Dna Database - a Eulogy for Privacy

A Eulogy for Privacy

"Privacy is not dead, it's just evolving", a man named Tony Bradley with whom I happen to agree with said this. Bradley continues to say that, "As technology makes more information more accessible, it also threatens to expose information that is not intended to be shared. Privacy is a concept that is caught in the middle of the struggle." (Tony Bradley, PC World, "Privacy is Not Dead, Just Evolving")

To elaborate on this thought, the most controversial topic would have to be DNA databases, at current, because some believe that it infringes on ones own privacy; I happen to agree with this. A DNA database is a database of DNA data; it can be used in the analysis of genetic diseases, genetic fingerprinting for criminology, or genetic genealogy. At current though, the largest DNA database in the world is CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) funded by the FBI.

"DNA databases were built initially to deal with violent sexual crimes and homicides – a very limited number of crimes," said Harry Levine, a professor of sociology at City University of New York who studies policing trends. Over time, more and more crimes of decreasing severity have been added to the database. Cops and prosecutors like it because it gives everybody more information and creates a new suspect pool." (Solomon Moore, Philosophy of Science Portal, "FBI and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases")

While in theory this sounds wonderful, more and more stipulations are being added to increase the ‘pool'. For instance, when convicted, minors are required to provide DNA samples in 35 different states and even sometimes, upon arrest. Sometimes, hen someone is arrested, they have not committed the crime and can usually be proven down the line. If they haven't committed the crime, their DNA is now in a database regardless of what they want and impossibly difficult to remove it; how does that seem fair?

To continue the above thought, how does one have their DNA removed from a database? The logical answer is that if the person is not guilty of the crime then the DNA should be expunged from records; sadly, this is not true. "When DNA is taken in error, expunging a profile can be just as difficult. In Pennsylvania, where DNA cannot be take from juveniles for misdemeanors, Ellyn Sapper, a Philadelphia public defender, has spent weeks trying to expunge the profile of a 14-year-old boy guilty of assault and bicycle theft – his first misdemeanor. ‘I'm going to have to get a judge's order to make sure that all references to his DNA are gone,' she said" (Solomon Moore, Philosophy of Science Portal, "FBI and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases")

Adding reasons to take DNA from ‘suspects', (and I used the term suspects loosely), is continuing to become outrageous. Michael Risher, a lawyer

...