Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest

[Fishbone Jones]

So you're assumpting that they do that now just for the fingerprint data base?

See. I knew it was a mistake to even try offer an opinion.

And we know already where I stand on LE, don't we Bruce.

I'm out.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Pout if you wish, but you threw the fastball...............since LE already identify, and keep records, of those arrested your statement makes little sense in the context.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pout if you wish, but you threw the fastball...............since LE already identify, and keep records, of those arrested your statement makes little sense in the context.

Just because you shout everyone down doesn't mean you win the arguement.

Later.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I'm nowhere near passing the bar, but I would like to know if Sections 8, 11 ,and 13 would have to be applied to this new procedure for it to be credible.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just because you shout everyone down doesn't mean you win the arguement.

Later.

I don't believe I'm shouting anyone down,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I've been waiting for someone to explain to me, without the 'sky is falling' hyperbole, to explain how this changes ANYTHING from what the country has been doing for over 100 years in reference to verifying identity.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't believe I'm shouting anyone down,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I've been waiting for someone to explain to me, without the 'sky is falling' hyperbole, to explain how this changes ANYTHING from what the country has been doing for over 100 years in reference to verifying identity.

You're right, Bruce, it's been about 100 years since the state began to intrude deeper and deeper into our lives ... none of the measures is, by itself, disastrous or even very dangerous, but there are so many of them and in their aggregation they represent a quite fundamental change in the nature of the state vs. the citizen. Of course we're still "free," and, of course, people like you are protecting us from harm, but there are costs: we pay for our "protection." In 1775 Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It was true then and it still is.

I know I'm being dogmatic but I think the issue of fundamental rights, including privacy, does trump public safety. I also recognize the essential contradiction in my own, personal, desire to be safe from harm and my theoretical insistence on greater "liberty."

 

[kratz]

I see no harm in auguring for privacy and limits on police powers. I'm glad E.R. Campbell has articulated the points so well. Instead of blindly agreeing more data collection = safer, it is smart in my opinion to question the need to allow for those increased powers. The value in this discussion is making people aware there is another edge of privacy being surrendered for what measured amount of gain?

 

[Container]

The problem I have with all this, is that I can see the number of arrests going up, on simple things, just so they can increase their data bank.

I could see this if it was a blanket suggestion- but the items on the "primary" offences list require victims- how would we inflate the databank without a corresponding increase in violent crime?

 

[Jacky Tar]

My concern is not so much the issue of collecting the information, be it photo, fingerprints, swab, whatever, but that this then becomes yet more data stored about me, available to the government's various departments. If the CF identification fingerprint database is indeed distinct and separate then that comes as something of a shock to me, frankly. Historically, information collected by a government for one purpose generally gets spread out for other purpose; the perception being that the government owns this information. They do NOT. They are custodians of information that belongs to the individual citizens and lawful residents of the country.

The issue is the government's track record on maintaining security of information. Too many government systems have been hacked and data stolen out of them fo rme to feel comfortable with the idea of DNA information being on file along with my photo and fingerprints.

And yes, before anyone brings up the internet again, I have been known to deliberately use throw-away accounts for website registrations, particularly corporate ones.

 

[The_Falcon]

The issue is the government's track record on maintaining security of information. Too many government systems have been hacked and data stolen out of them fo rme to feel comfortable with the idea of DNA information being on file along with my photo and fingerprints.

I was going to post something about this, but you beat me too it.  There is no such thing as a secure system, either outsiders find ways in, or insiders sell out the information. 

As well the idea that the data can be "deleted".  How many times have people been warned on this site that the internet is forever?  Toronto Police in particular where admonished in several reports about their reluctance and in some instances down right obstructionist attitude when people have tried getting their finger prints removed off police databases. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I could see this if it was a blanket suggestion- but the items on the "primary" offences list require victims- how would we inflate the databank without a corresponding increase in violent crime?

I didn't consider that. I stand corrected on that point.

 

[cupper]

OK lets look at it this way.

As was previously pointed out, DNA is not a tool used specifically to confirm a person's identity, but rather an investigative tool to confirm or eliminate a person as a suspect.

If my understanding is correct, when people come into your realm, they have already been fingerprinted, photographed, and possibly swabbed.

However, someone who has never been previously arrested potentially could not be positively ID'd with 100% certainty because they do not have fingerprints in some government data bank. And since there would be no reason to have been swabbed for DNA, this would not provide an alternate means of ID confirmation. The best it could do is tie the person to the crime if such evidence existed to compare the fingerprints and DNA sample to.

So, when you take your prints, photos and swabs when the person above comes into your realm, the best you can assume is that the person in your presence is the person who was originally arrested.

Interesting point, the first and only time I have ever been fingerprinted was when I was being processed for permanent residence status in the US. There are no copies of my fingerprints on record in Canada (that I am aware of anyway :Tin-Foil-Hat: )

 

[garb811]

So, when the MPs are investigating an incident and they find fingerprints, they aren't allowed to run them against the CF database? Interesting . . .

If the CF identification fingerprint database is indeed distinct and separate then that comes as something of a shock to me, frankly.

It is indeed distinct and separate and is not accessible for law enforcement purposes, short of a warrant of course.

The problem I have with all this, is that I can see the number of arrests going up, on simple things, just so they can increase their data bank.

Further to the previous points about this, if you are falsely arrested without RPG to simply to fill up the databank, you have recourse to the courts and a pretty big payday coming your way.

 

[The_Falcon]

Further to the previous points about this, if you are falsely arrested without RPG to simply to fill up the databank, you have recourse to the courts and a pretty big payday coming your way.

Only if you can actually afford a lawyer, or can find one willing to work on a contingency.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Seems to me to be one more way to make mounting a fair and vigorous defence harder and harder.  Just gob on this stick mate, purely to make it easier to nail the  lid down on you, there's a good lad.

 

[dapaterson]

To balance things out, I figure we can abandon the buccal swabs and move to rectal swabs.  I'm thinking (with few exceptions) police officers will be quite reticent to take them...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Seems to me to be one more way to make mounting a fair and vigorous defence harder and harder.  Just gob on this stick mate, purely to make it easier to nail the  lid down on you, there's a good lad.

Whereas I would think, since I know I didn't do this, mounting my "fair defence" just got a whole lot easier..........

 

[Kat Stevens]

Yup, valid, good point.  Ten years from now they'll be asking for RFID trackers for random traffic stops, y'know, just to better protect us.

 

[Nemo888]

This is a rather old argument that deals ultimately with the founding principles of democracy.  "For I wish neither to rule nor be ruled, and on that condition I stand apart from the rule, on condition that I will not be ruled by any of you, " (Herodotus almost 2500 years ago)

Eventually any power the state has will be abused. Current events in the USA make that incredibly clear. There are very few justifiable reasons to remove citizens rights. In the short term it makes you feel safer and in the long term bites you in the ass. No thank you.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is a rather old argument that deals ultimately with the founding principles of democracy.  "For I wish neither to rule nor be ruled, and on that condition I stand apart from the rule, on condition that I will not be ruled by any of you, " (Herodotus almost 2500 years ago)

Eventually any power the state has will be abused. Current events in the USA make that incredibly clear. There are very few justifiable reasons to remove citizens rights. In the short term it makes you feel safer and in the long term bites you in the ass. No thank you.

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.