arrested for any serious crime. huh? Yeah, its SO SIMPLE!  :

 

[Jacky Tar]

"Nothing to fear = nothing to hide" and now "Just don't get arrested for any serious crime."

Frankly, Mr. Monkhouse, I could give a damn about making life easier for LEOs. By virtue of their duties they already enjoy powers, both de facto and de jure, that exceed those of regular citizens, and this is as it should be for them to be LEOs. However, by the same token, they should be (a) held to a much, much higher standard and (b) the conditions under which they exercise their powers need to be hedged about with safeguards. Plus, as I previously noted, I am NOT convinced such data is sufficiently securely held.

 

[FJAG]

I still don't agree with you Bruce but your argument just got stronger today.

The US Supreme Court (a right wing leaning organization at the moment) has just released a decision (5-4 so hardly unanimous) that supports a Maryland law that permits DNA swabbing on arrest.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(The full decision is available at that link)

The case was a clear example that there was no real need for DNA for identification in the matter for which the accused was arrested. Instead the DNA sample led to a hit to a completely unrelated rape case.

The minority wrote a strongly worded dissent based on the 4th Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search grounds).

Interesting to note that only half the states have this kind of law but 49 states filed intervenor applications in support of Maryland's defence of the law and that even the Obama government has signalled approval of it.

:cold: chilling.

 

[OldSolduer]

Having looked at the gun registry and its issues, I'd say the DNA bank would have similar issues.

Just an opinion.

 

[Jacky Tar]

Having looked at the gun registry and its issues, I'd say the DNA bank would have similar issues.

Just an opinion.

:goodpost:

 

[Jarnhamar]

The case was a clear example that there was no real need for DNA for identification in the matter for which the accused was arrested. Instead the DNA sample led to a hit to a completely unrelated rape case.

Great news.

 

[dapaterson]

:cold: chilling.

I think that's hell freezing over - since Scalia and Sotomayer were on the same side...