Maybe I get something wrong here, but doesn't the phrasing "arrest" mean that youd DNA fingerprint is to be collected before you get an actual trial? I mean, if you're arrested and proven guilty - fine. But only a suspicion is way to little justification to do that.
While I'm not so concerned about SB's point about private enterprises getting DNA data, I'm really worried what the state chooses to do with them. Who could tell? I just wonder: If people are so worried all the time about the state's growing influence (like e.g. about healthcare plans etc.), they should really be opposed to an idea like that.
|