http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection
Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest
By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone
arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to
prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the
privacy of innocent people.
Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to
collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have
been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab,
Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a
departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to
convicted felons.
Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties
questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information,
such as family ties and genetic conditions.
Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws
applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used
for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.
Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA
collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.
There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the
FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates
it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.
Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements would add
DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year.
Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling
could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from
committing more crimes.
A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been
prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.
"Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began
this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so
first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the
2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.
Thirteen states have similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store
DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn
McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Now innocent people’s DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database,
and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not
charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said.
If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the
Justice Department to destroy the sample.
The Homeland Security Department — the federal agency charged with
policing immigration — supports the new rule.
"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.
The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from
immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being
processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.
The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will
be followed by a 30-day comment period
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fp0f5n7urkmx002@news.east.cox.net…
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection
> Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest
> By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
> The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone
> arrested by a federal law enforcement agency – a move intended to
> prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the
> privacy of innocent people.
This sends up a huge Red Flag among the Big Brother Is Watching Crowd.
It’ll take longer, but there is nothing that prevents them from collecting
DNA at birth …
The proposed rule should also include getting adding the DNA of law
enforcement officers, as well. Funny thing is that cops don’t want their
DNA in the database. What’s good for the goose….
"Jeff" …
> The proposed rule should also include getting adding the DNA of law
> enforcement officers, as well. Funny thing is that cops don’t want their
> DNA in the database. What’s good for the goose….
OK, that’s bull, but I see no reason not to collect DNA on criminals.
Getting at birth? I think that’s a waste of money, but then if you’re a
victim of a murder, they can identify you, assuming the DNA wasn’t
destroyed.
Natalie
Wickeddoll® wrote:
> "Jeff" …
>> The proposed rule should also include getting adding the DNA of law
>> enforcement officers, as well. Funny thing is that cops don’t want their
>> DNA in the database. What’s good for the goose….
> OK, that’s bull, but I see no reason not to collect DNA on criminals.
To determine the criminals who were also party to other crimes.
> Getting at birth? I think that’s a waste of money, but then if you’re a
> victim of a murder, they can identify you, assuming the DNA wasn’t
> destroyed.
DNA evidence has identified murderers and rapists over 1000 times in New
York State alone.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/061206CrimeStats.html
And if you keep those guys (most are males) off the street, there will
be fewer rapes and murders.
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Natalie
I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their dna
taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has not been
convicted of a crime.
Fact is that it helps solve cases…
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fp0f5n7urkmx002@news.east.cox.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection
> Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest
> By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
> The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone
> arrested by a federal law enforcement agency – a move intended to
> prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the
> privacy of innocent people.
> Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to
> collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have
> been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab,
> Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a
> departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to
> convicted felons.
> Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties
> questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information,
> such as family ties and genetic conditions.
> Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws
> applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used
> for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.
> Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA
> collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.
> There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the
> FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates
> it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.
> Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements would add
> DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year.
> Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling
> could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from
> committing more crimes.
> A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been
> prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.
> "Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began
> this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so
> first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the
> 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.
> Thirteen states have similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas,
> Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
> Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
> The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store
> DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn
> McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
> "Now innocent people’s DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database,
> and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not
> charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said.
> If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the
> Justice Department to destroy the sample.
> The Homeland Security Department – the federal agency charged with
> policing immigration – supports the new rule.
> "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.
> The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from
> immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being
> processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.
> The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will
> be followed by a 30-day comment period
"Jeff" …
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Wickeddoll® wrote:
>>> The proposed rule should also include getting adding the DNA of law
>>> enforcement officers, as well. Funny thing is that cops don’t want their
>>> DNA in the database. What’s good for the goose….
>> OK, that’s bull, but I see no reason not to collect DNA on criminals.
> To determine the criminals who were also party to other crimes.
>> Getting at birth? I think that’s a waste of money, but then if you’re a
>> victim of a murder, they can identify you, assuming the DNA wasn’t
>> destroyed.
> DNA evidence has identified murderers and rapists over 1000 times in New
> York State alone.
> http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/061206CrimeStats.html
> And if you keep those guys (most are males) off the street, there will be
> fewer rapes and murders.
> Jeff
Um….I’m not the one who needs convincing. I think it’s a great idea. I
was saying that cops should have to be DNA’d too.
Natalie
If you’re not guilty of anything, you have nothing to worry about. This
excuse works for wiretaps, and suspension of certain constitutional rights,
so it’s also valid for all other intrusions.
1….2…..3……
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> If you’re not guilty of anything, you have nothing to worry about. This
> excuse works for wiretaps, and suspension of certain constitutional rights,
> so it’s also valid for all other intrusions.
> 1….2…..3……
Actually, that’s not true. Insurance companies would love to learn which
people are more likely to come down with Alzhiemer’s, cancer and other
diseases. Some of that info is also in the DNA database. There are other
questions about invasion of privacy.
There are some serious ethical issues.
These need to be dealt with, including criminal penalties for misuse of
private DNA data (in other words, the only use of the DNA database
collected for identifying people involved in crimes should be this and
other limited uses, like identifying the dead – if their DNA is recorded
in the database).
There are legitimate ethical concerns, but with proper regulation, these
ethical concerns can be properly managed.
Jeff
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iByNj.14584$gT3.11703@trndny02…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> If you’re not guilty of anything, you have nothing to worry about. This
>> excuse works for wiretaps, and suspension of certain constitutional
>> rights, so it’s also valid for all other intrusions.
>> 1….2…..3……
> Actually, that’s not true. Insurance companies would love to learn which
> people are more likely to come down with Alzhiemer’s, cancer and other
> diseases. Some of that info is also in the DNA database. There are other
> questions about invasion of privacy.
> There are some serious ethical issues.
> These need to be dealt with, including criminal penalties for misuse of
> private DNA data (in other words, the only use of the DNA database
> collected for identifying people involved in crimes should be this and
> other limited uses, like identifying the dead – if their DNA is recorded
> in the database).
> There are legitimate ethical concerns, but with proper regulation, these
> ethical concerns can be properly managed.
> Jeff
First of all, I was kidding. The "if you’re not guilty of anything"
horseshit is something the idiots here like to say when someone raises
legitimate concerns about illegal wiretaps and other constitutional
violations.
Stick around for a few minutes. Shmuckland or one of the other infants will
be along shortly to comment on this.
Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
> not been convicted of a crime.
Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
badgolferman wrote:
> Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
>> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
>> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
>> not been convicted of a crime.
> Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
Read the article. A felony.
>> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
> Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
> samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
> say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
> to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
The sample is taken only if the person is convicted.
Jeff
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fp1rlw97f776000@news.readfreenews.net…
> Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
>> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
>> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
>> not been convicted of a crime.
> Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
Most traffic crimes are infractions and a conviction would not lead to the
collection of DNA. A traffic crime that resulted in jail time waiting for an
arraignment would not lead to the collection of DNA unless there was a
conviction that resulted in a stint in jail.
I think the collection of DNA samples is a slippery slope …
>> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
> Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
> samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
> say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
> to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
Taking a DNA sample provides a means of linking a suspect to DNA gathered at
a crime scene. The collection of DNA is very much the same as the collection
of fingerprints. Finger prints get left at a crime scene and are matched to
the collection stored in the data base, and a suspect is culled from the
general population as a result. DNA sampes work the same way, they are
stored and compared to samples found at a crime scene.
If your daughter was raped, you would want the authorities to have a very
large database of DNA samples to compare the sample they get off of her.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0fp1rlw97f776000@news.readfreenews.net…
>> Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
>>> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
>>> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
>>> not been convicted of a crime.
>> Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
> Most traffic crimes are infractions and a conviction would not lead to
> the collection of DNA. A traffic crime that resulted in jail time
> waiting for an arraignment would not lead to the collection of DNA
> unless there was a conviction that resulted in a stint in jail.
> I think the collection of DNA samples is a slippery slope …
>>> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
>> Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
>> samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
>> say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
>> to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
> Taking a DNA sample provides a means of linking a suspect to DNA
> gathered at a crime scene. The collection of DNA is very much the same
> as the collection of fingerprints. Finger prints get left at a crime
> scene and are matched to the collection stored in the data base, and a
> suspect is culled from the general population as a result.
How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if
mine have been added to a database.
> DNA sampes
> work the same way, they are stored and compared to samples found at a
> crime scene.
Technically, neither fingerprints nor DNA samples are stored. Electronic
representations of fingerprints are stored as well as information from
DNA sequences. I am not sure exactly what is stored as DNA fingerprints.
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> If your daughter was raped, you would want the authorities to have a
> very large database of DNA samples to compare the sample they get off of
> her.
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9XQNj.5292$ob2.2134@trndny07…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0fp1rlw97f776000@news.readfreenews.net…
>>> Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
>>>> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
>>>> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
>>>> not been convicted of a crime.
>>> Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
>> Most traffic crimes are infractions and a conviction would not lead to
>> the collection of DNA. A traffic crime that resulted in jail time waiting
>> for an arraignment would not lead to the collection of DNA unless there
>> was a conviction that resulted in a stint in jail.
>> I think the collection of DNA samples is a slippery slope …
>>>> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
>>> Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
>>> samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
>>> say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
>>> to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
>> Taking a DNA sample provides a means of linking a suspect to DNA gathered
>> at a crime scene. The collection of DNA is very much the same as the
>> collection of fingerprints. Finger prints get left at a crime scene and
>> are matched to the collection stored in the data base, and a suspect is
>> culled from the general population as a result.
> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
One way is by getting processed into jail. In my state, they collect at
least a thumb print at the DMV. And whenn one applies for any number of jobs
requiring a state license (a real estate license, in my case) they collect
complete set of prints.
> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if mine
> have been added to a database.
Okay, I get it. I assume that if they bother to pull prints to check you,
they store the prints for future reference.
>> DNA sampes work the same way, they are stored and compared to samples
>> found at a crime scene.
> Technically, neither fingerprints nor DNA samples are stored. Electronic
> representations of fingerprints are stored as well as information from DNA
> sequences. I am not sure exactly what is stored as DNA fingerprints.
That is a exercise in splitting hairs. Prints are stored electronically and
compared to prints found at a crime scene. DNA strings are also stored
electronically, and compared to DNA found at a crime scene.
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9XQNj.5292$ob2.2134@trndny07…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0fp1rlw97f776000@news.readfreenews.net…
>>> Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
>>>> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
>>>> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
>>>> not been convicted of a crime.
>>> Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
>> Most traffic crimes are infractions and a conviction would not lead to
>> the collection of DNA. A traffic crime that resulted in jail time waiting
>> for an arraignment would not lead to the collection of DNA unless there
>> was a conviction that resulted in a stint in jail.
>> I think the collection of DNA samples is a slippery slope …
>>>> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
>>> Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
>>> samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
>>> say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
>>> to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
>> Taking a DNA sample provides a means of linking a suspect to DNA gathered
>> at a crime scene. The collection of DNA is very much the same as the
>> collection of fingerprints. Finger prints get left at a crime scene and
>> are matched to the collection stored in the data base, and a suspect is
>> culled from the general population as a result.
> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
One way: Teachers in NYS – within the last "x" years. (I don’t know what in
year the practice began, or in what other states it applies.) I wasn’t
fingerprinted in ’72 – that I remember – but all of my more recent student
teachers have been. And if one doesn’t sub within the first year of
retirement – to be grandfathered into the system – then need to be
fingerprinted in order to subsequently sub.
Cathy
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if mine
> have been added to a database.
>> DNA sampes work the same way, they are stored and compared to samples
>> found at a crime scene.
> Technically, neither fingerprints nor DNA samples are stored. Electronic
> representations of fingerprints are stored as well as information from DNA
> sequences. I am not sure exactly what is stored as DNA fingerprints.
> Jeff
>> If your daughter was raped, you would want the authorities to have a very
>> large database of DNA samples to compare the sample they get off of her.
"witfal" <nos…@all4.me> wrote in message
news:fu8md8$e8l$1@news.albasani.net…
> On 2008-04-17 16:20:37 -0700, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> said:
>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if mine
>> have been added to a database.
> Ever applied for a peace officer’s job? In the late 1970s I did. Though
> I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to be 20/40 or
> better so that did me in.
> But I have no doubt they’re still on file electronically somewhere.
I hold a California Real Estate license, and they took my prints when I
applied for the license.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "witfal" <nos…@all4.me> wrote in message
> news:fu8md8$e8l$1@news.albasani.net…
>> On 2008-04-17 16:20:37 -0700, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> said:
>>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
>>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if
>>> mine have been added to a database.
>> Ever applied for a peace officer’s job? In the late 1970s I did.
>> Though I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to be
>> 20/40 or better so that did me in.
>> But I have no doubt they’re still on file electronically somewhere.
> I hold a California Real Estate license, and they took my prints when I
> applied for the license.
I had my prints taken for mentoring, soccer and teaching. However, I
don’t believe that the prints were added to the databases, but only
checked against them and discarded.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Cathy F. wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9XQNj.5292$ob2.2134@trndny07…
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer…@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:xn0fp1rlw97f776000@news.readfreenews.net…
>>>> Don’t Taze Me, Bro!, 4/16/2008,10:02:10 PM, wrote:
>>>>> I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their
>>>>> dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has
>>>>> not been convicted of a crime.
>>>> Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?
>>> Most traffic crimes are infractions and a conviction would not lead to
>>> the collection of DNA. A traffic crime that resulted in jail time waiting
>>> for an arraignment would not lead to the collection of DNA unless there
>>> was a conviction that resulted in a stint in jail.
>>> I think the collection of DNA samples is a slippery slope …
>>>>> Fact is that it helps solve cases…
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide
>>>> samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would
>>>> say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids
>>>> to prove one’s guilt should not be the law.
>>> Taking a DNA sample provides a means of linking a suspect to DNA gathered
>>> at a crime scene. The collection of DNA is very much the same as the
>>> collection of fingerprints. Finger prints get left at a crime scene and
>>> are matched to the collection stored in the data base, and a suspect is
>>> culled from the general population as a result.
>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
> One way: Teachers in NYS – within the last "x" years. (I don’t know what in
> year the practice began, or in what other states it applies.) I wasn’t
> fingerprinted in ’72 – that I remember – but all of my more recent student
> teachers have been. And if one doesn’t sub within the first year of
> retirement – to be grandfathered into the system – then need to be
> fingerprinted in order to subsequently sub.
> Cathy
The fingerprints are retained by the state. However, that doesn’t mean
that they are added to the database.
So if you rob a bank and leave your prints behind, the police is still
out of luck, if they aren’t in a database.
In the New York, the law went into effect this century.
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if mine
>> have been added to a database.
>>> DNA sampes work the same way, they are stored and compared to samples
>>> found at a crime scene.
>> Technically, neither fingerprints nor DNA samples are stored. Electronic
>> representations of fingerprints are stored as well as information from DNA
>> sequences. I am not sure exactly what is stored as DNA fingerprints.
>> Jeff
>>> If your daughter was raped, you would want the authorities to have a very
>>> large database of DNA samples to compare the sample they get off of her.
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%rRNj.14655$gT3.6466@trndny02…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "witfal" <nos…@all4.me> wrote in message
>> news:fu8md8$e8l$1@news.albasani.net…
>>> On 2008-04-17 16:20:37 -0700, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> said:
>>>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
>>>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if
>>>> mine have been added to a database.
>>> Ever applied for a peace officer’s job? In the late 1970s I did.
>>> Though I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to be
>>> 20/40 or better so that did me in.
>>> But I have no doubt they’re still on file electronically somewhere.
>> I hold a California Real Estate license, and they took my prints when I
>> applied for the license.
> I had my prints taken for mentoring, soccer and teaching. However, I don’t
> believe that the prints were added to the databases, but only checked
> against them and discarded.
Reality check, Jeff.
They hold those prints. In my state, they use a service called Live Scan.
Live Scan IS the database. They not only checked your prints against those
stored in some unsolved cases, they keep them in case one of the people you
come into contact with is a victim where prints are left behind. Let’s say
for the sake of discussion that a kid is acosted in her home and prints are
left. Those prints are compared against the database (of which you are a
part, as am I).
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%rRNj.14655$gT3.6466@trndny02…
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> "witfal" <nos…@all4.me> wrote in message
>>> news:fu8md8$e8l$1@news.albasani.net…
>>>> On 2008-04-17 16:20:37 -0700, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> said:
>>>>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
>>>>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know
>>>>> if mine have been added to a database.
>>>> Ever applied for a peace officer’s job? In the late 1970s I did.
>>>> Though I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to be
>>>> 20/40 or better so that did me in.
>>>> But I have no doubt they’re still on file electronically somewhere.
>>> I hold a California Real Estate license, and they took my prints when
>>> I applied for the license.
>> I had my prints taken for mentoring, soccer and teaching. However, I
>> don’t believe that the prints were added to the databases, but only
>> checked against them and discarded.
> Reality check, Jeff.
> They hold those prints. In my state, they use a service called Live
> Scan. Live Scan IS the database. They not only checked your prints
> against those stored in some unsolved cases, they keep them in case one
> of the people you come into contact with is a victim where prints are
> left behind.
Actually, you’re wrong there. They use the fingerprint database to make
sure that I don’t have a criminal record. After, I could have been
convicted under the name John Smith and changed my name to Joe Blow
after that. Certain types of crime are excluded, like traffic violations.
The NY State law is very clear that they are used to verify that I don’t
have a criminal record as well as to transmit to the appropriate
educational authorities to have my license rescinded if there are
criminal charges against me.
In addition, the FBI destroys the fingerprints once the criminal
background check is done. The state maintains the fingerprints, but it
is unclear if it does anything with them or why it maintains them.
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/ospra/ospra100.htm
Live Scan is a software/hardware system for handling fingerprints, mug
shots and other data, but it is not the database.
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Let’s say for the sake of discussion that a kid is acosted
> in her home and prints are left. Those prints are compared against the
> database (of which you are a part, as am I).
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wZSNj.16103$vz2.5237@trndny05…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%rRNj.14655$gT3.6466@trndny02…
>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>> "witfal" <nos…@all4.me> wrote in message
>>>> news:fu8md8$e8l$1@news.albasani.net…
>>>>> On 2008-04-17 16:20:37 -0700, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> said:
>>>>>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
>>>>>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know if
>>>>>> mine have been added to a database.
>>>>> Ever applied for a peace officer’s job? In the late 1970s I did.
>>>>> Though I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to be
>>>>> 20/40 or better so that did me in.
>>>>> But I have no doubt they’re still on file electronically somewhere.
>>>> I hold a California Real Estate license, and they took my prints when I
>>>> applied for the license.
>>> I had my prints taken for mentoring, soccer and teaching. However, I
>>> don’t believe that the prints were added to the databases, but only
>>> checked against them and discarded.
>> Reality check, Jeff.
>> They hold those prints. In my state, they use a service called Live Scan.
>> Live Scan IS the database. They not only checked your prints against
>> those stored in some unsolved cases, they keep them in case one of the
>> people you come into contact with is a victim where prints are left
>> behind.
> Actually, you’re wrong there. They use the fingerprint database to make
> sure that I don’t have a criminal record. After, I could have been
> convicted under the name John Smith and changed my name to Joe Blow after
> that. Certain types of crime are excluded, like traffic violations.
I understand that. They also use the fingerprint database for crimes that
have not happend yet. I know what they use the prints for, and they would be
foolish if not outright stupid if they did not keep them.
I will go so far as to suggest that if they pulled your prints when they
gave you whatever license you got then tossed them after you pass muster,
then you commit some horrible crime that goes unsolved even though there is
a mountain of fingerprints (all of them yours) all over the crime scene and
it comes to light that you are the perp they have been looking for but there
were no prints on file even though you held a job that demanded prints be
pulled to get the job, that somebody will go after the state’s deep pockets
for the pain and suffering caused by years of living under an unsolved
criminal investigation.
> The NY State law is very clear that they are used to verify that I don’t
> have a criminal record as well as to transmit to the appropriate
> educational authorities to have my license rescinded if there are criminal
> charges against me.
> In addition, the FBI destroys the fingerprints once the criminal
> background check is done. The state maintains the fingerprints, but it is
> unclear if it does anything with them or why it maintains them.
> http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/ospra/ospra100.htm
> Live Scan is a software/hardware system for handling fingerprints, mug
> shots and other data, but it is not the database.
That’s a very very fine point you are putting on the pencil.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wZSNj.16103$vz2.5237@trndny05…
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%rRNj.14655$gT3.6466@trndny02…
>>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>> "witfal" <nos…@all4.me> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fu8md8$e8l$1@news.albasani.net…
>>>>>> On 2008-04-17 16:20:37 -0700, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> said:
>>>>>>> How does one get his fingerprints in the database?
>>>>>>> I know mine have been checked against databases, but I don’t know
>>>>>>> if mine have been added to a database.
>>>>>> Ever applied for a peace officer’s job? In the late 1970s I did.
>>>>>> Though I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to
>>>>>> be 20/40 or better so that did me in.
>>>>>> But I have no doubt they’re still on file electronically somewhere.
>>>>> I hold a California Real Estate license, and they took my prints
>>>>> when I applied for the license.
>>>> I had my prints taken for mentoring, soccer and teaching. However, I
>>>> don’t believe that the prints were added to the databases, but only
>>>> checked against them and discarded.
>>> Reality check, Jeff.
>>> They hold those prints. In my state, they use a service called Live
>>> Scan. Live Scan IS the database. They not only checked your prints
>>> against those stored in some unsolved cases, they keep them in case
>>> one of the people you come into contact with is a victim where prints
>>> are left behind.
>> Actually, you’re wrong there. They use the fingerprint database to
>> make sure that I don’t have a criminal record. After, I could have
>> been convicted under the name John Smith and changed my name to Joe
>> Blow after that. Certain types of crime are excluded, like traffic
>> violations.
> I understand that. They also use the fingerprint database for crimes
> that have not happend yet. I know what they use the prints for, and they
> would be foolish if not outright stupid if they did not keep them.
> I will go so far as to suggest that if they pulled your prints when they
> gave you whatever license you got then tossed them after you pass
> muster, then you commit some horrible crime that goes unsolved even
> though there is a mountain of fingerprints (all of them yours) all over
> the crime scene and it comes to light that you are the perp they have
> been looking for but there were no prints on file even though you held a
> job that demanded prints be pulled to get the job, that somebody will go
> after the state’s deep pockets for the pain and suffering caused by
> years of living under an unsolved criminal investigation.
They did just that after I was checked by my local township for soccer.
If I want to coach next year, I have to be fingerprinted again.
You’re making the assumption that the states or feds have the right to
put the prints into the database. However, they don’t. The NY state
website on certification clearly states that the FBI destroys the prints
after they have been checked and the nothing on the state’s website
suggests that the prints go into the database.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> The NY State law is very clear that they are used to verify that I
>> don’t have a criminal record as well as to transmit to the appropriate
>> educational authorities to have my license rescinded if there are
>> criminal charges against me.
>> In addition, the FBI destroys the fingerprints once the criminal
>> background check is done. The state maintains the fingerprints, but it
>> is unclear if it does anything with them or why it maintains them.
>> http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/ospra/ospra100.htm
>> Live Scan is a software/hardware system for handling fingerprints, mug
>> shots and other data, but it is not the database.
> That’s a very very fine point you are putting on the pencil.
Actually, not. There is a large difference between the database and the
hardware and software that is used to access a database.
I am merely pointing out both your knowledge and your ability to check
things out on the internet.
Jeff