<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DNA Sampling &#8212; For Everyone?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sigivald</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-55414</link>
		<dc:creator>Sigivald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/dna-sampling-for-everyone.html#comment-55414</guid>
		<description>The question being, of course, whether it&#039;s an &quot;unreasonable&quot; search and seizure or not.

As there are no guidelines in the Constitution for what constitutes a &quot;reasonable&quot; search or seizure (let alone in the context of technology not even imagined in 1789), it&#039;s impossible to say in a clear and obvious way whether or not it&#039;s &lt;i&gt;Constitutional&lt;/i&gt;.

It might well be a terrible idea from a civil liberties point of view even if it&#039;s Constitutionally permissible; too many people constantly make the (unconscious?) assumption that the Constitutional and the Right are isomorphic. (Big fancy talk for &quot;the same&quot;, really.)

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question being, of course, whether it&#8217;s an &#8220;unreasonable&#8221; search and seizure or not.</p>
<p>As there are no guidelines in the Constitution for what constitutes a &#8220;reasonable&#8221; search or seizure (let alone in the context of technology not even imagined in 1789), it&#8217;s impossible to say in a clear and obvious way whether or not it&#8217;s <i>Constitutional</i>.</p>
<p>It might well be a terrible idea from a civil liberties point of view even if it&#8217;s Constitutionally permissible; too many people constantly make the (unconscious?) assumption that the Constitutional and the Right are isomorphic. (Big fancy talk for &#8220;the same&#8221;, really.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maryland Conservatarian</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-55413</link>
		<dc:creator>Maryland Conservatarian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/dna-sampling-for-everyone.html#comment-55413</guid>
		<description>I have no problem with convicted felons being put in a DNA database; am more ambivalent about arrestees and not at all thrilled about a universal database.

I am however amused that despite that we are required to report annually where we live and what we did with our lives the previous year to a Federal AND State government agency; despite that we cannot give a dollar to any Federal office candidate without disclosing who we are, where we live and how much we give...and we better have not given too much; despite all that, a swab of saliva is what gets so-called civil libertarians so excited.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no problem with convicted felons being put in a DNA database; am more ambivalent about arrestees and not at all thrilled about a universal database.</p>
<p>I am however amused that despite that we are required to report annually where we live and what we did with our lives the previous year to a Federal AND State government agency; despite that we cannot give a dollar to any Federal office candidate without disclosing who we are, where we live and how much we give&#8230;and we better have not given too much; despite all that, a swab of saliva is what gets so-called civil libertarians so excited.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Logical Extremes</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-55412</link>
		<dc:creator>Logical Extremes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/dna-sampling-for-everyone.html#comment-55412</guid>
		<description>I hope this does get challenged under Fourth Amendment, and under general privacy concerns in the legislature. Fingerprints of innocents, pervasive surveillance cameras, &quot;digital dossiers&quot;, and now DNA. How much freedom will we have left to love?

DNA (like fingerprints and retinas) can&#039;t be changed like a password when it gets compromised, and can be abused in so many ways.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope this does get challenged under Fourth Amendment, and under general privacy concerns in the legislature. Fingerprints of innocents, pervasive surveillance cameras, &#8220;digital dossiers&#8221;, and now DNA. How much freedom will we have left to love?</p>
<p>DNA (like fingerprints and retinas) can&#8217;t be changed like a password when it gets compromised, and can be abused in so many ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PK</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-55411</link>
		<dc:creator>PK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/dna-sampling-for-everyone.html#comment-55411</guid>
		<description>Is the routine collection of this kind of personal identifying information from arrestees reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?  It seems that the police have a valid interest in identifying who they&#039;ve arrested, so fingerprinting makes sense to a certain extent.  But how is this routine collection of DNA reasonably related to the investigation of every crime?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the routine collection of this kind of personal identifying information from arrestees reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?  It seems that the police have a valid interest in identifying who they&#8217;ve arrested, so fingerprinting makes sense to a certain extent.  But how is this routine collection of DNA reasonably related to the investigation of every crime?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KipEsquire</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/dna_sampling_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-55410</link>
		<dc:creator>KipEsquire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/dna-sampling-for-everyone.html#comment-55410</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see how expanding DNA databases helps acquit the innocent. If I&#039;m falsely accused and there is DNA evidence of the truly guilty party, then I will simply volunteer a sample of my own for comparison, just as I would produce any other exculpatory evidence. &quot;Improving the database&quot; has nothing to do with it.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see how expanding DNA databases helps acquit the innocent. If I&#8217;m falsely accused and there is DNA evidence of the truly guilty party, then I will simply volunteer a sample of my own for comparison, just as I would produce any other exculpatory evidence. &#8220;Improving the database&#8221; has nothing to do with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

