U.S. seeks to widely expand DNA database

[DaemonSeid]

Samples would be taken from anyone arrested or detained by feds
By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer Hsu
The U.S. government will soon begin collecting DNA samples from all citizens arrested in connection with any federal crime and from many immigrants detained by federal authorities, adding genetic identifiers from more than 1 million individuals a year to the swiftly growing federal law enforcement DNA database.

The policy will substantially expand the current practice of routinely collecting DNA samples from only those convicted of federal crimes, and it will build on a growing policy among states to collect DNA from many people who are arrested. Thirteen states do so now and turn their data over to the federal government.

The initiative, to be published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register in coming days, reflects a congressional directive that DNA from arrestees be collected to help catch a range of domestic criminals. But it also requires, for the first time, the collection of DNA samples from people other than U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who are detained by U.S. authorities.



More....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24173094

Not convicted of a federal crime but arrested. This means someone protesting on federal land can have DNA taken and stored if arrested.

Also if you get caught by the feds crossing the borders means they are going to take samples too...dang....I see alot of people getting set up by this and have no way of proving it.

[RU OX Alum]

yeah, aren't they finding out that DNA evidence isn't as relilible as once thought since basically everyone has the same strand just off by a little bit?

[RACooper]

Depends on the DNA testing done - LCN (Low Copy Number) DNA tests are about as exact as fingerprints, but it isn't perfectly exact since it uses "partial" result to identify people; but it's popular since it can be used with very minute examples. Whereas an STR (Short Tandem Repeat) DNA tests need more of a sample to work with, but are incredibly exact with matches equal to something like 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 - in other words there is on only a 1 in a quintillion chance that the DNA profile matches some one else (good odds considering that humanity hasn't even come close to a quintillion individuals in the sum of our existence).

Basically the more loci needed to be declared a "match" the better since it significantly decreases the odds of a "mis-match" - the US uses 13 loci which puts it at the top of the list for standards of identification.

[honeychile]

If you had asked me this even a month ago, I would have been all for it. But now that they've proven that DNA can change with a transplant, I'm more wary about it. Maybe it would be more viable if the person who receives the transplant could also verify whose DNA could be mixed with their own.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I worry about how the samples and data will be stored. I do NOT trust the government when it comes to computer databases. It's proved in the past that its systems are easier to crack than any number of IT companies'.