Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265571560

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] CNN article: The government has your baby's DNA
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:39:20 -0500
References: <> <007001caa824$20835f50$5e82af48@Ken1><AF922FB7380345759B85C01FBFEAD3B1@HP><003d01caa828$dfd44870$9f7cd950$@org>
In-Reply-To: <003d01caa828$dfd44870$9f7cd950$@org>

People get fingerprinted for lots of reasons, not just because they get
arrested. I was fingerprinted as part of obtaining a SECRET clearance. My
first driver's license had my thumbprint on it, not my photo. My birth
certificate has my footprints on it. Many employers will require to you be
fingerprinted, so they can do a background check and make certain you don't have
a criminal record. Someday we probably will have universal fingerprinting, and
I have no problem with it or with universal DNA testing. I'm already known on
both scores.

The more securely the government can identify me, the *less* likely I am to be
wrongly convicted of a crime, because I'm not a criminal. I'm much more
concerned about warrantless wiretapping than I am about universal fingerprinting
and DNA testing.

I suspect opinions on this one may largely depend on whether or not you've been
the victim of a serious crime and/or whether or not you or someone in your
family has suffered needlessly from an undetected and untreated genetic disease.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Lawrence Mayka
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] CNN article: The government has your baby's DNA
> Which country do you live in? In the United States, the
> public certainly WOULD go ballistic over a national fingerprint
> database that included everyone at birth. The current national
> fingerprint database, IAFIS, includes only those who have been
> arrested. Even so, it includes 55 million records, because over
> an entire lifetime a substantial portion of the population is
> arrested, rightly or wrongly, for something or other. And in
> fact, in some jurisdictions, bogus arrests are often made
> merely for the purpose of collecting fingerprints.
> > From: On Behalf Of Diana Gale Matthiesen
> > The public went ballistic over the idea of fingerprints
> > when their value for identification was first discovered.
> > Would we really want to do without them, now?

This thread: