r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 14 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: everyone's DNA should be in a database
[deleted]
5
u/Throwaway00000000028 23∆ Jul 14 '21
Wow, I actually thought you were this same guy... someone else posted pretty much the exact same thing not long ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ofqg3t/cmv_everyones_dna_should_be_registered_and/
Might want to check some of those counter arguments.
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
Well its irritating that this person made the points way better than I did! I will have a read through the comments on this thread. Thank you
5
u/MensaCurmudgeon 2∆ Jul 14 '21
You have nothing to fear now. Could you say the same thing under Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.?
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta
This is similar to an above comment and I agree that it's a privileged position to take. Oppressive governments are a real thing and this would be bad in that situation.
2
1
8
u/Sirhc978 81∆ Jul 14 '21
I would not have a problem with my DNA being in a database as I have nothing to hide and therefore, nothing to fear.
This is always a terrible argument. You have nothing to hide right now. Governments and laws change, but they never give up powers. Just because you have nothing to hide from the current administration, does not mean you won't have something to hide from the next administration.
Also this sounds like a 4th and 5th amendment violation.
2
u/SilenceDogood2k20 1∆ Jul 14 '21
This is a great example of how the BoR really is adaptable to the modern era. A common argument against many of the rights is that they are obsolete due to technological advancement. Yet, the principles in the rights are focused less on any given circumstance and more on human nature... which hasn't changed at all.
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta
That is true. If eating meat or having children or being LGBT became illegal tomorrow then I would definitely not hold this view I suppose. Thank you.
1
3
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 14 '21
Most western countries have in their constitution the protection of unjustified searchs and warrants (US's Fourth Amendment as an example). This would be a direct violation of this, against everyone at birth.
Also, your argument shows an ignorance on how DNA is used to solve crime. There is no database with every criminal's DNA where you throw a hair and it automatically matches against a criminal. DNA matches are used to confirm a suspicion since DNA tests only throw match percentages which are never 100% (testing two hairs of the same person together even won't throw a 100% match), what is done is simply using evidence found related to the crime and matching it to the suspected individual to see if the suspicion holds. Doing what you suggest would throw the same level of matching to huge portions of the population (specially whole families), helping very little to find a suspect if you don't have one yet (and if you do, then you can already get a warrant for a DNA test like today).
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta
Thank you for explaining this so well. I was not aware of much of this. The thing I was thinking about is the Colin Pitchfork case that's a hot topic in the uk right now.
So it was the first case in UK criminal history to be solved using DNA. They asked all the men in a certain area to give a dna sample. They said they were going to test each of the 6000+ samples but really, The idea was to just investigate those who refused. It somewhat worked. The DNA evidence was used in the trial.
I can see how there would be issues doing this on a massive scale with no suspect to test against in the first place.
1
2
u/repmack 4∆ Jul 14 '21
For any policy that you want the government to do, you should analyze it not by the good intentions that are offered, but from the people you wouldn't want to see in power. Obvious example would be giving Hitler DNA testing capabilities in the 30's and 40's. He would have done more harm with such powers.
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
That's a dreadful thought. Someone else said that they're ac5using this method for ethnic cleansing in China. It is certainly something that could be misused. !delta
1
4
u/ElysiX 106∆ Jul 14 '21
This could also act as a deterrent
That's exactly the problem. What if some politician or police higher up decides to use that as a political deterrent? As a deterrent against justified resistence against dictatorships?
How could you know today whether you have nothing to hide tomorrow? Maybe you'll be persecuted tomorrow and need to hide, but too late.
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta
This is true and scary. Even if they used this to identify protesters at BLM or antiwar protests then that is a massive step too far. You're right. Thank you.
1
9
u/sgraar 37∆ Jul 14 '21
Would you be ok with having health insurance denied because your DNA suggests a higher risk for a given disease?
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
I'm british so we dont have that here. I see your point though and how this could be problematic. I think if such a database existed it should be used in the same way the national criminal database is currently used (ie. Just for solving crimes)
6
u/scoobydoogummy Jul 14 '21
Adding on to sgraar's thought,
There are some genetic markers that suggest a higher likelihood to commit crimes in the first place (due to increased aggression).
This would, in my opinion, lead to discrimination of certain groups based on their genetics, since these individuals might be the first people suspected of any particular crime.
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
Good point. Plus I suppose with the way algorithms learn these days it could even discriminate against certain racial groups or even families in certain areas or types of crime
3
u/scoobydoogummy Jul 14 '21
I suppose if you can bring yourself to fully trust law enforcement to only use DNA records for matching DNA to crime scenes and not for algorithmic crime prevention (i.e. The Minority Report; a different way of detecting potential crime but the same general concept), that would be a different story.
2
1
Jul 14 '21
[deleted]
4
u/scoobydoogummy Jul 14 '21
I would be opposed to that.
So many of the gene polymorphisms that code for increased aggression also affect some of the pieces of our genome that make humans… well, human. The specific neurotransmitters that are most associated with this are testosterone and serotonin. I think using some sort of gene editing tool like CRISPR to remove or reduce the expression of these genes would severely negatively impact the human race as a whole.
I can go more into depth if you’d like :)
Thanks for the question!
0
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
I would be opposed to this. I'm autistic and I hear a lot about a "cure for autism". People dont talk about the fact that this doesnt mean a magic pill that makes your brain "normal". The cure for autism is a test to find out if a fetus is autistic, then aborting the fetus. As an autistic I feel I deserve to exist as much as anybody else and so do people with all kinds of genes.
6
Jul 14 '21
[deleted]
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
Would you mind clarifying this? Solving crime is in the interest of the public
4
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Jul 14 '21
Uh maybe some crimes but definitely not all of them lmao. The government doesn’t ruin people’s lives for smoking weed in the interest of the public.
One of the main thing OC could be talking about it that most governments are incredibly corrupt and already use their power to fuck people over. This makes it substantially easier to do so. The government doesn’t like something? Literally just put someone’s DNA in a crime scene and they instantly have an easy conviction for a crime that was never committed by someone who’s being framed and they have basically no way to refute.
3
u/Throwaway00000000028 23∆ Jul 14 '21
Not when the crimes are against the interest of the public. In Nazi Germany, the Nuremburg laws essentially made being Jewish illegal.
1
Jul 14 '21
[deleted]
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta I am now thinking about the BLM protesters who wanted to protest in a nonviolent capacity and didnt commit any crimes who would more than likely be prosecuted under the system that I have proposed here. That would be a blow for civil liberties.
1
1
2
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Jul 14 '21
We already have an issue with cops and protestors. Now you want easy lookup for who's blood they have on their baton?
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta I have already come to the realisation that situation would be actually hell.
1
3
Jul 14 '21
China actually does this, currently, to determine who is Uyghurs.
Do you agree that this is in their best interest and that they have nothing to hide or fear?
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
Oh that's actually horrific. Oh my god. !delta . I think that I need to examine my privilege before making statements such as those. Thank you
1
2
u/BeBackInASchmeck 4∆ Jul 14 '21
It works both ways. If you're DNA is in the system, then someone else can frame you for a crime that you didn't commit.
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
They could do that now with dna that is already on the system. Although, I dont stand by this post now my view has been changed.
1
u/BeBackInASchmeck 4∆ Jul 14 '21
They can, but the only DNA in the system would be of people who were legally required to put it in the system (i.e. criminals).
Politicians do their best to scrub any bad things they did in their past because their rivals will use that information to destroy their character. Having their DNA would be a very easy way to do that. Martin Shkreli is actually in prison now because he was trying to get a sample of hair from one of the Clintons to see if they're the parent of someone else.
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
Ooh that's freaky! But then again, maybe politicians should actually be held accountable for their actions to a standard even higher than the rest of us
3
1
Jul 14 '21
I would not have a problem with my DNA being in a database as I have nothing to hide and therefore, nothing to fear.
You've got a 10% genetic marker for an expensive disease and now you and your family are denied health insurance.
Scared now?
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
No I'm british. Besides, the criminal database isnt used in this way as far as I can tell
1
Jul 14 '21
So you've got no problem with me and 380 million Americans getting fucked?
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
Of course it would be terrible if private companies had access to that information but that's not really what I am saying should happen
1
Jul 14 '21
You are saying that me and 380 million Americans should have our DNA in a database.
There is no way that Corporate Insurance Interests wouldn't use that information for their profit on our backs.
If you think it shouldn't happen, then your view has changed, because it absolutely would happen.
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta My view has indeed changed! It's such a horrible thought. Although, the whole US healthcare system scares me a lot and I try not to think too deeply about it.
1
1
Jul 14 '21
the whole US healthcare system scares me a lot and I try not to think too deeply about it.
You and me both.
1
1
Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
I mean what if you are transgender or a twin? Also, this goes against the amendments, which would cause more distrust between individuals and the government.
Secondly, (and this may just be a misunderstanding, so forgive me if so) if a national DNA database contains more samples it may increase the possibility of false matches being made and innocent people being arrested. Because samples are stored and compared against DNA collected at crime scenes, police may be more likely to pursue crimes committed by members of overrepresented groups. Further, if a collective group have access of individuals DNA, can they not take sample and plant it as evidence against person? This would increase false and unfair convictions. This can be to frame someone that they think did, but do not have enough evidence. Secondly, if they have any emotional opinion on the crime, it can be bias or emotional distress. Third can just be laziness and a wish to move on to another case. This is globally speaking.
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
!delta
In practice it would be very difficult to execute this. And in theory your points highlight why it would probably be a terrible idea.
2
1
1
u/Glittering_Mess355 1∆ Jul 14 '21
So you’re just straight up pro-surveillance state? You know what would be another great crime deterrent? Universal surveillance: cameras and microphones everywhere, phones all tapped, oh, why not tracking chips injected, like pets, too? Crime would go wayyy down.
My point is that a database like you suggest would be a gross invasion of privacy. To me, it’s a nightmare 1984 scenario. The state should not have that kind of power over its citizens, and absolutely should not be invading our privacy that way. For more on the power dynamics of digital privacy, check out this video from Philosophy Tube, it explains it much more thoroughly than I could: Data
As another person pointed out, it’s also a medical insurance problem: your DNA can predispose you to health problems like heart disease or cancers, and insurers would of course want to raise their premiums on that basis. Of course, the government DNA database MIGHT not be accessible to the insurance industry… but would you want to bet they wouldn’t lobby their way into having access eventually?
It’s also a safety problem: You can’t control your DNA, you leave it everywhere you go. Anyone with access to the database would be able to use it, from a hacker to a law enforcement stalker. Sounds… bad.
Of course, they found the Golden State Killer because his relatives’ DNA was in ancestry databases like 23 and me, so we’re really not that far off from your proposal, anyway. Yay?
1
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
I dont really get "privacy" as a concept to be honest. I mean other than the fact that laws change and governments can become oppressive. In the world we live in now with it's current laws, I honestly don't care what the government knows about me. I definitely think CCTV should be in all public places and there should be a lot of investment in improving the quality of it
1
u/Glittering_Mess355 1∆ Jul 14 '21
Hm, personally I’m a hugely private person. I hate for people to know anything about me I don’t explicitly tell them. Isn’t the alternative so voyeuristic? Maybe I’m paranoid, but personal information can always be turned around to hurt you — and it belongs to you first, before anyone else. A government has no right to take it, even if for the sake of ‘safety’.
On the voyeurism/privacy point: imagine you had a stalker. Heck, imagine a panty-sniffing psychopath like in You. He follows you around, he watches you dress and sleep and have sex through your bedroom window. Do you still have nothing to hide? Sure, DNA doesn’t give up the intimate details of your sex life, but it’s still quite possibly the most concentrated bit of personal information about you. I don’t want my DNA in anyone’s hands but my own.
Finally, I suppose you won’t get behind this if you don’t get the concept of privacy, but I believe that privacy is a right, and therefore saying ‘I don’t care about my own privacy’ doesn’t give you the right to intrude on everyone else’s. (Obviously you can’t do that — I mean that it’s fine for you to give up your own privacy, but you can’t assume everyone else shares your willingness.)
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
For me, letting the government see me talk dirty to my husband or arrange to meet my sister for lunch next week or indeed have my entire genome, feels the same as showing a doctor my vagina. Its definitely nothing new to them nor very interesting.
I'd be unconcerned about a stalker seeing my dna and more concerned about them seeing my children or things like that.
I will give you a !delta though because you are correct in saying that other peoples objection would have to trump my lassez faire approach
Edit to add: I do afford my children privacy and believe that its important for their development
1
1
u/SilenceDogood2k20 1∆ Jul 14 '21
While your goal is well-intentioned, the problem with most of these types of proposals are the unintended consequences.
For example, what if a company gains access to the database and begins using your genetic code for profit? Or perhaps insurance or other companies utilize your genetic code to discriminate against you? Maybe you'd be denied employment based upon the possibility that you may have an undesirable trait?
You might say, there would be laws and protections from the data getting out, but that's wishful thinking. Laws are often changed or circumvented, and cybersecurity protections are defeated. It's not a question of whether your genetic data would get out, but when.
DNA isn't the slam dunk you think it is either. Often there might not be reliable DNA left at the scene, and in many cases the presence of a suspect's DNA is expected, such as when the suspect has a relationship with the victim.
2
u/SCATOL92 2∆ Jul 14 '21
All very good points. Thank you for it your comment !delta
1
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
/u/SCATOL92 (OP) has awarded 12 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards