I had a comment from one of my regular visitors asking what I have against universal DNA sampling as opposed to restricting it to actual criminals. I toyed with a number of elegant and subtle arguments, but I believe that this sums it up best.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Let me first say: Woo!
I'm officially a regular reader! Hooray! Yah boo to you, eldias; did you ever inspire an article? :P
Anyway. I wasn't trying to push the idea of DNA testing, so I'm sorry if that how it came across; I was only questioning. Thank you for your understandable (if very slightly cliched) explanation.
Truthfully, I wouldn't trust this government to store and use the data with any degree of security or competence. Plus "Gattaca", etc.
(But I DO support taking the DNA of confirmed criminals. You committed a crime? Then you forfeited your right to complain.)
2 comments:
Let me first say: Woo!
I'm officially a regular reader! Hooray! Yah boo to you, eldias; did you ever inspire an article? :P
Anyway. I wasn't trying to push the idea of DNA testing, so I'm sorry if that how it came across; I was only questioning. Thank you for your understandable (if very slightly cliched) explanation.
Truthfully, I wouldn't trust this government to store and use the data with any degree of security or competence. Plus "Gattaca", etc.
(But I DO support taking the DNA of confirmed criminals. You committed a crime? Then you forfeited your right to complain.)
'Course I have!
*looks around shiftedly*
Anyhoo, some guy said "innocence before guilt"; I agree with him.
Post a Comment