It IS inconsistent, end of story....
Giving up your DNA
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
It IS inconsistent, end of story....
Could you explain for us how it's different? Each persons fingerprints are as unique as their DNA.
fingerprints are unique, no doubt
DNA however...is beyond unique, DNA can be used as a genetic weapon, as a way to produce clones without your consent, a way to access information without your consent...if your DNA is stolen, it is a loss of yourself.
I know, DNA information currently does not mean much to us...but in future DNA will link everyone to all the deeds, to the family lines...trace back their actions and information...massive amounts of information are stored in DNA, that if fall into wrong hands can be used in bad ways.
DNA however...is beyond unique, DNA can be used as a genetic weapon, as a way to produce clones without your consent, a way to access information without your consent...if your DNA is stolen, it is a loss of yourself.
I know, DNA information currently does not mean much to us...but in future DNA will link everyone to all the deeds, to the family lines...trace back their actions and information...massive amounts of information are stored in DNA, that if fall into wrong hands can be used in bad ways.
Boogey-man fears. Irrational.
Actually, Draqon accidentally made a pretty interesting and good point! Right now we can already clone dogs, who is to say that cloning humans won't be everyday proceadure in 20 years? If there is a database with millions of DNAs, who can guarantee that it won't be stolen or sold or accessed by unauthorized people???
And if you think it can not, just read the news when government people lose laptops with 2 million people's data on them...
That's a far, far, FAR cry from being able to recreate someone's DNA from an analysis sheet. And the analysis is a LONG way from complete anyway, it only records a specific set of readily differentiating markers. It would require a FULL genome of an individual - and you still couldn't replicate that! Some folks have way too much faith in what science can accomplish - that's all too common today.
And just exactly what is the precise danger of someone getting hold of the database? What are they going to do with it? It wouldn't help them one bit if they are trying to steal identities, for example.
In the future there will be DNA thefts. Let's say I have the money, and I am a big fun of X actor/sportman/whatever, collecting his/her DNA I can have the EXACT replica of his/her as a child....
I want my kid to look like him:
...and DNA can be collected from a thrown away chewing gum or from a glass left behind in a restaurant....
giving your dna to the government does not cause random people to take your dna from your chewing gum... and even if someone manages to find the digital info of all 3 billion base pairs, they're not going to be able to do anything with it
i don't know about the reliability of using dna evidence, but if it becomes as reliable as fingerprints, i don't see an issue
i don't know about the reliability of using dna evidence, but if it becomes as reliable as fingerprints, i don't see an issue
It would appear that you don't fully realize the difference between the tiny, tiny amount of information recorded from a DNA test as compared to the entire genome! It's a tremendous difference!!!! We've just barely gotten to the point where we can map the genome - and we're light-years away from actually being able to reconstruct the DNA from that information - decades and decades away. And it could never be done from what's recorded in a database because that's FAR from complete.
If someone wanted to clone Gates, they would just get a direct sample through someone close to him. And it would have NOTHING to do with what would be stored in the federal DNA database.
So, once again, the fears are nothing but bogey-man stuff. Period.
yeah but people, specifically 80-90% of the popul;ation, are their own worst enemies.
new motto for humanity: "stay stupid :shrug:"
Yeah, just like the ones that get "silicon" implants...
What rights do you think you are protecting?
To me, it looks like you are just trying to avoid the possibility to be held accountable for wrong-doing for you and your children.
The government has my fingerprints and my DNA fingerprint, and I sleep just fine knowing that.
But I'm not seedy or shady, and don't have some weird sense of a "Right to Privacy" which is not really a written right but a declared right.
To me, it looks like you are just trying to avoid the possibility to be held accountable for wrong-doing for you and your children.
The government has my fingerprints and my DNA fingerprint, and I sleep just fine knowing that.
But I'm not seedy or shady, and don't have some weird sense of a "Right to Privacy" which is not really a written right but a declared right.
The idea of privacy. There is no need to give out more info to the government (or anybody) than absolutely needed. And we already mentioned the possible missuse of data.
Otherwise I could take it one step further and require citizens to take a liedetector test every 2 months. After all if you haven't done anything wrong....
Except that lie detector tests are not accurate or admissible in any court of law, so there is a difference there. I wouldn't mind a lie detector test, only because I've taken and been a part of the interview team that had administered them before. They are not reliable in any form, they only tell investigators whether or not they should investigate further and look for more evidence of guilt.
But all they save is the signature, not the actual DNA. The DNA itself can't be stored in a database, only the indicators. You can't clone off of those, or plant them in another crime scene.
If there was a legal requirement to destroy the actual DNA after the signature was taken, would that make it better? Would you feel easier about it? I am fairly sure that it's done like that, though I don't know that 100%.
I understand the feeling of a right to one's own personal effects, including their body, but if you use that body in the commitment of a crime against someone else with the same rights, doesn't that kinda trump your own?
But all they save is the signature, not the actual DNA. The DNA itself can't be stored in a database, only the indicators. You can't clone off of those, or plant them in another crime scene.
If there was a legal requirement to destroy the actual DNA after the signature was taken, would that make it better? Would you feel easier about it? I am fairly sure that it's done like that, though I don't know that 100%.
I understand the feeling of a right to one's own personal effects, including their body, but if you use that body in the commitment of a crime against someone else with the same rights, doesn't that kinda trump your own?
Any electronic DNA database would surely not be records people's entire genome sequence. It would probably just be records of the 6-13 loci that they look at when doing DNA comparisons to see if two samples came from the same person. You couldn't use to create a clone, or whatever.
The annoying thing is that the odds of each new addition to the database giving you a false match to someone else already in the database grows exponentially with the size of the database. By the time you have a few hundred thousand people in the database, there will probably be many hundreds of false matches.
The annoying thing is that the odds of each new addition to the database giving you a false match to someone else already in the database grows exponentially with the size of the database. By the time you have a few hundred thousand people in the database, there will probably be many hundreds of false matches.
Then it would prove that the data would be unreliable as well. And that's okay, but we won't know about things until we have a bigger sample to work with. I suppose I don't care that much because;
1. I'm not a criminal
2. The government is already clued in to much more than our DNA (see, Echelon, Satellite technology, Laser listening devices, Patriot Act)
3. You can get nearly someone's DNA with a handshake, from a drinking cup edge, from an envelope...
1. I'm not a criminal
2. The government is already clued in to much more than our DNA (see, Echelon, Satellite technology, Laser listening devices, Patriot Act)
3. You can get nearly someone's DNA with a handshake, from a drinking cup edge, from an envelope...
That's exactly what I've been trying to tell these folks. Some of them apparently don't know the difference between that tiny record and the entire HUGE genome!! But lack of knowledge on this forum is far from new. <sigh>
Hundreds?? Not likely in the very least! The markers they currently use are good enough for 1:150million and they could increase those odds by a factor of millions (meaning 1:several trillion) by simply adding one more short sequence to the record.
If the odds of two randomly selected profiles matching are 1:150 million, then there will be a 50% chance of two profiles falsely matching in your database once your database gets to 14400 people. By the time you get to 37000 people there is a 99% chance that there will be at least one set of false matches (and a high probability that there will be many more than just one set). If you do a search through any of the state databases (much less the national database) you will find hundreds or thousands of pairs of people who have the same genetic profile.Hundreds?? Not likely in the very least! The markers they currently use are good enough for 1:150million and they could increase those odds by a factor of millions (meaning 1:several trillion) by simply adding one more short sequence to the record.
Google "birthday problem" for a full explanation of the mathematics.
Sorry, Nasor, that's not what the ratio means. 1:150 million means there will be only TWO complete matches in 300 million records.
That's just about the total population of the U.S. and is why they chose the limited sequence that is currently being used. That is with a GOOD sample, though, not a partial. (And I know about the "birthday problem.)