Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the get-away-from-me-with-that-crap dept.

Biotech 562

schwit1 sends this news from the Washington Times: "Pennsylvania police this week were pulling people to the side of the road, quizzing them on their driving habits, and asking if they'd like to provide a cheek swap or a blood sample — the latest in a federally contracted operation that's touted as making roads safer. The same operation took place last month at a community in Texas. Then, drivers were randomly told to pull off the road into a parking lot, where white-coated researchers asked if they'd like to provide DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol at given times. With uniformed police in the background, the researchers also offered the motorists money — up to $50 or so — for the blood or saliva samples."

cancel ×

562 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um.... (5, Funny)

Traze (1167415) | about 9 months ago | (#45729107)

What?

Who'd really buy into that?

"Here, take my biological information. You want to use it to create an army of biologically superior clones? That's nice. Oh, $50? Even better!"

Re:Um.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729197)

Tons of people. People are taught to always listen to cops. Lately I'm more scared of the police than any criminal. Police can ruin your life and easily kill you without repercussions. Cops are trained to always maintain control of the situation no matter how minor or petty. That is why so many people are tazed, beaten, or outright murdered when they tell cops they are wrong or the cops are doing illegal things.

Re:Um.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729241)

The thing is, the people who have something to hide because they're drunk or stoned behind the wheel are exactly the same people who won't buy into it. So, the statistics gathering will be highly skewed. Researchers probably know this because it's obvious, and it's likely just a cover story.

Re:Um.... (4, Insightful)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 9 months ago | (#45729353)

They aren't the same people. I wouldn't buy into it, and I've never been stoned, and am almost a non-drinker. I would just find getting pulled over and being asked for a cheek swab to be a bizarre and highly intrusive request.

Re:Um.... (5, Insightful)

Khashishi (775369) | about 9 months ago | (#45729379)

Right. Either the test is voluntary, and suffers from selection bias, or it is involuntary, and is draconian.

Re:Um.... (1)

crypticedge (1335931) | about 9 months ago | (#45729539)

I'd refuse, and I don't drive drunk or stoned. The government already has my DNA from my time in the military, but it sure as hell doesn't mean I'm giving it to some podunk cops who abuse their power at every turn.

Re:Um.... (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 9 months ago | (#45729295)

See the sig.

Re:Um.... (5, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45729365)

Yes, there's a few bad cops out there, and a fair number of them have been caught, exposed, and turned into headlines.

...but I'm still way, way, more scared of actual bad guys.

The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.

Re:Um.... (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 9 months ago | (#45729487)

That's true of individual policemen / women. Whether it applies to the political and financial designs of the 'Police Department' (and associated governmental agencies) is another thing entirely.

Re:Um.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729489)

Except for those in Texas or Penn. anyway.

Re:Um.... (5, Insightful)

pegr (46683) | about 9 months ago | (#45729527)

"The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public."

Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.

Re:Um.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729545)

But you can defend yourself from a "bad guy" with violence. If you use violence to defend yourself from a "bad cop" who is illegally applying force, you get a body bag and some drugs planted on your corpse. I saw a recent show on police training, and it looked more psychologically damaging than military basic training. Drill sergeants screaming opposing commands and berating the trainees for everything. The training camp in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is tame by comparison. "NO!"

Re:Um.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729547)

The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.

If you really believe this you are either willfully ignorant or a child,

Re:Um.... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729583)

I'm not particularly afraid of the police or bad guys. People like you, that grant the police their powers are the real danger.

"People are taught to always listen to cops." (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729565)

I sure don't teach Them to do that. Every defense Lawyer, Prosecutor, and police Officer I have ever spoken with has consistently told Me the same thing: if the Police say They want to talk with You, You give one answer, "Not without My Attorney's approval."

Re:Um.... (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 9 months ago | (#45729217)

"Who'd really buy into that? "

According to the news story I read, a lot of people in Texas "bought" that, because they were under the impression they had no choice. One woman, in an interview, said she was intimidated by the police questions and thought she had to comply.

That news story (apologies, I don't have a link) also claimed that their breath was being sampled by an experimental "non contact" breathalyzer device without being notified in advance and without their consent.

Parent not making it up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729293)

I saw that article too - it was a Fark link a while back.

Re:Um.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729449)

That Texas story is linked here on this page, scroll under story title

Re:Um.... (2)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 9 months ago | (#45729219)

Your average person, that's who, For the safeties and For the childrens.
The best part? That was YOUR $50 they gave away. Suckit, taxpayer!

Re:Um.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729407)

Your average person, that's who, For the safeties and For the childrens.
The best part? That was YOUR $50 they gave away. Suckit, taxpayer!

Not *my* $50. I'm a taker, not a maker anymore. There are millions and millions of us now. But yeah, suckit, taxpayers!

Remember (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729237)

It's the Obama Administration doing this.

Re:Remember (2)

crypticedge (1335931) | about 9 months ago | (#45729589)

Remember: It's only being done in red states by state police.

Re:Um.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729267)

The fact that the average person walking down the street can't name even one Supreme Court Justice, but will gladly trample over someone during a Black Friday sale shows me that selling out for a pittance is the new norm.

What eventually happens to all houses of cards?

Re:Um.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729593)

Most people will do anything that a perceived authority tells them to. A lab coat and a clipboard is often adequate to get people to comply with unusual requests, a lab coat, clipboard and an armed police officer looking over your shoulder will probably get compliance on very nearly anything.

three responses (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | about 9 months ago | (#45729119)

Am I being detained?

Am I free to go?

No, I do not consent to any search.

Re:three responses (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729233)

Am I being detained?

Am I free to go?

No, I do not consent to any search.

It should really be:
you're all under arrest for inappropriate police action and fraud.

Re:three responses (5, Insightful)

Khashishi (775369) | about 9 months ago | (#45729403)

Queue the "stop resisting" while they beat you to a pulp.

Re:three responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729265)

Am I being detained?

Am I free to go?

No, I do not consent to any search.

                   

Re:three responses (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 9 months ago | (#45729273)

"No, I do not consent to any search."

Insufficient.

According to news reports of the stops in Texas, peoples' breath was being sampled by officer-worn "non contact" breathalyzers before they were notified and without consent.

A surreptitious search is still a search. There SHOULD BE lawsuits over this.

Re:three responses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729499)

Next you'll say that officer testimony that "I smelled alcohol on his breath" should be inadmissible in court.

Personally, I think that agreeing to this type of "surreptitious search" should be a requirement for renewing your drivers' license.

Re:three responses (1, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45729561)

It's a shame that such nonsense can't be confined to idiots such as yourself. It would be nice if your stupidity only had consequences for you personally. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Someone else will suffer for your stupidity.

Re:three responses (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 9 months ago | (#45729585)

Next you'll say that officer testimony that "I smelled alcohol on his breath" should be inadmissible in court.

I suggest you don't try to predict what I'll say, because most of the time you'll be wrong.

I do think it should be admissible in court. I do NOT, however, think it should be accepted as gospel. It's just one person's word against another, and it matters not one damned bit if that other person is a police officer. They make notoriously bad witnesses.

"Personally, I think that agreeing to this type of "surreptitious search" should be a requirement for renewing your drivers' license."

You are entitled to your opinion. I do not share it, for a number of very good reasons.

Among those reasons is that breathalyzers do not accurately reflect blood alcohol. If you just had one drink and are leaving the bar, it's going to set the thing off. There is VAST potential for abuse here.

Re:three responses (3, Interesting)

pegr (46683) | about 9 months ago | (#45729557)

Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?

Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.

Re:three responses (3, Insightful)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 9 months ago | (#45729289)

"Am I being detained?"

yes...we are conducting an investigation.

"Am I free to go?"

no...not until the investigation is complete

"No, I do not consent to any search."

Fine...the dogs will be showing up momentarily.

Re:three responses (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729397)

Let the dogs come. Search without probable cause is illegal, and simply denying consent does not constitute probable cause.

ACLU is likely warming up the cannons over this one already. Still, it comes back to knowing your rights and standing up for them. Cops will intimidate, that's what they do. They are held to standards of legality, not decency. Just because they're scary doesn't mean you have to consent to shit, but once you do they can legally do many things they'd otherwise be prevented from.

Know. Your. Rights.

Re:three responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729523)

Let the dogs come. Search without probable cause is illegal, and simply denying consent does not constitute probable cause.

ACLU is likely warming up the cannons over this one already. Still, it comes back to knowing your rights and standing up for them. Cops will intimidate, that's what they do. They are held to standards of legality, not decency. Just because they're scary doesn't mean you have to consent to shit, but once you do they can legally do many things they'd otherwise be prevented from.

Know. Your. Rights.

True on all accounts; however, the dogs aren't just trained to find illegal substances but also to provide the same reason on command. This allows the cops to get the probable cause just about anytime they want.

Re:three responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729569)

That's all OK. If you aren't free to leave, you are under arrest by definition. That cop had better have probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion or a jury is going to aware you his boat and his house soon enough.

Re:three responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729415)

I want to know what the hell pretext the people were pulled over for in the first place.

WTF (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729125)

What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?

Re:WTF (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729167)

About as much as Freedom & Peace had to do with the Iraq War.

Re:WTF (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 9 months ago | (#45729261)

If you have the gene for alcoholism? Think of the children this will save!

Re:WTF (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 9 months ago | (#45729281)

What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?

Anybody stupid enough to give them the sample must be drunk or high.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729381)

Anybody stupid enough to give them the sample must be drunk or high.

Sheeple will be sheeple.
No doubt this is a part of the training.
Tune in for more at 6 and 10!

Re:WTF (1)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#45729473)

This question deserves many mod points. Even if one was ok with the idea of this kind of pressured research, this piece doesn't really fit.

This really has to stop (5, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45729133)

I don't think pulling people over for research is a reasonable use of police power. Actual enforcement, maybe, but not for research.

Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?

Re:This really has to stop (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 9 months ago | (#45729191)

I suspect Toll Booth operators are spit at enough already.

Re:This really has to stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729363)

I will be happy to give them a urine sample... on their face.

Re:This really has to stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729389)

I suggest you do that. It will be an educational experience for everybody, and you apparently have a burning need for that.

Re:This really has to stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729555)

Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?

Doofus! They might never have thought of that if it wasn't for you!

;o)

Who wouldn't trust the National Science Academy? (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 9 months ago | (#45729143)

Come on, of course it's just for study. Why else would the National Science Academy form the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge? What, to get DNA linked to drivers licenses? Of course not! The National Science Academy already has all of that information.

This is just a benign, voluntary research campaign. So please, listen to the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge and just hand over your DNA. We would also appreciate a few ovums from a selection of healthy, attractive ladies aged 18-25. For research purposes of course!

Not taking DNA, allegedly (4, Informative)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | about 9 months ago | (#45729223)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been doing these "studies" for a while. Here's some details on the 'pilot study': http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS810704/pages/ExecSummary.html [nhtsa.gov]

http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63 [pire.org]

They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.

More information and links to past examples of these "studies":

http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/ [politechbot.com]

Re:Not taking DNA, allegedly (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45729307)

And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs.

Sounds like the claims of another government agency whose acronym also contains an N, S, and A.

Of course, those guys are liars, but surely we can trust these guys. Right?

Re:Not taking DNA, allegedly (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 9 months ago | (#45729385)

We only need to know one thing:

They abused their power and position in the community to forcibly detain motorists under false pretenses .

There is only ONE instance in which an officer can use a marked vehicle (never stop for unmarked ones) with their lights and/or sirens to pull a citizen over. The officer either witnessed a crime or has reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed.

Yes, using the lights and/or sirens is forcible detainment. It's not like you have a choice do you?

It falls under the same bullshit of a fishing expedition. The cop pulls you over just to look inside the windows and fuck with you. Asks a bunch of questions trying to trip you up, to obtain a legal reason for detaining you in the first place when all they had was a hunch .

We don't need any further accuracy into their actions. Absolutely nothing justifies that initial act of forcible detainment.

The state should lose a couple million dollars in nice fat settlements to everyone pulled over. It's the only way they ever learn.

Re:Who wouldn't trust the National Science Academy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729285)

Please be sure to call it National Academy of Science. Honesty and transparency are highly important. People may get confused otherwise.

Re:Who wouldn't trust the National Science Academy (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 9 months ago | (#45729505)

You PRICK !

Oh hope I get inot one of these. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729155)

Reading Police Chief William Hein said ...Moreover, he claimed police only served as security and weren’t actually pulling drivers to the side or asking questions.

Then I'd drive away.

Ticket me? Arrest me?

Hein is an asshole.

And this (2)

The_Star_Child (2660919) | about 9 months ago | (#45729159)

is how it starts.

Re:And this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729173)

and we are paying for it too! They would be better off just swabbing glasses in any bar... plenty of DNA...

Re:And this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729195)

But, DNA in bars doesn't necessarily mean it belongs to drivers. They need some sort of fake cover story after all.

America needs tighter regulations (2)

Daniel Oom (2826737) | about 9 months ago | (#45729467)

What is the maximum percentage of DNA in your blood where you are still legally drive a car?

Re:And this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729501)

More to the point, it's not personally identifiable.

Re:And this (4, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 9 months ago | (#45729333)

You want some depressing shit?
Read this for a while:
http://fear.org/ [fear.org]
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?

Re:And this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729567)

Next up: Wannsee Conference

What's to believe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729175)

I can't imagine how the "official story" would yield usable statistics for very obvious reasons. The drunks/stoners who refuse aren't stupid, but then again, they don't have to be too bright to see right through this.

Mulder and Scully aren't buying it (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 9 months ago | (#45729183)

Hell, even Scully's looking at this thinking "they're frakin up to no good".

that is why the cops are there ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729193)

to make sure everyone understands that it is voluntary.

50 bucks is 50 bucks (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 9 months ago | (#45729199)

just sayin

Re:50 bucks is 50 bucks (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45729329)

just sayin

Sayin what? That your soul isn't even worth a Benjamin?

Re:50 bucks is 50 bucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729441)

I'll grant you that.

This administration (1, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about 9 months ago | (#45729205)

Obama administration is getting uglier by the day.

Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (4, Interesting)

Rone (46994) | about 9 months ago | (#45729209)

If uniformed police officers are pulling you off the road in marked cars with flashing lights, your participation is hardly voluntary.

What happens if you decline to answer the questions of the men in white coats a little too firmly? Well, an officer with badge and gun is right there to show you the error of your ways!

I'm amazed the local chapter of the ACLU is merely "watching the operation closely" (per the article).

Re:Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (4, Interesting)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 9 months ago | (#45729239)

I'd really like to hear from someone who was pulled over and refused to participate. If that was they end of it and they were allowed to drive away, it's still an abuse of power to have police stopping people to ask them to participate in a research study, but it's less bad than coercing people into participating.

Re:Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (4, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 9 months ago | (#45729421)

Just having an officer present is coercion enough. Perhaps they think they have plausible deniability since they are calling it "optional".

Who the fuck... (4, Insightful)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 9 months ago | (#45729211)

... approved this study?

Pretty much all studies involving human subjects in the U.S. have to be approved by a review board for compliance with ethical and safety standards. This study is an obvious fail in multiple respects, and I can't imagine a reputable review board approving such a thing. And if it wasn't reviewed, the study participants^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H victims of the study probably have standing to sue.

Re:Who the fuck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729373)

There is no study - at least not of the nature of the official story. Given how skewed and useless the results of such a study would be, it's reasonable to conclude that it's just a cover story for extremely stupid people.

Re:Who the fuck... (2)

usuallylost (2468686) | about 9 months ago | (#45729401)

US Government has a history of simply ignoring the rules it enforces for everyone else. I mean in the last century the have infected people with diseases, exposed them to radiation, dosed them with illegal drugs and exposed them to chemical weapons. Very frequently without the participants knowledge or consent. Sad truth is no matter what they say you really have no idea what is being tested. The scary thing about their past tests is that in more than one case they have actually caused people serious illness, injury or death. They created the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) as part of trying to prevent this sort of thing. Still when it comes down to it you really have no assurance of what the heck they are testing or even that it won't harm you. For all we know they aren't really gathering any DNA or drug data at all here and the experiment is to see what percentage of drivers can be brow beaten into submitting vs. how many will stick to their guns and refuse.

Next (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729227)

Next course of action after everyone has their DNA on record will be implanting chips in everyone.
Of course only the guilty need worry about this, we must of course consider the children, make them safe oh and catch terrorists.

America, land of the free....ROTFLMAO.

Re:Next (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729515)

What, you don't yet have a chip in you like the rest of us?

Seriously? (1)

spacefight (577141) | about 9 months ago | (#45729229)

What is this? The endgame?

Not DNA... (1)

itwasgreektome (785639) | about 9 months ago | (#45729245)

"if they'd like to provide DNA samples" You can't detect drugs in DNA, but you can detect drugs and DNA from blood and cheek swabs. Misworded. Now people are all neurotic about their DNA being obtained when it's the content of alchohol and drugs in their system they're checking.

Re:Not DNA... (1)

Uncle Warthog (311922) | about 9 months ago | (#45729465)

Now people are all neurotic about their DNA being obtained when it's the content of alchohol and drugs in their system they're checking.

And you're certain that's all that's being checked how, precisely?

Re:Not DNA... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45729509)

"if they'd like to provide DNA samples"

You can't detect drugs in DNA, but you can detect drugs and DNA from blood and cheek swabs. Misworded. Now people are all neurotic about their DNA being obtained when it's the content of alchohol and drugs in their system they're checking.

Yea, sure, because as we all know, the federal government has never, ever, lied, misrepresented, changed tack post facto, etc. Nope. Never.

Just ask a Native American [nrcprograms.org]

if a roadside "survey".... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729247)

needed police "security" presence...

Moreover, he claimed police only served as security and werenâ(TM)t actually pulling drivers to the side or asking questions.

perhaps the survey was overstepping legal authority just a tad, hmmmmm? why else would their presence be needed, if not to intimidate people into compliance?

knock it off, already.

It was not completely voluntary according to some (4, Interesting)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 9 months ago | (#45729311)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/20/texas-cops-force-drivers-off-the-road-to-give-dna-to-federal-contractors/ [rawstory.com]

This is one of those things where LE thinks how easy their job would be and how much more effective they could be if they had everyone's DNA on file and people of course worry about anyone having that kind of power.

We're not Norway (unfortunately by my lights) people. If we dont' trust each other with this level of information,maybe that's because we know each other and we therefore ought to listen to ourselves.

Sure all knowledge and power and everything could *could* be used just totally for good and never for evil. And? And? And your argument is?

Pretending that a corrosive kind of corruption isn't being enabled with these kinds of god-level knowledge of what everyone does, is, thinks, where they go and who they talk to- pretending that this doesn't enable evil (as well as good) or that the evil is just SO unlikely, is just stupid and quite frankly anyone trying to pass themselves off as incensed that I should worry about this , or to paint me as WAAAAY out there, is not even naive in my view, but most likely a manipulative liar.

We know ourselves. We grew up here , went to elementary school here, got our first jobs here and we've seen what we've seen and know what we know about ourselves. Thus the popular resistance to such measures. .

I'm mad (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729319)

They offered $50 for my DNA and arrested me when I whipped it out and started masturbating. I want my $50, dammit.

PB is not just for sandwiches anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729349)

"asking if they'd like to provide a cheek swap or a blood sample "

Sometimes the difference between a B and a P are important, such as in "Pritish Betroleum"

Be afraid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729355)

Cops are not your friends, they are not on your side, they are not there to help you, they don't give a FUCK about you.

They are nothing but the countrys largest and best armed gang anymore.

Even if you've never done anything wrong. Ever. (impossible) They can still destroy your life and your future on a whim. And often do.
And will never face punishment for doing so.

Fear them. Be afraid of any interaction with them. It's a gamble with your life, your familys life, your future.

In this example if they are offering $50 (of your own money, TAXPAYER money) for your DNA. They are going to get alot more than $50 worth of value out of it.
Somehow.

Maybe not today, Maybe not tomorrow. But they will profit somehow. And you.. You're nothing. You're just a datapoint. A criminal datapoint.
To be used as they see fit anytime they want.

Re:Be afraid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729551)

agreed completely. Police are people, they have families and medical bills and everything else. So guess what: they will do whatever they have to, to keep their paycheck. Even if that means violating your rights, you. End of the day, standing up for what is right, standing up against government over reaching, will not feed their kids.

with my handy home dna test (preban of course) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729377)

as a result the civil servants & i could spend less time trouble & money all at once. makes sharing easier?

free the innocent stem cells. they haven't harmed anyone either

KNOCK !! KNOCK !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729395)

Who is there ??

Your government !!

My governmenty who ??

(BAM !!) (POW !!) (SPLAT !!)

$50 for saliva? Where do I sign up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729409)

It's free money yo!

Somebody is lying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729445)

Many people are claiming they are being pulled over by the police. The article states Reading Police Chief William Hein claims police only serve as security and weren’t actually pulling drivers to the side or asking questions.

Somebody is very obviously lying here and I don't think it is the people claiming to have been pulled over.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/penn-police-pull-people-over-random-dna-tests-feds/

What's the problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729481)

If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. They're doing this to make us safer and fight terrorism. We should all be on board with this.

Seriously... what's wrong with you paranoid freaks?

Even the ACLU is wrong on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729511)

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is watching the operation closely, claiming such checkpoints are only constitutional if theyâ(TM)re aimed at protecting the safety of the public"

NO NO NO NO NO!

They are only constitutional if there is REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION that the INDIVIDUAL being stopped WAS/IS/OR IS ABOUT TO BE involved in criminal activity.

How could the ACLU get it THIS wrong?

heh (2)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45729517)

Maybe they're just trying to find where "stupid" is in DNA. Anyone that blindly and for no reason provides "the authorities" with their DNA are the sheep that "the authorities" are looking for. And then they spice that gene into an army of zombie-people that they're making in a lab somewhere, to replace the population that stands in their way.

Seriously though, what we need to know is: Who started this idea/concept, and how do we get them out of their position of authority? Hell India is all up in arms over the recent treatment of an Indian woman by US authorities. [thehindu.com] Why can't we do something similar here?

$50 (4, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 9 months ago | (#45729521)

$50 is a lot more to a lot of people than you think. If you have a secure job or a lot of money it may seem like surrendering your privacy for nothing important. But for some people that means a chance to eat more than beans and rice this month, a phone card that could land them a job, or a 5 month overdue oil change.

Perspective is important.

Definition of voluntary (5, Insightful)

tatman (1076111) | about 9 months ago | (#45729525)

Voluntary is having a sign "$50 for a cheek swab, next right". Involuntary is police directing you to testing area. Period.

No. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45729531)

I refuse to be molested in such a way, thank you. Why?

Because fuck you , that's why.

Sheeple testing (5, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 9 months ago | (#45729535)

This isn't about DNA or road safety it is a test to see how much shit people will take from their government and what additional compliance can be purchased with money.

National Roadside Survey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45729575)

So was there a huge fuss thrown over this in 2007, when the NHTSA performed (presumably) the same tests for their National Roadside Survey?
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Research+&+Evaluation/2007+National+Roadside+Survey+of+Alcohol+and+Drug+Use+by+Drivers

That's not to say that the police should be allowed to intimidate drivers, but I think jumping to Police State They're Doing Something Bad With My DNA is a little unnecessary.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>