Jaeger wrote:Big Brother is watching -- and collecting your DNA without telling you.
**engage reactionary jackass mode**
Oh, yeah, but he was arrested, right, so he had to have done something, so it's his own damn fault! Damn that court for letting him off, he deserved to have his DNA collected, the cops were doing the only responsible thing! We must archive the DNA of all who might do a crime, will nobody think of the children?!!?
**disengage reactionary jackass mode and vomit continuously for at least five minutes**
Yeah, that's where I see trouble in future.
See, at some point, for-profit health insurers will notice that they could adjust premiums based on genetic indicators. You many have a genetic predisposition for disease X... but if you don't, you can now save money on your premiums! Just give us your DNA!
DNA sequencing and analysis isn't getting more expensive. As soon as doing it and rooting out people with genetic disease markers or some such becomes more economical than not doing it. Emergency rooms might collect DNA as standard procedure, and get it sequenced without anyone requesting it, just so that the doctors will have the information on hand should they need it. The liability insurance might demand as much, to ensure nothing is overlooked, and consenting to the test will not be optional. If the patient is even conscious to sign the terms of service. Liability insurance will get big on cheap DNA testing. Besides finding genetic markers for things that might lead their customers into a situation of being liable, epigenetic markers might indicate "problematic" behavior of an individual.Your most recent DNA test has revealed epigenetic markers that indicate an undisclosed drinking habit. Please submit blood and hair samples for additional testing. If you do not cooperate, or the drinking habit is confirmed, your policy will be void.
Expect to see the majority of the populace getting their DNA put on file someplace.
I very much doubt that, eventually, it will take a warrant to run crime-scene DNA through those databases. Remember those wiretaps where the intelligence officers had 72 hours to apply for a warrant after
they began listening in?
And when DNA sequencing becomes so cheap, someone will figure out a way to make DNA collection at crime scene cheap enough, too. Anyone who isn't in the databases yet will get the choice of getting tested and recorded... or spending the next three days in the lockup, since they can't be ruled out as a suspect from all the different sets of DNA found at the scene of that break-in.
Yes, I do think they will eventually take DNA samples at something as mundane as a break-in. Why wouldn't they, if it's cheap enough?
The authority of the authorities relies on the perception that this authority is enforced. Any excuse to get people in line with having their everything recorded and cross-referenced will do so long as it's cheap enough. And who wouldn't give their DNA sample if it means ruling them out for the break-in at their friends' house? Do they have something to hide?
Not quite 20 years ago, when DNA testing was way
more expensive than it is today, by orders of magnitude afaik. Around the university I attended, a serial rapist was assaulting women. Armed with a description that matched what any of the victims who had seen anything saw, the cops went around to collect swabs from the male population of the larger surrounding area around the university, figuring the rapist probably lived around there. Description was (translating) ~5'5" mid 40s caucasian, pudgy, short dark hair, big stache.
Friend of mine. ~22 at the time, 6', skinny, blond dreadlocks down to his shoulders, but always well shaven. Cops knocked on his door to get a swab. Like they also took from the 6'6" African exchange student next door, fella black as night and in his 20s. My friend refused to cooperate, on the principle that he was already ruled out from the suspect pool.
The cops threatened him they would tell his neighbors, and would make it sound like he wasn't just a serious suspect in the serial rapist case, but might also be involved in child pornography. My friend went to court to fight this, over some years, went all the way to our highest court. And he lost.
That was when DNA testing was an expensive invasion of privacy, something unusual and creepy.
Now think what it will be like when most people are habituated to giving cheap DNA samples for anything from medical diagnostics to insurance purposes to whatever. Anyone
not in the database will be suspect even if they cooperate immediately and without protest the very first time the cops as for a sample. After all, the only people who's DNA isn't in the database will be criminals who haven't been caught yet, right?
It won't take violence to get all our DNA into databases, nor any of the other biometric or habitual data.
It will take economics, and simple human suspicion of "the other".
Used to be, around society's statistical mid-section, if your prints were on file, even if you were never even arrested, let alone charged with a crime, it would have made you suspect in the eyes of most people who find out about it.
It will be that, if you aren't on file, you will be suspect. The only way not to be one file, why, he can't be behaving normally!
It won't even take any active resistance against being sampled and databased.
If there were absolutely anything to be afraid of, don't you think I would have worn pants?
I said I have a big stick.