DNA: Is It The Unquestionable Proof We've Been Told? And Should Government, Especially Law Enforcement Be Able To Access Private DNA Databases?

[KingSloth]

That’s pretty gay of you. Just like hippo.

I honestly don't know who hippo is, but I already like him a lot better than you, faggot.

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

I honestly don't know who hippo is, but I already like him a lot better than you, faggot.

You like half footed fags? That’s also pretty gay of you.

 

[(G.O.A.T.) Tubemonkey]

That’s pretty gay of you. Just like hippo.

They didn't reply or react to that comment, wonder why it is taboo?

 

[master shake]

I honestly don't know who hippo is, but I already like him a lot better than you, faggot.

I knew you were gay when you asked about serial killers

 

[Super Kirbo]

So, I honestly don't know a lot about the science behind DNA. But I believe a lot of us are true crime junkies and have seen the true crime television shows where it's said that the chance of the DNA being someone other than the suspect is something crazy like 1 in every 66 Billion. Which is like saying that the chance of the DNA being someone else's is more than the entire global population.

What I don't understand is how can we know for certain that the suspect's DNA is so incredibly unique unless we were to DNA test every single person on earth? I mean we toss out these numbers based on limited knowledge and declare it as fact. I could be wrong about this, but it just seems a little fishy to me.

Also, I personally don't like the fact that the government, especially law enforcement can access the DNA databases of private companies. I honestly don't want murderer's and rapists to get away with their crimes, but at the same time, it feels like a violation of privacy. We've all seen cases like The Golden State Killer, where the DNA databases of private corporations are used by law enforcement to capture individuals suspected of violent crimes. Personally, I believe that there's a presumption of privacy that's violated by these invasive practices.

Now, you can argue that the individual willingly gave their DNA to the company to test, and once this DNA material is sent, ownership over it has been transferred from the person to the company testing it. Now, that may be, but what about when a family member tests their DNA, but their DNA is then used to find a family member that didn't consent to the DNA testing? Doesn't that violate the other person's rights? I mean they did not agree to have their own DNA tested, but the actions of a family member, is then used to justify gathering DNA evidence on the other individual who had no say, or choice in the matter.

Now, yes, law enforcement does perform confirmatory testing once a suspect has been identified. But shouldn't this be considered 'fruit of the poisonous tree'? I mean warrants to test the suspects DNA are granted based on information that the suspect had no say in. And even if the suspect did send in their own DNA, do you personally believe that should give the company ownership of said DNA? I mean yes, the DNA was sent in for testing, but it's a paid service. The company isn't being sold the rights to the DNA. It's merely being paid to test the DNA. Shouldn't ownership of the DNA information remain in the hands of the individual? If not, shouldn't the individual be compensated by the company for having rights to the customers DNA information?

I don't know, it just seems like a HUGE violation of civil liberties. A private database, held by a private company, shouldn't be accessible to government agencies of any kind, including law enforcement. And currently individuals are being jailed for life, or sentenced to death based on DNA science. Scientists are completely confident in the validity of DNA testing, but this wouldn't be the first time science was completely confident in something that later turned out to be false.

What do you think?

I mean if you didnt kill or rape anyone then who gives a shit ?

 

[KingSloth]

You like half footed fags? That’s also pretty gay of you.

I'd rather talk to a half footed fag than you, yes. But I'd also rather stick my face in a beehive.

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

I mean if you didnt kill or rape anyone then who gives a shit ?

His wordy post raped our intelligence, then he got uppity about it.

 

[KingSloth]

I mean if you didnt kill or rape anyone then who gives a shit ?

What's the fun in not doing that?

 

[master shake]

I'd rather talk to a half footed fag than you, yes. But I'd also rather stick my face in a beehive.

Fuck you and Richard Ramirez

 

[(G.O.A.T.) Tubemonkey]

I'd rather talk to a half footed fag than you, yes. But I'd also rather stick my face in a beehive.

Wow, you're in some serious default in the likes department again, Hippo.

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

I'd rather talk to a half footed fag than you, yes. But I'd also rather stick my face in a beehive.

Weirdly specific and something a hormonal teenager would come up with.

 

[KingSloth]

Fuck you and Richard Ramirez

Sounds like a good porn film

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

What's the fun in not doing that?

That is probably the dumbest thing you’ve said so far

 

[Super Kirbo]

Sounds like a good porn film

Oh shit hey hippo how you been ?

 

[MoxyNoir808]

So, I honestly don't know a lot about the science behind DNA. But I believe a lot of us are true crime junkies and have seen the true crime television shows where it's said that the chance of the DNA being someone other than the suspect is something crazy like 1 in every 66 Billion. Which is like saying that the chance of the DNA being someone else's is more than the entire global population.

What I don't understand is how can we know for certain that the suspect's DNA is so incredibly unique unless we were to DNA test every single person on earth? I mean we toss out these numbers based on limited knowledge and declare it as fact. I could be wrong about this, but it just seems a little fishy to me.

Also, I personally don't like the fact that the government, especially law enforcement can access the DNA databases of private companies. I honestly don't want murderer's and rapists to get away with their crimes, but at the same time, it feels like a violation of privacy. We've all seen cases like The Golden State Killer, where the DNA databases of private corporations are used by law enforcement to capture individuals suspected of violent crimes. Personally, I believe that there's a presumption of privacy that's violated by these invasive practices.

Now, you can argue that the individual willingly gave their DNA to the company to test, and once this DNA material is sent, ownership over it has been transferred from the person to the company testing it. Now, that may be, but what about when a family member tests their DNA, but their DNA is then used to find a family member that didn't consent to the DNA testing? Doesn't that violate the other person's rights? I mean they did not agree to have their own DNA tested, but the actions of a family member, is then used to justify gathering DNA evidence on the other individual who had no say, or choice in the matter.

Now, yes, law enforcement does perform confirmatory testing once a suspect has been identified. But shouldn't this be considered 'fruit of the poisonous tree'? I mean warrants to test the suspects DNA are granted based on information that the suspect had no say in. And even if the suspect did send in their own DNA, do you personally believe that should give the company ownership of said DNA? I mean yes, the DNA was sent in for testing, but it's a paid service. The company isn't being sold the rights to the DNA. It's merely being paid to test the DNA. Shouldn't ownership of the DNA information remain in the hands of the individual? If not, shouldn't the individual be compensated by the company for having rights to the customers DNA information?

I don't know, it just seems like a HUGE violation of civil liberties. A private database, held by a private company, shouldn't be accessible to government agencies of any kind, including law enforcement. And currently individuals are being jailed for life, or sentenced to death based on DNA science. Scientists are completely confident in the validity of DNA testing, but this wouldn't be the first time science was completely confident in something that later turned out to be false.

What do you think?

** thought it might be better to post my response here instead of in the middle of the discussion like I did a few minutes ago"

My personal opinion is that in the cost benefit analysis of everything, the benefit far outweighs the cost. The benefit of catching criminals and more importantly prosecuting criminals far outweighs the unlikely chance, or extremely rare instances, that that it will be used to persecute an innocent individual (potential 'cost'). Just my opinion.

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

Sounds like a good porn film

Oh, nvm. THIS is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far.

 

[KingSloth]

Oh shit hey hippo how you been ?

I really don't know who hippo is. Honestly. I'm not "Hippo". You guys are a bunch of paranoid faggots

 

[master shake]

Sounds like a good porn film

Ughhhhh, gross.

 

[(G.O.A.T.) Tubemonkey]

** thought it might be better to post my response here instead of in the middle of the discussion like I did a few minutes ago"

My personal opinion is that in the cost benefit analysis of everything, the benefit far outweighs the cost. The benefit of catching criminals and more importantly prosecuting criminals far outweighs the unlikely chance, or extremely rare instances, that that it will be used to persecute an innocent individual (potential 'cost'). Just my opinion.

If you don't mind we'd like to keep this thread off subject and off the rails, thanks.

 

[Super Kirbo]

I really don't know who hippo is. Honestly. I'm not "Hippo". You guys are a bunch of paranoid faggots

What do you think about red heads in latex ?