Please explain why these are poor arguments to rebut the claim, The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.
I think you're describing questions that, before DNA analysis, were explored through traditional police investigations all the same. It would be just as disruptive if a detective figured out that the suspect is the result of an affair through tracing birth certificates and interviewing doctors and nurses as by matching DNA samples.
Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument.
Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument.
That is actually a very safe assumption.
As articles like http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/ make clear, police already ARE creating DNA databases. And since there is little regulation around this right now, they are free to be creative in assembling them. For example you can get a good DNA sample from the straw used to blow into a breathalyzer. So get stopped at a routine traffic stop, your name, license plate, and DNA can go into a database. And voila, police can now match you and your relatives against crime scenes!
As technology improves and costs come down, incentives to match everyone to DNA tests will go up, not down. Heck, I remember as a child in Canada over 30 years ago having police come to my elementary school and taking everyone's fingerprints. I believe that the cause was so that if anyone went missing, they could identify us. But once that data is collected and goes into databases, it doesn't come out.
Heck, how many parents would give consent today for their 2nd graders to get a DNA test for that purpose?
Won't let me reply next-in-thread. I never said that what you describe wasn't possible, and I'm indeed aware of those instances you bring up. What I'm saying is that that is out of scope of this argument. EFF is talking about collection capabilities. Immediately jumping to the 1984 senarios hurt the overall grounding of the argument.
The point of a warrant is that a judge has decided that the needs of law enforcement override the right to privacy in this case. The point of the lawsuit is to set a precedent saying that the police cannot simply collect and analyze DNA without warrants.
Therefore if there is a demonstrable privacy issue to DNA collection and analysis, then requiring warrants is the accepted way in our legal system to balance the needs of law enforcement against people's right to privacy.
I think this is also a stretch. Fingerprint databases have existed for quite some time, and yet police are not required to get a warrant to check finger prints collected from a recovered weapon against that database, which can reveal quite a lot about the history of the person.
Fingerprints cannot tell you who a person is related to, or about their likely medical conditions. DNA can. (Though the limited set of markers used in police databases can't. But they also misuse those markers and overestimate the odds of a match. However that is a different and more complicated issue.)
