"when there is no such privacy debate about adoptees and the children of sperm donors using the same methods [ie, DNA searches] to find their parents"
I'm actually as concerned with the moral implications of children of sperm donors. I'm not a sperm donor, it just seems wrong to open up doors that were never agreed to under the original terms of the sperm donor agreement.
And regarding using the technology to search for criminals - it's a classic slippery slope issue. Many of us are happy that a serial killer or other murderer/rapist was found using the technology, but already police have used it to find a burglar. I'm assuming that they'll use it for non-violent drug crimes next.
> And regarding using the technology to search for criminals - it's a classic slippery slope issue. Many of us are happy that a serial killer or other murderer/rapist was found using the technology, but already police have used it to find a burglar. I'm assuming that they'll use it for non-violent drug crimes next.
My big concern is that when the new thing that whittles down the 4th amendment is talked about, it is almost always with a slam dunk case that is also an incredibly serious case. But the average investigation rarely ends in a slam dunk. Allowing police to bypass protections of privacy and checks and balances to their scope of investigation also destroys lives. Semen found inside a person is pretty obvious, but what about just DNA found at a crime scene. If someone is stabbed in a back alley and police just sweep up DNA and run a massive database and tie it to a homeless person without an alibi. It might not matter that the homeless person slept there a week before, in the absence of a better lead, they might push for a conviction. Or just sweeping up all phones in the area during the crime. Maybe someone was in the neighborhood but was completely unrelated. In the absence of a better lead, an innocent person could be targeted.
An innocent person railroaded by the police is as much a victim as the original victim of the crime. There is a reason police need “probable cause”. To prevent wide net fishing that can be used just to turn up something to tie someone to a crime, guilty or not.
I'm actually as concerned with the moral implications of children of sperm donors. I'm not a sperm donor, it just seems wrong to open up doors that were never agreed to under the original terms of the sperm donor agreement.
And regarding using the technology to search for criminals - it's a classic slippery slope issue. Many of us are happy that a serial killer or other murderer/rapist was found using the technology, but already police have used it to find a burglar. I'm assuming that they'll use it for non-violent drug crimes next.