The Bill Nobody Noticed: National DNA Databank

The Webpage

I found this article today and had to share it with all of you.
Basically the Government is getting a gross amount of power and no one noticed.

Read the full bill and read the analysis of the Bill.

 

A baby has nothing to hide. people are paranoid.

 

As my friend said, "It's still an invasion of the parents privacy and on top of that, they are allowed to select ANYONE to test on later on in life and there is no mention of the participants willingness. Further there are religious and moral factors that disagree with DNA research. Finally that statement is judgemental, calling people paranoid is a personal attack... well it has no bearing on the argument."

 

CPR is as much playing god as DNA studies. Lucifer dosent want higher yield corn. and a catalog of US residents would help in solving crimes latter.

Besides How else will we know who will be imune on Z day?

 

Friend again.

This country is built on freedom and the right to privacy and all that. People are innocent until proven guilty. It's also not the only main reason of this law. This law is for DNA testing. Again, moral and religious issues argue against DNA testing. On top of that he completely ignored the fact its an invasion of privacy which, in this country, is a bigger issue than crime rates.

The right to informed consent. The right to protection from harm. The right to confidentiality. The right to debriefing
-Ripped right from a psychology textbook:
Informed consent: Researchers must inform potential participants in advance about the general nature of the research and any potential risks involved. Participants must understand they have a right to REFUSE to participate or to withdraw at any time.
The right to be protected from harm and discomfort: Researchers may conduct studies that involve harm and discomfort only under certain circumstances and only with the participants informed consent.
The right to confidentiality: researchers must never release data about individual participants, and members of the research team may not gossip or spread information about the participants
The right to debriefing: Participants must receive a full explanation of the research when their involvement is done. This is especially important if the research has included deception
Informed consent: People must know they are having their DNA tested. And it is their legal right to deny such testing. In the case of minors, adults must give consent. Period.
The right to be protected from harm: Taking DNA samples can be relatively harmless. But the law mentions further testing if the government deems so. Such further tests may not be harmless or at the participants convenience. The possibility of it can also cause stress, which categorizes as discomfort. There are people like this, paranoid as you would call them, but that does not discredit them as equal to you.
The right to confidentiality: The government would know each test subject and their data if they insinuate further testing. There is no confidentiality here.
The right to debriefing: They haven't the slightest clue what the testing is about or what future testing may harbor. They need to know. This also falls under informed consent.

 

Privacy is over rated.

 

I just watched A Scanner Darkly, so when I saw this I got really scared. When I read(skimmed) through it it seems not so bad. It doesn't seem to give the federal government power to screen DNA, and to collate it into a central database of any kind. It seems like it simply allows the federal government to give grants to people who will do the DNA screening, and work with the CDC (etc.) to spread education about screening.

What its trying to do, from what I gather, is help people fight heritable diseases and disorders by detecting it early with DNA screening. All the DNA screening is done in private, still with doctor-patient confidentiality. It also lets the CDC make plans for widespread health problems, in case 40% of Americans get Muscular Dystrophy or some shit.

I only read the summary, so I might be mistaken. I'm also not a lawyer, or congressman, and I don't know how accurate Twila Brase's analysis(given in article) is.

If I'm wrong though, It's hella scary. And Vessboy you're a fool for not caring about freedom and privacy.

 

I'm completely fine with national DNA banks. There is no good reason anyone has to keeping their DNA confidential. Having a string of numbers associated with your name is hardly an invasion of privacy. Meh, fucking commies always think everything is a conspiracy.

 

freedoms important, But it needs to be controlled or else were gonna destroy our selves. I'd rather have less privacy and more freedom. Your a fool for calling me a fool. But People don't need to be so private that thier uneasy about thier DNA on record. What are people afraid of? There is nothing I'd say on the phone that I would care if 6 FBI agents are sitting arround a table listening to. Me not caring is exercising freedom.

 

The reason I don't want this is not because of what the bill is, well the bill itself is fine. The problem is the government who controls this info. I don't trust many people in the government for good reason and I don't want them to have something as important as this.

Well you are a fascist. As it has been said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

As my friend said again, "He really has fascist views, with ultimate control over everything no matter what the harm to privacy or social standing. His reply to me was also conceited, well saying "privacy is overrated" is an opinion, so with his own logic it is irrelevant since it is an opinion. The bulk of his latest post was him not understanding others views. Others views have to be respected. Just because this bill not existing wouldn't cause him any extra anxiety doesn't mean it is good. And again, I'd just put a little "look at everything I've said already, twice." I even moved away from social issues and talked about legal issues. However he ignored that. Ultimately there are other, better ways to do the things this is trying to accomplish. Patients should have means to allow their DNA to be tested. That in itself should supply enough data without testing every fetus that makes it out the womb."

 

Isn't it a bit ignorant to think that no harm could come out of this? It's not just a string of numbers, its your genetic code. I don't care to be fair, but I can imagine that this could be used for the wrong reasons, or as it is a nice collection of data, fall into the wrong hands.

 

made me chuckle.

Bill states nothing about a National DNA Databank, nor the use of the specimens for any Federal Agency to use in investigations. Just screening(possibly researching) the newborns for possible genetic defects. Could resemble a first step to such a possible databank, bill itself, nope. I honestly think the guy made most of his article up, as many of his statements has no refrence in the actual bill itself.

Should still say No. As people in authorative positions will force your consent by their presence. ie, Police Officers cannot do anything without a warrant (search your car, enter your home, etc) They rely on your consent because of their authority.

Generally the public is idiotic and will conform to the request of those in the higher position, and give their consent into their privacy. No one can really unless you open the can of worms or get a supeona.

I don't agree with the bill.

 

Cybers friend here. I'm afraid I couldn't just walk away at this point. Especially since everything he picked to post made me look conceited without any attempt to explain why I feel the way I do.

Dead: http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/S_1858_NBS-DNAWarehouseFINAL.pdf That makes references to the bill and covers social issues pretty well.

Vess:
This is a digression, but it's a digression in a vain attempt to explain the issues of privacy and protection versus freedom.

There’s an argument out there that if a new law will protect x number of ctiziens the government should be morally obligated to do it. This logic is if fatality rates would drop, say, 70% if everyone drove under 30 mph all the time the government would have to do it. Never mind the rise in gas consumption, the effect on the atmosphere, and the normal 45 minute trip turning into a 4 hour escapade.

Point is, if you have a nice pick up or convertible, trading it in for a steel truck isn’t economically sound. Sacrificing ones freedom for protection has far too many drawbacks. Let me explain.

Why do you live life? To live? Surely, we could all live safely if we diverse our money amongst everyone in a socialist system. Why don’t we? Because the point of life is not simply to live. Russia’s condition is horrible. Why? Because socialist systems don’t work. They don’t work because it is not in human nature to simply live. Humans strive for more than just food and water. The human race strives to impress itself. New cars, bigger houses, more money, and more entertainment are things that keep that life worth living. Consequently, in socialist systems the government hordes as much money as it can and diverse the rest. The result is a few rich pigs with tons of poor rats.

Freedom is entertainment. Every form of freedom is entertainment in one way or another. You have the right to live, the right to die, the right to go to the video store to rent a game, the right to play a computer any hour of the day, etc etc.

In fact, did you know talking on your cellphone is directly exposing your brain to dangerous radiation that could give you cancer? The same goes for riding in a plane, or watching tv, or playing on the computer or even being in the presence of light.

Of course, to you this all seems like a large over reaction to the subject here. And it is. By all means this is a digression from the main point. But its intended to explain why those points have relevance.

Now, where does privacy come into all this? America was founded for religious freedom. Now please do not go hard core atheist on me and start bashing me for believing in god. I do not. I treat religious views like any other personal view held by anyone. Quite simply, people moved to America to start new lives and live as they want to. We do, by all physical means we do. We can go anywhere we want, do anything we want (within reason), and say whatever we want. But those aren’t the only forms of freedom. Freedom of the mind is just as important.

Freedom of the mind is in itself the freedom to make decisions based on moral beliefs and emotional influences. Now, pricking a babies foot then testing its blood may not intrude on our physical freedom, but it does on our mental freedom. We have the right to deny others intruding on our privacy for whatever reason we feel just. There are thousands, and there is no specific citable reason. How would you feel if I required you to donate blood every month? It’s for the benefit of others and causes absolutely no harm to you aside from a small prick every month. Maybe you donate blood. Well, what about sperm? That’s for a good cause to. We’ll even take your DNA. The bill says it will indirectly effect older generations as well.

On top of that. Your idea of control for security. I’m going to reference a nice man named Martin P. Seligman. He is a psychologist famous for his book on learned optimism. He formed this type of psychology by researching learned depression. To test learned depression. He strapped multiple groups of two dogs into harnesses. He would then administer shock. One dog had the ability to stop the shock by hitting a panel on either side of its head. The other dog could not. In order to keep things fair, the shock was administered to both dogs in the same doses and would stop for both dogs when the control dog stopped the shock. The dogs without control gave up after an average of 11 trials. Later, both groups of dogs were put in another situation. They were put in a box. On either side of the box was a light. In the center of the box was a fence the dogs could jump over. When a light turned on, the floor on that side would adiminster a shock for sixty seconds. To avoid the shock all the dogs had to do was jump the division. The dogs who had control learned quickly, while the dogs who did not have control failed miserably. The no control dogs were tested again after 3 weeks with the same result.
This means depression is essentially learned helplessness. It comes from a loss of control. We all expect certain outcomes when we do things. When we get negative outcomes instead we begin to lose all sense of control in our lives. When you don’t have control for long enough, you give up. Depression is the reduction of feeling to cope with learned helplessness.

Why is that relevant? Robbing people of choices when unnecessary only contributes to the anxiety over their control. I’m not saying this bill will make people depressed. But the same concept of anxiety over lack of control still stands. Which again, violates the right to protection from harm and discomfort. Which is medical law.

I hope that clears some things up, though I doubt it will.

 

You make a valid point. I wont argue that. However a disire to be a good citizen gives me freedom because i have no fear. I dont do things that give me enemys. I dont cross the law. Within this arena of confidence I am more free then many.

You gentlemen have made your cases soundly. Mine is simply to stop worrying. This was a debate between fact and philosophy.Niether can win. but Im content with defeat.


I invite you to talk in steam sometime. It could be fun.

 

Just throw in some HIPAA protection and it'll be good. In fact, such as screening may already fall under those rules. This is hardly a fascist-style invasion of our privacy.

 

Sure, for now, but what if a fascist government took power by force twenty years from now and you had to overthrow them? I think you'd suddenly want your privacy back. You have to take a longer view of these things. A DNA database might catch a few hundred murderers now, but may be used for a genocide that kills millions in a decade.

 

Solution to most problems http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp

 

why would anyone be against this besides for someone planning on breaking the law in his life?

this is a serious question, privacy okay, but its the government... those people that are elected to protect you, if you wouldn't trust them with this then who else?

 

Why do they care?

That is my question.

Saving lives? that's bullshit. There are 5000 different things they could change in the current state of the government that would help with this. Better medical care for example.

I don't understand why politicians come up with new ideas when the old ideas they implemented dont work worth shit. They should fix the leak in the roof before putting in the ceiling if ya know what I mean.

 

It would help identifying and finding cures for hereditary diseases. On the other hand it could also easily identify people for costlier insurance or, in a little more extreme view, genocide.