Here's the background to the story. In the late 1980s states started getting the idea that DNA collection of convicts would be a good idea. By 2000, all 50 states had some kind of DNA collection program in place, though not most were limited to certain catagories of convicts. Regarding the constitutionality of DNA collection, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts was fairly representative: "the high government interest in a particularly reliable form of identification outweighs the minimal intrusion of a pinprick." Landry v. Attorney General, 429 Mass. 336 (1999).

During the 1990s, however, various law enforcement officials, state governments, and the Justice Department got the idea that DNA collection of people who are merely arrested, rather than convicted would be a good idea. In poking around for news articles on the development of federal DNA collection, I ran across this N.Y. Times piece by the now infamous Jayson Blair from August 1999. In it he writes:

The leadership of a worldwide association of police agencies has called for collecting DNA samples from all crime suspects as soon as they are arrested.

Later in the piece, he mentions:

The resolution urges the Federal Government to create a national DNA database based on samples collected at the time of arrest, a concept that the Justice Department is studying.

That last bolded bit refers to the work of Attorney General Janet Reno, who convened the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence and proposed expanding the FBI's existing DNA database, created under the 1994 DNA Identification Act, to include samples taken from everyone arrested in the United States. See Matthew Brelis, Missing evidence;In pursuit of crooks, DNA counts, Boston Globe, March 14, 1999, at C1.

Even as law enforcement agencies called for the change, privacy advocates noted that the collection of arrestee DNA is enormously intrusive, despite the courts' characterization of it as "just a pinprick." See e.g. Robyn E. Blumner, Hand over your driver's license and your DNA, St. Petersburg Times, March 14, 1999, at 4D; Ted Bunker, One small step for privacy, Boston Herald, April 5, 1999, at 29; Ioannis C. Gatsiounis, DNA data bases fight crime at the expense of privacy, Denver Post, June 4, 1998, at B-11.

Janet Reno's proposal was taken seriously and the present expansion is the result.

If such a database is allowed to come into existence it will not be long after that employers, insurance companies, health care organizations, etc., will be permitted to use the database as a means to deny employment, life insurance, professional licensing, and health insurance based upon the genetic factors identified by the government and maintained by them with no opportunity for anyone to review, correct, or assure the accuracy of the DNA-typing done.

This isn't "Big Brother" and just surveilling you; despicable enough.

This is playing "god" and can be used to deny you of any/all aspects and benefits of a civilized society.

since very single medical lab in the world is already full of people's DNA samples, it's hard for me to think this would constitute any kind of legitimate sea-change.

Yes and everyones computer is full of juicy stuff that the government would love to have on file, just in case they need it. That doesn't mean that they have a right to it.

If such a database is allowed to come into existence it will not be long after that employers, insurance companies, health care organizations, etc., will be permitted to use the database [in various patently undesirable ways.]

The same argument was made against the collection of information by DMVs. In fact, state DMVs were selling personal information to various businesses as a form of revenue. Congress stepped in with the Drivers Privacy Protection Act in 1994 and stopped the practice. Why does Bill think that Congress cannot do the same for this information? And why does he not think that the Privacy Act of 1974 (which prohibits federal disclosure of personal information) wouldn't apply to DNA collections?

The real problem with Bill's argument is that it rests on an increasing list of improbable events. First, we have to believe that Congress will amend or repeal the Privacy Act to allow the selling of the collected information. That's very farfetched.

Then we have to believe that in the face of all the social harms he listed, Congress (not to mention the states) will take no action to protect us. Again, that's extremely unlikely.

Finally we have to believe that Congress will enact a law that lets the government "deal with" certain groups of people. I assume "deal with" means imprison or euthanize. Again, what modern Congress would possibly do that?

However, the most obvious reason that Bill's argument is a bad one is pointed out by Abdul. These types of databases already exist and we haven't seen the types of social harms that Bill is predicting.

Look, I'm willing to be convinced that DNA collection is a bad thing, but just saying "Privacy, duh!" isn't very persuasive. Neither is the creation of farfetched doomsday scenarios. So far, Abdul has the best pro-collection argument: it's just an extension of current criminal techniques. Roy has the best pro-privacy argument: it's a bodily intrusion.

"...Neither is the creation of farfetched doomsday scenarios...."

When something has been done by people who can affect your life forever, it is hardly a "farfetched doomsday scenario", but something that EXISTS NOW, not some future date.

They didn't get away with it on this occasion, but when the government orders this done and kept secret, tell me how an ordinary citizen has any chance whatever to even determine if they tested the right person, tested the right DNA, and be guaranteed no data entry errors or abuses will ever take place.