My initial reaction is that, while I can see ways that this could be abused (e.g.., running analyses on DNA that might indicate medical information that could be used as evidence, or could be leaked to employers, etc.), it's hard for me to argue with the basic metaphor of DNA testing as being similar to taking fingerprints (and sending them off to other agencies to see if they match other open crimes).
Reshared post from +Victoria Hudgins
DNA is modern-day version of fingerprints, says court.
#supremecourtruling #DNA
Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting. The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined …
37 view(s)
It tells us a lot more, mind you, which is why we're a bit more protective about it. On the money, though.
I think ‘justice’ DNA is relatively low level info- they don’t do the whole shebang and so no one can check you for disease. I think once the actual sample is processed, they just have to keep some info, rather than the sample.