If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Scalia: "the Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way" of doing the "good thing"   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 329
    More: Scary, Scalia, DNA, DNA profiling, personal privacy, DNA samples, 28th state, Northwestern University School of Law, chief deputy  
•       •       •

7146 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jun 2013 at 5:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



329 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-02 12:37:47 AM  
DNA should be collected at birth and stored in a database.
 
2013-06-02 12:37:55 AM  
Conservative scum
 
2013-06-02 12:38:26 AM  
Its so nice we have men like him guarding our freedom.
 
2013-06-02 12:43:07 AM  
That should be grounds for dismissal.
 
2013-06-02 12:43:55 AM  
Asshole says what?
 
2013-06-02 12:45:56 AM  

Honest Bender: That should be grounds for dismissal.


Sadly there are no such grounds.
 
2013-06-02 12:46:28 AM  
Jesus Motherf*cking Kreist. He actually said it. I thought, "No way - that has to be an exaggeration" - but that slimy motherf*cker actually said it.
 
2013-06-02 12:46:48 AM  
Is that the strict constructionist viewpoint?
 
2013-06-02 12:49:26 AM  
To paraphrase a line from the NRA, what part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" does he not understand?
 
2013-06-02 12:50:30 AM  

SilentStrider: Its so nice we have men like him guarding our freedom.


How are you not free if there's a DNA database? Oh wait, you mean not free to be a criminal, right?
 
2013-06-02 12:50:36 AM  
I can almost see the logic in comparing taking a DNA swab to taking a fingerprint.  What I'm not OK, with, and what I'm not even sure if actually happens (I've seen it on Law & Order, but who knows if the police actually do it) is matching partial DNA matches to family members to continue investigations.

I also firmly believe that if your DNA is taken and you are not charged, or if you are proven not-guilty at trial, that any records of your DNA (as well as fingerprints) should be destroyed and removed from any police databases.
 
2013-06-02 12:51:29 AM  
Nice job, subby!  You quoted Scalia accurately, but made it easy to see who DNRTFA.

+1
 
2013-06-02 12:58:05 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Nice job, subby!  You quoted Scalia accurately, but made it easy to see who DNRTFA.

+1


Yep.
 
2013-06-02 01:00:13 AM  
I'm on the fence on this one.

part of me says that it's just another identifier, like they said, similar to a finger print. the other part of me says I don't want to get a swab in my mouth just because I ran a stop sign.

but then again, they don't finger print people for traffic violations. but then again a swab is a lot easier than a fingerprinting.

but then again...
 
2013-06-02 01:00:28 AM  

violentsalvation: BarkingUnicorn: Nice job, subby!  You quoted Scalia accurately, but made it easy to see who DNRTFA.

+1

Yep.


;)
 
2013-06-02 01:01:06 AM  
First off, none of you knee-jerking dumbfarks read the article.  Scalia is arguing for greater 4th Amendment protections, not fewer.

Second, I don't get why his quote is even remotely controversial.  The constitution offers individual protections that very often get in the way of society doing the right thing.  For example, it would be good if Nazis didn't get to say racist stuff.  But it's also good to protect free speech, so we put up with the Nazis.
 
2013-06-02 01:05:17 AM  

Captain Dan: First off, none of you knee-jerking dumbfarks read the article.  Scalia is arguing for greater 4th Amendment protections, not fewer.

Second, I don't get why his quote is even remotely controversial.  The constitution offers individual protections that very often get in the way of society doing the right thing.  For example, it would be good if Nazis didn't get to say racist stuff.  But it's also good to protect free speech, so we put up with the Nazis.


On the contrary I think it's great that they get to say racist stuff, especially when they say it on the public record.  Public outpourings of racist and intolerant derp are wonderful for society because it makes it easy to see who shouldn't be taken seriously.  Closeted racists who hide the motivations for their actions are far more dangerous than the clowns with swastika face tattoos.
 
2013-06-02 01:07:00 AM  
and I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

It's a genuine question. I honestly can't think of a reason.
 
2013-06-02 01:08:05 AM  
The first 10 comments here are failtacular....
 
2013-06-02 01:08:43 AM  

Captain Dan: Second, I don't get why his quote is even remotely controversial.


It's not. It's just that Scalia is eating crackers like he owns the place.
 
2013-06-02 01:09:00 AM  

log_jammin: and I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

It's a genuine question. I honestly can't think of a reason.


They don't have a valid reason, only "because I don't want to".
 
2013-06-02 01:09:54 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: DNA should be collected at birth and stored in a database.


How else could we cull the misfits from the gene pool?
 
2013-06-02 01:10:48 AM  
Well, good to see the Fark liberals still don't bother to read, comprehend, or understand the articles they are commenting on.

If any of you stupid dumbfarks could get past your blind rage at anything Scalia related, you'd realize he's arguing that the fourth amendment prevents obtaining DNA samples willy-nilly just because you've been arrested for a crime.

log_jammin: and I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

It's a genuine question. I honestly can't think of a reason.


DNA markers for hereditary diseases.  It could affect your health insurance coverage in the future, or, even worse, get you into a targeted ad database somewhere.
 
2013-06-02 01:13:36 AM  

log_jammin: and I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

It's a genuine question. I honestly can't think of a reason.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/hacking-the-pres id ents-dna/309147/
 
2013-06-02 01:14:33 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: On the contrary I think it's great that they get to say racist stuff, especially when they say it on the public record.  Public outpourings of racist and intolerant derp are wonderful for society because it makes it easy to see who shouldn't be taken seriously.  Closeted racists who hide the motivations for their actions are far more dangerous than the clowns with swastika face tattoos.


That's great for people like you, who aren't the target of vitriolic speech.  You can identify the jerks more easily - all upside!  For the targets, though, the downside is more tangible.

log_jammin: I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

In the near future, it will be very easy (technically) to discriminate on a genetic level, and most people would like there to be legal/political protections against that information being public.
 
2013-06-02 01:14:52 AM  

Lsherm: DNA markers for hereditary diseases.  It could affect your health insurance coverage in the future, or, even worse, get you into a targeted ad database somewhere.


That's a reason to regulate health insurance providers not a reason to stop the police from taking a DNA swab from someone they've arrested.
 
2013-06-02 01:16:02 AM  

log_jammin: and I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

It's a genuine question. I honestly can't think of a reason.


Because we should fight the erosion of privacy rights every chance we get.  The continual advancement of technology will give law enforcement agencies more power to pry into our daily lives over time, and giving them the legal right to use whatever they find moves us ever closer to a police state.

It used to be that you didn't have to worry about speeding or running a red light unless there was a cop car nearby watching, now red light and speed cameras nullify that need.

Yes, I'm complaining about not being able to break the law, but the penalties for breaking those laws were written when the enforcement of those laws was much different.  Everyone breaks the law on occasion, usually with the assumption that the chances of being caught are pretty slim for minor violations.  When the chance of getting caught starts approaching 100%, those laws and penalties start seeming a lot less reasonable.
 
2013-06-02 01:16:55 AM  
so basically "Because Gattaca".
 
2013-06-02 01:18:31 AM  

log_jammin: and I'm just going to throw this out there, and yes I know it's a version of an old argument, but other than being guilty of a crime, what reason would you have for wanting to keep your DNA profile/signature/whateveryoucallit to yourself?

It's a genuine question. I honestly can't think of a reason.


I don't know, I'm with you on this, I go back and forth between the amendment, and why the hell not collect the DNA? And I also consider that people have probably gotten off death row because of these DNA gatherings. But I still feel like it's best to side with the old piece of paper and find a way to only collect the DNA after a felony conviction.
 
2013-06-02 01:20:21 AM  

Captain Dan: TuteTibiImperes: On the contrary I think it's great that they get to say racist stuff, especially when they say it on the public record.  Public outpourings of racist and intolerant derp are wonderful for society because it makes it easy to see who shouldn't be taken seriously.  Closeted racists who hide the motivations for their actions are far more dangerous than the clowns with swastika face tattoos.

That's great for people like you, who aren't the target of vitriolic speech.  You can identify the jerks more easily - all upside!  For the targets, though, the downside is more tangible.


Sticks and stones and all that. Vitriolic speech might hurt someone's feelings, but knowing who hates you for who you are seems like a valuable trade-off.  If the guy down the street hated me for my skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or some other reason, I'd much rather know it and be a little bit insulted than not know it until he hit me on the backside of my head with a brick while taking a walk one night.
 
2013-06-02 01:21:59 AM  

log_jammin: so basically "Because Gattaca".


Haha so true.
 
2013-06-02 01:25:07 AM  

violentsalvation: But I still feel like it's best to side with the old piece of paper and find a way to only collect the DNA after a felony conviction.


I hate to say this, but I really think it MAY be true in this case....If you're innocent of an crimes wouldn't you want them to have your DNA? Motivation, no alibi, supposed witnesses, etc.. those things can be spun by a DA, but your DNA not matching is about as cut and dried as it gets.
 
2013-06-02 01:25:44 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: log_jammin: so basically "Because Gattaca".

Haha so true.


What's wrong with a desire to prevent that scenario?
 
2013-06-02 01:29:53 AM  

log_jammin: Lsherm: DNA markers for hereditary diseases.  It could affect your health insurance coverage in the future, or, even worse, get you into a targeted ad database somewhere.

That's a reason to regulate health insurance providers not a reason to stop the police from taking a DNA swab from someone they've arrested.


Well, in all fairness, your DNA contains a lot more information than just identification, which is what the police want to use it for.  Fingerprints are just for identification.  Would you really trust every local police department in the country with your DNA?  Should you?

The question is whether or not they have the right to obtain all of that extra information that comes with the DNA.
 
2013-06-02 01:30:04 AM  

Captain Dan: Popcorn Johnny: log_jammin: so basically "Because Gattaca".

Haha so true.

What's wrong with a desire to prevent that scenario?


The slippery slope defense is never a good one.
 
2013-06-02 01:30:58 AM  

Captain Dan: What's wrong with a desire to prevent that scenario?


I don't know what the troll thinks, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the desire to prevent it. I just don't see that scenario as very likely or this case being something that pushes us in that direction.
 
2013-06-02 01:31:21 AM  

log_jammin: but your DNA not matching is about as cut and dried as it gets.


Again, this assumes your police lab doesn't tamper with the results.

Why are you so anxious to hand all of your personal information over to the cops?
 
2013-06-02 01:32:29 AM  

log_jammin: violentsalvation: But I still feel like it's best to side with the old piece of paper and find a way to only collect the DNA after a felony conviction.

I hate to say this, but I really think it MAY be true in this case....If you're innocent of an crimes wouldn't you want them to have your DNA? Motivation, no alibi, supposed witnesses, etc.. those things can be spun by a DA, but your DNA not matching is about as cut and dried as it gets.



Just to play Devil's Advocate what about if that DNA swab flagged a paternity test from some one night stand you'd forgotten about, or your blood ended up at some crime scene from the past due to some completely inoccuous reason (say you got a papercut that bled on the counter of a bankmthatnwas robbed later that day). What if your DNA is kept on file from a charge that has nothing to do with you, but is used to find you for something you did do later?
 
2013-06-02 01:32:35 AM  
Our permanent surveillance/security state doesn't need more power over us, it needs less.  Treat collecting DNA the same way we treat collecting other biological material (like a blood draw).  Require a judge to sign off on it.  Violent crime?  Sex crime?  They can farking auto-pen it.  Disorderly conduct (protesting)?  Resisting arrest (by itself)?  Drugs?  fark you, you don't need my DNA.
 
2013-06-02 01:34:28 AM  

log_jammin: so basically "Because Gattaca".


I had a friend that got into designing viruses back in the late 80s and he told me scary stories then. He was pretty sure they could wipe out tobacco or coca if they wanted to, but had no idea what the collateral damage would be. God knows where the government research labs stand now. Imagine if, say, Iran had its citizens DNA in a database and Israel managed to hack the database or vice versa. Let's say it's now 40 years later and person-specific bioweapons are easy to construct. What's going to happen?
 
2013-06-02 01:34:31 AM  

Lsherm: Would you really trust every local police department in the country with your DNA?  Should you?


why shouldn't I? what could they do with it? the worst I can think of is falsely claiming my DNA was at a crime scene. But they could do that with finger prints or whatever else now.

Lsherm: The question is whether or not they have the right to obtain all of that extra information that comes with the DNA.


That I'm not on the fense about. If they are allowed my DNA it should be for ID only. Not health or any other information.
 
2013-06-02 01:34:41 AM  
I love submitter so much. Do very much.

I'm going to ask Scalia if I can share his crackers
 
2013-06-02 01:35:50 AM  

Lsherm: Again, this assumes your police lab doesn't tamper with the results.


this assumes they can.

Lsherm: Why are you so anxious to hand all of your personal information over to the cops?


don't be a dishonest ass and try to put words in my mouth.
 
2013-06-02 01:37:49 AM  
Scalia has always been a crypto-fascist.
 
2013-06-02 01:38:14 AM  

TuteTibiImperes:  or your blood ended up at some crime scene from the past due to some completely inoccuous reason (say you got a papercut that bled on the counter of a bankmthatnwas robbed later that day).


I'm sure they need more than just DNA at the crime scene to convict. Unless the DNA was in the victim that is.
 
2013-06-02 01:38:49 AM  

Triumph: log_jammin: so basically "Because Gattaca".

I had a friend that got into designing viruses back in the late 80s and he told me scary stories then. He was pretty sure they could wipe out tobacco or coca if they wanted to, but had no idea what the collateral damage would be. God knows where the government research labs stand now. Imagine if, say, Iran had its citizens DNA in a database and Israel managed to hack the database or vice versa. Let's say it's now 40 years later and person-specific bioweapons are easy to construct. What's going to happen?


Have you ever read the The Shift books by Hugh Howey?
 
2013-06-02 01:40:56 AM  

Triumph: I had a friend that got into designing viruses back in the late 80s and he told me scary stories then. He was pretty sure they could wipe out tobacco or coca if they wanted to, but had no idea what the collateral damage would be. God knows where the government research labs stand now. Imagine if, say, Iran had its citizens DNA in a database and Israel managed to hack the database or vice versa. Let's say it's now 40 years later and person-specific bioweapons are easy to construct. What's going to happen?


that would make a great scf-fi story, but it's not something that I'm particularly worried about.
 
2013-06-02 01:44:10 AM  
That's it, I'm going to start leaving my DNA everywhere I go, just to confuse the trail.
 
2013-06-02 01:47:01 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I love submitter so much. Do very much.

I'm going to ask Scalia if I can share his crackers


Despite his "misgivings" he'll find a way to rationalize it.  He usually does.
 
2013-06-02 01:47:48 AM  

fusillade762: That's it, I'm going to start leaving my DNA everywhere I go, just to confuse the trail.


If you touch anything during the day, you're already doing that.
 
Displayed 50 of 329 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report