|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Aug 23, 2014 20:53:19 GMT
I have been watching Forensic Files and see that they often do DNA sweeps of friends/family/coworkers when looking to find perpetrators. After they rule those persons out, what do they do with the information? I was curious and figured if anyone knew, it would be the Peas. Does the DNA get entered into the database with known offenders? It seems like that would be wrong because they're not offenders, just nice people who gave a DNA sample to be eliminated as suspects. Do they just shred the information or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by whipea on Aug 23, 2014 22:01:53 GMT
Offender DNA profiles go into a system called CODIS, I forget what the acronym stands for. It is a national registry.
Good question about non-offenders, probably just destroyed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 10, 2024 10:28:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 22:05:14 GMT
I have NO idea but it wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't end up in a data base somewhere simply because it made it into a data base for the comparision. Data bases don't get deleted all that often, if ever. It is part of evidence and they aren't going to want to let go of evidence that may be useful in 5-10 years.
|
|
eastcoastpea
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,252
Jun 27, 2014 13:05:28 GMT
|
Post by eastcoastpea on Aug 23, 2014 22:07:32 GMT
That's a good question. Now you've got me wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonewalkabout on Aug 23, 2014 23:31:47 GMT
Reference DNA samples are destroyed. The only samples permitted to enter CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System) are those of perpetrators.
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090 
|
Post by scrapaddie on Aug 23, 2014 23:44:34 GMT
|
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on Aug 23, 2014 23:52:35 GMT
Things that make you say hmmm?
|
|
|
|
Post by keknj on Aug 24, 2014 0:22:55 GMT
I had no clue that they could keep your DNA samples if you weren't convicted. I guess I should have realized. I just thought they were destroyed automatically.
|
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Aug 24, 2014 0:36:23 GMT
Thanks for the replies. That link had some really interesting information scrapaddie! It really makes you think about how we need to be aware of how legal issues relate to our increases in forensic science/knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie-n-Harley on Aug 24, 2014 0:48:02 GMT
Thanks for the replies. That link had some really interesting information scrapaddie! It really makes you think about how we need to be aware of how legal issues relate to our increases in forensic science/knowledge. When I was a kindergartener, my parents had me fingerprinted. It was a public service offered by the police department in the event that a child was kidnapped. I don't know if they have been digitally filed or not, but as far as I know, they are on file somewhere even though I am not an offender. Retaining voluntarily given DNA samples doesn't strike me as a whole lot different than that. I'm far more concerned about drug companies who think they can patent DNA of other people without them knowing it. (I think that's since been ruled illegal, but still.) |
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Aug 24, 2014 0:57:11 GMT
When I was a kindergartener, my parents had me fingerprinted. It was a public service offered by the police department in the event that a child was kidnapped. I don't know if they have been digitally filed or not, but as far as I know, they are on file somewhere even though I am not an offender. Retaining voluntarily given DNA samples doesn't strike me as a whole lot different than that. I'm far more concerned about drug companies who think they can patent DNA of other people without them knowing it. (I think that's since been ruled illegal, but still.) I've been fingerprinted a bunch of times for employment checks and which has placed me in both the state and FBI fingerprint banks. Other than identify me as a person, there isn't much that can be done with that information so that doesn't bother me overly much. The difference that bothers me about the DNA samples is the potential for using biological information against the donors. The example that is often given is cases where they use DNA to determine risk and rates for medical policies. The link provided earlier in the thread discusses cases of discrimination based on genetics, which I find to be potentially frightening. Drug companies do all kinds of things that concern me. Even if that's been ruled illegal, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that they are still out there doing things that are ethically questionable with DNA simply because they can. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 24, 2014 0:59:35 GMT
Reference DNA samples are destroyed. The only samples permitted to enter CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System) are those of perpetrators. I just somehow don't believe this. Maybe I need a tin foil hat. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 24, 2014 1:00:11 GMT
I had no clue that they could keep your DNA samples if you weren't convicted. I guess I should have realized. I just thought they were destroyed automatically. Guess I should have read further.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 10, 2024 10:28:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 2:59:29 GMT
I really don't buy into [most] conspiracy theories, but along the same lines as voluntary DNA testing in criminal cases....... I think that the Ancestry.com DNA database either has a backdoor built into it for the government or it's been tapped without their knowledge (you know, like the other NSA eavesdropping). That's just too tempting a database, I think.
|
|
