Those arrested on felony charges in Indiana will have to submit DNA samples starting Jan. 1 - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Starting next Monday, those arrested for a felony in Indiana will have to submit a DNA sample via a cheek swab. The new requirement comes after the passing of Senate Enrolled Act 322, which was authored by State Sens. Erin Houchin (R-Salem) and Joe Zakas (R-Granger). Previously, state law only allowed for the swab to be taken after a felony conviction. The sample will now be taken when the suspect’s fingerprints, photographs and other data are documented during the booking process. The DNA profile will be run through the state’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and compared to other profiles in the database, only after a finding of probable cause. If an individual is acquitted of all felony charges, the charges are lowered to a misdemeanor, or no charges are filed after one-year, the sample may be expunged.[/QUOTE] [url]http://fox59.com/2017/12/28/those-arrested-on-felony-charges-in-indiana-will-have-to-submit-dna-samples-starting-jan-1/[/url] We have roads that are shattered to bits, our fucking school system is among the worst in the nation, and we have an epidemic killing off entire generations, but this is what we're concerned about. GFJ

At least you have a balanced state budget! But yeah, not a fan of them collecting DNA of anyone.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;53012872]At least you have a balanced state budget! But yeah, not a fan of them collecting DNA of anyone.[/QUOTE] in what way is it different from taking fingerprints?

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53012888]in what way is it different from taking fingerprints?[/QUOTE] It's uh, more accurate I guess.

I thought they did this anyway Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see what the big deal here is

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53012888]in what way is it different from taking fingerprints?[/QUOTE] It's your genetic code, so it's a lot weirder to have precedent for stealing it and storing it in a database without your consent. Hilarious things may also happen in 20-50 years if biometrics become common and someone hacks into that database.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;53012971]It's your genetic code, so it's a lot weirder to have precedent for stealing it and storing it in a database without your consent. Hilarious things may also happen in 20-50 years if biometrics become common and someone hacks into that database.[/QUOTE] I really hope biometrics as a security measure never becomes common because they are the worst things ever. Imagine a password but you leave it on everything you touch.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;53013014]I really hope biometrics as a security measure never becomes common because they are the worst things ever. Imagine a password but you leave it on everything you touch.[/QUOTE] What about retinal scanners being common? Or some other light-based thing that scans your hand's skeletal structure who knows

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53013126]What about retinal scanners being common? Or some other light-based thing that scans your hand's skeletal structure who knows[/QUOTE] Retinal scanners (accurate ones) are fine unless you're leaving your eyeballs out of their sockets everywhere.

I don't really see a problem with this. It could potentially help with charging the wrong person if they have DNA on the scene and compare it to their database, they could get the right person

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53012888]in what way is it different from taking fingerprints?[/QUOTE] I'd say it's different because DNA samples could be used to fingerprint (heh) other family members as well.

Also if a database of fingerprints gets leaked, who cares. But if your DNA profile gets leaked, all kind of nasty shit can happen, like insurance companies dropping you because you have some genetic defect, etc. I would not trust the government with my DNA profile.

We should have scanners that use your butt for identification.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;53013014]I really hope biometrics as a security measure never becomes common because they are the worst things ever. Imagine a password but you leave it on everything you touch.[/QUOTE] Would make for way cooler hacking scenes in films. Just waiting for the vic to sneeze or some shit :v:

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;53013697]We should have scanners that use your butt for identification.[/QUOTE] Postal confirmed as first victim of butt related identity theft. On topic: would this help at all with proving or disproving rape?

Key note: this says [i]arrested[/i], not [i]convicted[/i]. There is no due process here. I wouldn't be okay with taking the DNA of convicted felons either, but taking the DNA of those who are arrested is just absurd.

They already take your photo and fingerprints. If you don't want even more identifiable information, don't commit a crime/get arrested

[QUOTE=Karmah;53019346]They already take your photo and fingerprints. If you don't want even more identifiable information, don't commit a crime/get arrested[/QUOTE] Yes because innocents never get arrested

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;53012872]At least you have a balanced state budget! But yeah, not a fan of them collecting DNA of anyone.[/QUOTE] It kinda helps everyone. The more DNA they have on file, the less instances of them taking a DNA sample from a crime scene and not being able to match it to someone and potentially having a criminal escape, the better it is for everyone.

[QUOTE=Karmah;53019346]They already take your photo and fingerprints. If you don't want even more identifiable information, don't commit a crime/get arrested[/QUOTE] Getting arrested does not in itself prove you committed a crime. That is the key issue with this. I can see the argument for taking DNA samples after a conviction, but taking someone's DNA on [i]suspicion[/i] of a committing a crime is a pretty clear example of the government overstepping its bounds.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53012888]in what way is it different from taking fingerprints?[/QUOTE] Fingerprints, despite common belief, are not unique. If you touch something, you might only leave a partial print behind (Getting finger prints off something is WAY FUCKING HARDER than you think), buuuuuut if the crime is severe enough, you can pull DNA from the print. It is expensive as shit, but for murders it can make a case. You just tie up a lot of man hours in the state (or local) crime lab.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53012899]It's uh, more accurate I guess.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GunFox;53021279]Fingerprints, despite common belief, are not unique. If you touch something, you might only leave a partial print behind (Getting finger prints off something is WAY FUCKING HARDER than you think), buuuuuut if the crime is severe enough, you can pull DNA from the print. It is expensive as shit, but for murders it can make a case. You just tie up a lot of man hours in the state (or local) crime lab.[/QUOTE] i meant more what ethical difference is there. personally i think this is soon enough going to be standard fare

Collecting DNA evidence doesn't involve sequencing the entire genome. The only bits that are analysed are a set of loci where short tandem repeats occur: these are amplified by PCR and their lengths determined. The resulting data provide next to no personal information about the individual, and can pretty much only be used for comparison with another profile.