GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265580808


From: Sam Eaton <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] CNN article: The government has your baby's DNA
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:13:28 -0800 (PST)


Lawrence Mayka

As a retired soldier and someone who has held a security clearance, my finger prints as well as an incredible amount of very personal information is on file in countless government agencies. I retired from the Army before DNA sample collection was made universal for military personal. I had occasion to go the the VA Regional office once. My file was several inches thick and I was told that the file would likely be more than a foot thick before long. If you think that that is an issue, you would be shocked at the amount of personal and sensitive information is available about you online.

I agree that privacy issues are important. I just think that that specific horse has busted through the barn door, jumped the pasture fence, ran out of the county and will soon be out of state.

Sam aka Linh My or American GI

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:08:03 -0600
From: "Lawrence Mayka" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] CNN article: The government has your baby's DNA
To: <>
Message-ID: <003d01caa828$dfd44870$9f7cd950$@org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis.htm

> From: [mailto:genealogy-dna-
> ] 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: