Massachusetts DA postpones free “DNA drive” after ACLU questions program | Hacker News Reader

Massachusetts DA postpones free “DNA drive” after ACLU questions program

bostonglobe.com

25 pointsilamont14 comments

what kind of a person would voluntarily give their DNA to law enforcement? we really need to make people trust the government less

When I was a boy we took a field trip to the police department where they collected all of our fingerprints. Which seems pretty inappropriate in retrospect.

Few years ago, Kuwaiti government wanted to collect DNA samples of all humans within its borders (citizens and foreigners).

https://www.newsweek.com/kuwait-becomes-first-country-world-...

I don’t know if it materialized or not. But the point is this - the very fact that they thought it was ok to do so, is alarming. It won’t be long before some government mandates that hospitals need to collect DNA during childbirth. Sounds crazy? Maybe, but it is possible.

They already collect blood samples in the states to test for incredibly rare congenital defects. When we tried to decline testing, we were threatened with a CPS case and the removal of our just-born child. I imagine leaving the hospital at that point would have gone very poorly for us from a legal point of view.

Supposedly the samples are destroyed "eventually," but we got several conflicting answers as to when that was. No one had any expertise in anything even privacy-adjacent, so what we were giving "consent" to was never clarified.

From our experience, I think a law that maintained DNA samples for all births in the US would easily sail through despite a very small and impotent opposition. I hope I am wrong.

This is one thing I think California does pretty well on. I remember the paperwork on that being fairly clear.

Was it clear that DNA samples are stored indefinitely and paid access is allowed to outsiders? There is an article that is a few years old, but is very eye opening.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-w...

I read that pamphlet but I have to admit that it did not give me an impression that law enforcement could use the data.

According to recent follow up article, you’re not alone in getting such impression:

“A 2018 statewide CBS News poll found that three-quarters of new parents who were surveyed had no idea the state would store the leftover blood spots indefinitely for research or that they would be accessible to law enforcement.”

It is also interesting that they are no longer tracking said access anymore, so there is no way to confirm or deny their claims of “rare” instances.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/right-to-know-ca...

> When we tried to decline testing, we were threatened with a CPS case and the removal of our just-born child.

Pretty sure that test is voluntary in a bunch of states?

That was my understanding, and the provider confirmed that, but we were told that it may count as neglect and that as a mandatory reporter she would be required to "submit a complaint." Phone calls were made, and she reiterated that a case would be opened and they may need to remove the child until the completion of that process.

So yes, voluntary.

Identikid

I… actually think it’s a good thing when criminals are jailed? For example, if a family member of mine committed murder, I would be quite pleased if my DNA could contribute to the investigation, as seems to have happened in the Bryan Kohberger case. It seems to me that increasing the accuracy of law enforcement is a Good Thing, and I’d be happy to help.

Of course that is good.

However, what happens when the so-called “criminal” is actually a non-criminal person that the government/powers-that-be deem a threat.

Perhaps that person has made efforts to remain anonymous, then their cousin gave up their DNA. The “threat” then becomes de-anonymized and is targeted.

By this argument, nearly any government control is “good”.

The reality is we live in a dirty, messy world. This isn’t a computer where you can stack trace and figure everything out.

In general, we live in one of the safest, most stable times in the history of the world. Things are working “well enough” that we don’t need stuff like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com