🚀 go-pugleaf

"Calgary Rob" <calgaryrobnospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:M1NS9.243651$Qr.6989645@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Andrew" <andrewnospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:NyAS9.239873$Qr.6883558@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Why should my government know more about me than my family, friends,
> church
> > leader and doctor combined? The possibility of misuse of this
information
> is
> > extremely dangerous. Lets face it. We can't even trust the government to
> > register a gopher gun (or even a soldering gun) properly. Why would I
> trust
> > them with my DNA?
>
> And how is it dangerous?  I have asked this repeatedly, and not a person
has
> explained how it is dangerous for the government to have a DNA database.
>

Here's why I think a DNA registry would be dangerous:

1.) To create a DNA registry the government would have to make substantial
changes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The effect would be to reduce
the freedoms of all Canadians to facilitate the safety of a relative few.

2.) A DNA registry could easily be copromised. Information is the registry
could be used to harm the very people it is meant to help. Your ethnic
background, health, predispostion to disease, sex, etc can all be determined
using this registry. Currently the government has no access to this
information (save for what they can record in a census). This information
has no value to the government in its effort to help you live a safer life
but it can be used to disqualify you.

3.) Look at the current situation with smokers being refused heart
transplants etc. from doctors. It is not a big leap to use your DNA info to
the same end. "No sir, we cannot give you that heart transplant you need to
survive past the next six months. Our records show that your body is
predisposed to cancer and our computer algorithm tells us you will likely
die within 8 years. Using the current goverment cost/benefit guidelines this
disqualifies you from any medical treatment costing more than $10 000."

4.) The possibility that in the future employers, insurance companies, and
other groups can have access to this info is quite likely. They can already
inquire about your police records, why not your DNA? Would it be fair to
give the upper hand to insurance companies et al allowing them only to
accept people based on this information?

5.) A DNA registry today may not be the same animal 10, 20 or 50 years from
now. Our government is famous for asking for a dime and taking the whole
damn piggy bank. The gun registry is an easy example. Once they have access
to something and the basic laws have been written they obviously have no
compulsion to follow their own rules.

I often think of Hitler when people mention a DNA registry. The registry
would have been the coupe de grace for Hitler's campaign to create the
superior human race. This is a worst case scenario but outlines precisely
how your DNA could be used against you by your own government. Remember that
most of the people Hitler killed in his quest were citizens of his own
country. Hitler used characteristics such as head size, eye and hair colour,
sex, age, and general health to determine his ultimate human. If he had DNA
to work with the results could have easily been much more horrific and been
accomplished much easier. Think it will never happen? So did millions of
Jews. Remember that Jews were only the first item on his list to get rid of.
Similar actions continue to this day in many countries around the world.

Terrorism is the threat du jour. Our government has a long history of
losing, misusing or realeasing (by accident or not) sensitive information.
Think of the consequences if terrorists gained access to a DNA registry.
What could they accomplish? I don't know but it definately would not make
our lives safer.

Lastly. Since I have taken the time to outline why I feel a DNA registry is
too risky for the perceived benefit, would you please tell me how many
Canadian lives you think will be saved and at what cost. Think deep and
consider the possible consequences then compare them to the number of
unsolved crimes. Something to consider while you do the calculations; many
(most?) crimes, especially violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
Violent criminals are repeatedly released into the general public only to
commit the same crimes time and time again. This would continue even with a
DNA registry. Kill someone? You're caught the next day. You spend 7 years in
jail. You are released and kill again. 15 years this time. The another
murder, maybe 30 years in the tank this time. You'll get out just in time to
kill a guest at your retirement party. Even though you were caught
immediately after each crime you still killed many people. I propose that
instead of a DNA registry, much stiffer mandatory sentences be applied,
especially for violent crimes. I am quite confident that this would have a
far more profound effect on our safety than any registry could hope to
achieve. Remeber, they register pedophiles but they somehow commit the same
crimes time and time again.

Looking forward to your response,
Andrew