Tag Archives: DNA

‘Pesky Critters’ and the Oklahoma Drone Summit 2013

UAS summit

Kaye Beach

**Update June 11, 2013

“Most recently in March 2013 Oklahoma was host to a UAS Summit in Norman,
OK which provided a platform for the state to describe its plans and
objectives with respect to UAS. The Summit covered a diverse set of
subjects and topics including the use of UAS for agriculture, advanced
weather monitoring and research, along with law enforcement and military
applications of UAS technology” Link

March 26, 2012

The 2013 Oklahoma Unmanned Aerial Systems Summit was held today in Norman. http://www.uasoklahoma.com/agenda2.pdf

I would have loved to attended this event but the attendance conditions were quite intimidating even if I had of found out about it in time.  I did scout about for information on social media where often tech events are heavily covered, without much luck.  Monitoring twitter proved disappointing.  Strange since the Summit included a ‘social media’ meeting last night.  Actually, I found just one person that was attending the event that was using twitter.  Courtney E Howard, the Editor in Chief – Avionics Intelligence.  You can read her tweets on the event here

This tweet of Howard’s I thought was rather funny;

People do say things [about #UAVs] that are ridiculous & they say it loudly.–Professor of Political Science at University of Oklahoma (OU)

She is quoting one of the last panelists in the line up today who were covering Privacy and Social Implications of drones.  This panel was chaired by Prof. Stephan Henderson

I wonder what ridiculous things people say loudly about the drones?  One of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard about drones actually comes from one of today’s speakers at the Oklahoma Unmanned Aerial Systems Summit.  His name is Kirk Kloeppel and he was slated to speak on the Department of Homeland Security’s RAPS program that Oklahoma was chosen as the test site for back in June of 2012.  RAPS stands for Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety.

First reports from the RAPS trials being run in our state struck me as pretty ridiculous since the press release from the Governors office studiously avoided mention of the rather obvious role that the police would play in the DHS’s RAPS program.

Governor Mary Fallin Joins Department of Homeland Security, Oklahoma National Guard to Announce New Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program in Oklahoma

Gov. Fallin assures the public that ‘drones for use by the military or police investigations will not be tested at the Oklahoma site.’

Source: NewsOK, June 29, 2012, Oklahoma chosen as test site for drones http://newsok.com/oklahoma-chosen-as-test-site-for-drones/article/3688386

Here is an excerpt from a reporters observation of the very first trials of RAPS;

FORT SILL — The small, winged drone quietly soared overhead as SWAT team members closed in on a building at Fort Sill.

When a suspect sprinted from the structure, the drone banked through a cloudless afternoon sky in an effort to track the person.

A few miles away, two Lockheed Martin technicians sat in a converted bedroom of a ranch-style house using a laptop computer to control the drone’s movements. They followed the action on a video relay.

NewsOK, Dec. 31, 2012 Wary eyes shift to the skies as unmanned aircraft are tested in state

So the RAPS program itself might strike some as being at least mildly ridiculous but what Kirk Kloeppel is best know for, his ‘Pesky Critters’ would almost certainly strike most as utterly ridiculous.

robofly

Pesky Critters was written by Kloeppel in 2005.  Here is a brief excerpt from the paper;

“The hunter-killer pursues specific individuals and eliminates them. These devices have the unique deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) signature for individual leadership in their memory and examine the environment for a match. Once the proper candidate is isolated, the fly inserts a probe into the victim, injecting a toxic substance or altering the victim’s own genetic material with a virulent composition, causing quick incapacitation. The victim notices the “sting” from the robot but considers it a pest and thinks nothing of the consequences.

A day or two would pass before the targeted leader is not a further factor in the warfighting. These miniscule vehicles offer a unique, stealthy cap ability for a government. From the exterior, the robots appear to be common houseflies. They mimic the performance of the housefly in nearly every aspect except for the internal composition. Their innocuous existence offers implementers military advantages. While the development of a hunter-killer weapon may breach legal boundaries, its potential is illustrative of the possible alternative applications, many of which, such as the intelligence and surveillance approaches, are perfectly legal.

The above scenario may seem implausible—something dreamed within the mind of a science fiction writer—but the capabilities are closer to reality than one might imagine. The design, manufacture, and use of an unmanned aerial vehicle the size of a common housefly is feasible and worth exploring.”

Read 34 more pages of ridiculousness here

Or check out some more recent work by Colonel Kirk Kloeppel;

Air Force scientists are looking for robotic bombs that look — and act — like swarms of bugs and birds. In a recent presentation, Colonel Kirk Kloeppel, head of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s munitions directorate, announced the Lab’s interest in “bio-inspired munitions.”

These, “small, autonomous” machines would “provide close-in [surveillance] information, in addition to killing intended targets,” the Colonel noted.  And they’d not only take out foes in urban canyons – the self-guided munitions would “operat[e] within buildings,” too.

Jan. 1, 2008 Wired, Air Force: Bug-Like Robo-Bombs for Indoor Ops

Or this Kloeppel presentation from 2009

Here is the most ridiculous thing of all about the drone explosion that has been actively courted and developed by Gov. Fallin with our tax dollars; not one thing has been done to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of the people she was elected to serve.

In fact, it was the direct intervention of Gov. Fallin and Stephen McKeever, her Secretary of Science and Technology, that killed the fairly narrowly tailored legislation that would have simply prohibited the police from doing targeted surveillance of individuals and equipping them with weapons.

This is what I call ridiculous!

Mary Fallin puts an end to Oklahoma’s drone privacy bill

Oklahoma Action Alert! SB618 DNA Collection Before Conviction

dna prison

Kaye Beach

March 6, 2012

SB618 by Sen. Clark Jolley and Rep. Leslie Osborn will be heard as early as today tomorrow in the OK Senate.

SB618 would require mandatory collection of your DNA following arrest for felony and even some misdemeanor offenses. 

If there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is connected to other crimes, law enforcement can get a warrant for the sample.  Collecting and databanking of DNA on arrestees as a matter of course and not upon any particular suspicion of a connection to a specific crime, negates the principle of innocent until proven guilty which is the cornerstone of our justice system.

The original mandate of DNA databases – to record genetic markers from convicted offenders, on the dual theories that convicts are;

1) likely to reoffend

And

2) their diminished expectation of privacy legitimizes the search.

The expansion of circumstances from which DNA can be collected, analyzed and indexed to people arrested but not convicted of a crime goes well beyond the purpose and intent of creating a criminal DNA database

Please Contact your Senator and ask them to please VOTE NO! on SB618.

e-mail block.  Use bcc and send out one e-mail;
aldridge@oksenate.gov, allen@oksenate.gov, anderson@oksenate.gov, ballenger@oksenate.gov, barrington@oksenate.gov, bass@oksenate.gov, bingman@oksenate.gov, boggs@oksenate.gov, branan@oksenate.gov, brecheen@oksenate.gov, brinkley@oksenate.gov, brooks@oksenate.gov, brownb@oksenate.gov, burrage@oksenate.gov, coates@oksenate.gov, crain@oksenate.gov, dahm@oksenate.gov, david@oksenate.gov, ellis@oksenate.gov, efields@oksenate.gov, fordj@oksenate.gov, garrisone@oksenate.gov, griffin@oksenate.gov, halligan@oksenate.gov, holt@oksenate.gov, ivester@oksenate.gov, johnsonc@oksenate.gov, johnsonr@oksenate.gov, jolley@oksenate.gov, justice@oksenate.gov, loveless@oksenate.gov, marlatt@oksenate.gov, mazzei@oksenate.gov, mcaffrey@oksenate.gov, newberry@oksenate.gov, paddack@oksenate.gov, schulz@oksenate.gov, sharp@oksenate.gov, shaw@oksenate.gov, shortey@oksenate.gov, shumate@oksenate.gov, simpson@oksenate.gov, sparks@oksenate.gov, standridge@oksenate.gov, stanislawski@oksenate.gov, lewis@oksenate.gov, treat@oksenate.gov, wyrick@oksenate.gov,

Senate Members http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=0

Here is the letter I wrote to the Senators;

Dear Senator,

Our DNA contains our most private information.

SB618 would require mandatory collection of your DNA following arrest for felony and even some misdemeanor offenses. Our Constitution guarantees your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Taking DNA prior to conviction is a warrantless search.   If there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is connected to other crimes, law enforcement can get a warrant for the sample.

One of those *misdemeanor offenses that SB618 would require a DNA sample for is for urinating in public (outraging public decency) It ought to be a banner opportunity for bolstering the *CODIS system with DNA samples from harmless Oklahoma college kids.  And that is exactly the purpose of SB618-to populate the CODIS database in the hopes of raising the number of hits on unsolved crimes.

*The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a software system that  allows for state, local and federal authorities to share DNA profile information.

*See page 26 SB618 for a complete listing of offenses that will require DNA sampling and inclusion into the CODIS database.

Right now the Supreme Court is debating a case (Maryland v. King, 12-207) that may overturn as many as 29 state and federal laws that allow the collection of DNA samples when a person is arrested.  The Court’s decision on this case will be rendered in June of this year.

The original mandate of DNA databases – to record genetic markers from convicted offenders, on the dual theories that convicts are;

1) likely to reoffend

And

2) their diminished expectation of privacy legitimizes the search.

The expansion of circumstances from which DNA can be collected, analyzed and indexed to people arrested but not convicted of a crime goes well beyond the purpose and intent of creating a criminal DNA database

Whether or not collecting DNA samples from arrestees is an effective way to solve crimes is a moot point.  The ends do not justify the means.

On this point Supreme Court Justice Scalia agrees;

“I’ll bet you if you conducted a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you’d get more convictions, too,” Scalia said. “That proves absolutely nothing.”

Source: Bloomberg, February 26, 2013, DNA Collection Questioned as Court Weighs Privacy Rights http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/dna-collection-questioned-as-court-weighs-privacy-rights.html

This bill should receive a NO vote on its lack of constitutional merit alone.

But if that isn’t enough for you, there is more to consider. Once we cross the threshold of DNA collection prior to conviction and without a warrant what is next?

I will let Greggory LaBerge, Director, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Denver Police Department tell you exactly where we are heading.

“I’ll give a brief talk on forensic genetics of DNA database expansion, and specifically the CODIS database as it sits today, and where we think it will go in the future.

. . . We talk in the near term about how this database can be expanded. . . .There are states also looking at all arrestees legislation. . .”

Source: GENETICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY “A PERFECT MATCH? DNA IN LAW ENFORCEMENT” http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/GenePOPSforensics_transcript.pdf

SB618 is a critical step towards mass DNA databasing of non-criminal
citizens and  DNA familial searches.  Eventually the ‘vision’ is DNA samples for roadside traffic stops, and merging our property records and financial profiles, workand medical history files, demographic data along with other biometric data including DNA.

The ultimate goal is a universal database of DNA profiles thatcan be used to predict our propensity for criminal behavior before any crime is committed.

Don’t believe me?   Believe Director LaBerge.

Source: The Forensic Genetics of DNA Database Expansion http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/LaBerge-National_Press_Club_07.pdf

LaBerge lays out law enforcements vision for the CODIS DNA database;

Near Term DNA database Expansion (slide 8)

  • All convicted felons-current
  • All felony arrestees-currently expanding
  • All arrestees
  • Some misdemeanors

He lists the following near term desired uses of the CODIS DNA databases in the United States (slide 19)

  • Familial DNA searches
  • All military personnel DNA collected (now) and run (later) and searched against national CODIS as condition of enlisting
  • DNA databases based on privilege like DNA from teachers, driving, government and law enforcement jobs etc.

And eventually- (slide 21)

Relational databanks-biometric data merged with:

– DNA,

– fingerprints,

– photos,

– vehicle registrations,

– facial and body index/structure characteristics,

– Accurate ethnicity, race prediction

– demographic data,

– work and medical history,

– financial profiles,

– behavior modeling

– Criminal history,

By 2022 LaBerge predicts (slide 22);

laberge outer limits 1

  • Rare allele databases that relate genotype to geographical data
  • Predictive databases for crime propensity
  • Integrated police forensic intelligence databanks
  • Medical condition databases and DNA markers that characterize conditions-Research database access?
  • Roadside DNA profiling at every police stop
  • Universal databases

Read more Envisioning the future of the CODIS DNA database final

SB618 is moving us closer to this dystopic future.  Forced DNA testing should stop with people convicted of crimes.

Please vote NO on this unconstitutional and inhumane bill!

We Need a Human Bar Code

Kaye Beach

June 27, 2012

Really we don’t need a human barcode but the arguments entertaining or even in favoring such a thing are becoming more and more common.  The campaign is being cranked up.

This article asks the question, ‘ Is a human barcode on the way?’  Noting that it is already technologically feasible (which, of course, means we will do it) the author moves on to the next question; will it violate our privacy?

That is the wrong question.

Here are some better ones;

Just because we can do something does that mean we should? 

Would the use of such technology, in addition to destroying our privacy, also destroy our humanity?

Is a ‘human barcode’ on the way?

MEGHAN NEAL
Friday, June 01, 2012

Would you barcode your baby? Microchip implants have become standard practice for our pets, but have been a tougher sell when it comes to the idea of putting them in people. Science fiction author Elizabeth Moon last week rekindled the debate on whether it’s a good idea to “barcode” infants at birth in an interview on a BBC radio program. “I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached — a barcode if you will — an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals,” she said on The Forum, a weekly show that features “a global thinking” discussing a “radical, inspiring or controversial idea” for 60 seconds

Moon believes the tools most commonly used for surveillance and identification — like video cameras and DNA testing — are slow, costly and often ineffective.

In her opinion, human barcoding would save a lot of time and money.

The proposal isn’t too far-fetched – it is already technically possible to “barcode” a human – but does it violate our rights to privacy?

Read more

 

The idea of treating human beings like inventory is a popular and pervasive one for control freaks and slave fetishists alike.  And the author of the above article wasn’t being over the top in mentioning attaching some kind of ID to infants at birth.  That is exactly how it would work because in order to be certain that the person and the identity are correctly matched is to cement the ID to the individual at the moment of birth.  At some point we will be told that such a system is necessary for life in this modern world.  When that time comes technology corporations are ready.

Here is one example.

http://www.humanbarcode.com/

High Tech Gizmos and Gadgetry Yet No Increase in Clearance Rates for Major Crimes

Kaye Beach

April 13, 2012

Interesting article from Steven Spingola, former Milwaukee homicide detective.

Old School Sleuths Weigh-In on Most Current Crop of Detectives

March 31, 2012

. . .Without a doubt, today’s investigators are armed with a wide range of technologies that, just 15-year-ago, were fodder for science fiction novels. Within a matter of minutes, operatives at federally subsidized ‘intelligence fusion’ centers can create a dossier on 98 percent of adult Americans, track the movements of those with cellular devices in real time, use infrared cameras to literally unmask hold-up men, and identify individuals captured on CCTV cameras through facial recognition software. These cameras are literally everywhere—mounted at the top of traffic control poles at busy intersections, on the roof tops of buildings, and inside of many private sector businesses. Advances in DNA technology enable law enforcement to easily include or exclude potential suspects from complicated crime scenes.

Author Miles Kinard profiles a vast array of new law enforcement technologies in his recently released magazine exposé, American Stasi: Fusion Centers and Domestic Spying.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Stasi-Centers-Domesitc-ebook/dp/B006YZQFL8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333205606&sr=8-1

Yet many old school cops argue that these technological advances have done little to increase clearance rates for major crimes.

For example, consider the homicide clearance rate in Milwaukee County.  From 1990 – 1999, prior to the significant advances in DNA testing and the construction of post-9/11 intelligence fusion centers, 84 percent of Milwaukee County homicides were counted as cleared.  However, from 2000 – 2008, Milwaukee County’s homicide clearance rate fell to 72 percent, even as the average number of homicides declined almost 22 percent. [1]

In Dane County, which typically averages fewer than ten homicides a year, the clearance rate from 2000 – 2008 was down four percent from where it was from 1980 – 1999, even though the number of sworn law enforcement officers has significantly increased.[2]

Read more

The FBI is Aggressively Building Biometric Database, International in Scope

fbi ngi

Kaye Beach

Dec. 26, 2011

FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI)

According to the FBI it is official FBI policy to collect “as much biometric data as possible within information technology systems” and to “work aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.” link

“We need to recognize the change that is occurring in society, Society is taking away the privilege of anonymity.”  – Morris Hymes, Head of the ID Assurance Directorate at the Defense Department.

With the FBI’s continuance of their Next Generation Identification project, the United States is rushing headlong into Mr. Hymes’ vision.

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S.334 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=514&invol=334), 357 (1995)

Biometrics is enables mass surveillance systems to become unbearably intimate.

“As we learn to link biometrics to biographic, geospatial, social networks and other forms of data, we can develop patterns of activities for both individuals and organizations resulting in tactical and strategic situational awareness and intelligence advantage.”

Biometric Enabled Intelligence- The New Frontier in Biometrics by Kimberly Del Greco, 2009 Biometrics Consortium Conference.

Mrs. Del Greco initiated two high profile, multi-million dollar development efforts: “Next Generation Identification” (NGI), which will expand biometric and criminal history capabilities; and “Biometric Interoperability”, which will ensure information sharing between the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other key biometric-based systems within the Federal Government and international partners. more

FBI Next Generation ID overview ppt

Facts about NGI

-In 2008 Lockheed Martin won a 1 billion dollar contract for the NGI.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aU8dsjtMXgdo

-NGI will be fully operational in 2014

-This database is international in scope.  Biometrics collected by government officials from is already done so using international standards for the purpose of international sharing.

-The FBI will share data with more than 18,000 local, state, federal, and international agencies. link

-State DMV databases are one of the desired sources of biometrics for the FBI.

FBI Facial Recognition Initiatives

-The database is NOT being built from the biometrics of just criminals or legitimate suspects.  The NGI consolidates two existing databases of biometric information (one from the FBI and one from the Dept. Of Homeland Security) both of which were designed to be independent of each other and not interoperable. The FBI database, IAFIS, being merged with NGI, contains biometric data obtained from civil sources such as attorney bar applications, federal and state employees, and from people who work with children or the elderly so perfectly innocent if not model citizens also are included in the mix.   link

Link

-The FBI intends to supplement the biometric data is already has access to with biometric data from “seized systems” and “open sources”.  That means pictures that are on the internet or ones collected by existing CCTV surveillance cameras.

-The NGI currently contains palmprints, scars, marks, tattoos, voices, irises, and facial measurements but designed to collect even more types of biometrics, such as DNA, in the future.  (Can you imagine being stopped for a traffic violation and on the spot having a DNA sample taken, tested and used to pull up volumes of information about you?  Well, they can. )

-The FBI’s Next Generation ID violates the 1974 Privacy Act provisions which require that federal agencies maintain the records accurately and sets limitation on how and with whom the records can be shared.  The FBI claims that it is exempt from these provisions.

-The FBI has already deployed handheld biometric collection devices to police officers to help build the NGI database.

 And a mobile tool – the Biometric Identification (B-iD) Tools Program – will allow FBI agents to capture and access database photos, fingerprints, iris prints and other biographical data in the field.http://animetrics.com/the-fbis-next-generation-identification-program-helping-law-enforcement-track-and-share-suspect-information-across-state-lines/

March 21, 2011

FBI center takes on $1 billion ID project

Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects’ fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center.

“It’s a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody,” Morris said.

http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/201103211014

Secure Communities, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program collects the biometrics of any person any time that a criminal background check is done.  The purpose, we are told, is to identify those immigrants that are in the U.S. illegally.   That information goes into the  the FBI’s NGI database.  Secure Communities serves the greater goal of the FBI to collect the biometric and personal data of as many individuals as possible in order to populate their growing Next Generation ID database.

“The FBI describes S-Comm as “the first of a number of biometric interoperability systems” that merge into NGI.3 The FOIA documents show that the FBI, and not DHS, was the first federal agency to call for mandatory implementation of S-Comm. The documents further reveal the FBI’s fear that any opt-out for SComm might lead states to rightfully question their participation in NGI.”

“. . .newly disclosed documents expose the FBI’s goal to accumulate a large biometric database that far exceeds its current fingerprint collection, extending to the collection and retention of iris scans and digital photographs to support automated facial recognition scans in real-time.1 NGI aims to impose an automated process linking state and local databases with a federal government biometric data warehouse.”

Read more about Secure Communites and Next Generation ID

States were told they could ‘opt-out’ of the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities but in reality states were only allowed to “opt-out” of receiving information back from federal agencies.  They are still required to send the information collected on individual to the federal government.   The states are being forced to funnel this personal information to DHS and the FBI to be used for purposes entirely out of the scope of Secure Communities.

States can’t opt out of Secure Communities program

The Obama administration has told governors the fingerprint-sharing program that targets criminals in the country illegally does not need their approval to operate in their states.

In Aug. of 2010 the state of Minnesota asserted that the personal and biometric data collected by the state was the property and responsibility of the state and that it was not to be used by the federal government for purposes not expressly permitted by the submitting law enforcement agencies.  The Department of Homeland Security in response to Congressional Questions for the Record that states have no choice about how personal biometric data was used or shared once they shared that data with the federal government.

If it is not somehow perfectly obvious how threatening NGI is to ordinary, law abiding individuals, everyone that has an encounter with law enforcement (as well as those who don’t!) and have their biometric data is collected (not necessarily just those who are arrested) will be included in this grand database which will enable the creation of incredibly detailed dossiers on the population and at a distance tracking and monitoring of individuals not accused or suspected of any crime.  We can expect increasing numbers of  encounters, such as on the street or traffic stops with police using handheld biometric devices for the purpose of feeding the federal government’s insatiable appetite for more and more personal information.

FBI’s DNA database upgrade plans come under fire

By Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website
Oct, 16, 2011

A major upgrade of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) DNA database system has come under fire from members of the forensic science community.

The Codis system is used to generate the genetic profiles stored in the US national DNA database.

The FBI wants to expand the number of genetic markers used by Codis to classify individual DNA profiles.

But a former science chief at the bureau says the plan is not being driven by scientists’ needs.

Dr Bruce Budowle, along with colleagues Arthur Eisenberg and Jianye Ge, outlined the objections at the Promega 22nd International Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) in Maryland, US.

Another scientist told BBC News the changes were vitally important because they would set down how DNA profiles were recorded in the United States for perhaps “the next 20 years”.

While working at the FBI in the 1990s, Dr Budowle helped choose the genetic markers currently used by Codis.

Consultation gap

He says the review is a good idea, but that choosing the right markers for forensic casework is crucial.

He told BBC News the FBI did not sufficiently consult with the forensic science community before making its recommendations.

“The first time around we took a community-wide approach – 21 laboratories rolling up their sleeves and generating data we could analyse and [use to] make decisions,” explained Dr Budowle, from the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth.

“This time around, they formed a working group of around five [scientists] and an FBI person to decide what the core set should be.

“Should the needs of Codis – our national database system – drive the casework processes, or should the needs of casework drive the Codis processes?

“I would hope the latter is obviously what should be done.”

High profile

The US national database – the largest in the world – currently contains about 10 million offender profiles and has assisted in more than 141,000 investigations.

Codis (which stands for COmbined DNA Index System ) uses a set of 13 genetic markers – known as the “core loci” – to generate individual DNA profiles.

In May 2010, the FBI established a six-strong working group to review the core loci used for database searches. It has now recommended the current set of 13 markers be increased to 24.

Read more

Kansas Rep Offer bill for Mandatory Genetic Testing for Every Mom Pop and Child

Kaye Beach

Feb 24, 2011

 

(Hat tip to reader Tripod MA)

State rep backs paternity bill

Genetic tests would be mandatory for Kan. births – married couples’ kids, too.

By Mary Clarkin – The Hutchinson News – mclarkin@hutchnews.com

A bill introduced Wednesday in the Kansas House of Representatives would require every child born in Kansas to submit to genetic tests to determine paternity for the child.

Prior to leaving the hospital, the child, mother and alleged father shall submit to genetic tests, the bill states. When asked for clarification, bill sponsor State Rep. Melody McCray-Miller, D-Wichita, said the mother would not have to undergo DNA testing.

The intent of the proposed bill would apply to married couples, too, even those having their second or third baby.

The one-page bill states that tests shall be done by experts qualified as genetic examiners. If the birth occurs outside a hospital, the baby, mother and alleged father shall submit to testing within 10 days of the birth.

If any party refuses to submit to the tests, a court may intervene to resolve the matter.

Read More Insanity!

The Total Control Society Is Here: Iris Scanners

John Whitehead, founder and President of The Rutherford Institute writes;

“In the future, whether it’s entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris. Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years.”

~ Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers

The U.S. government and its corporate allies are looking out for you – literally – with surveillance tools intended to identify you, track your whereabouts, monitor your activities and allow or restrict your access to people, places or things deemed suitable by the government. This is all the more true as another invasive technology, the iris scanner, is about to be unleashed on the American people.

Iris scanning relies on biometrics, which uses physiological (fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, iris recognition, etc.) or behavioral (gait, voice) characteristics to uniquely identify a person. The technology works by reading the unique pattern found on the iris, the colored part of the eyeball. This pattern is unique even among individuals with the exact same DNA. It is read by projecting infra-red light directly into the eye of the individual.

Read More

Democrats and DNA Databases

 

 

______________________________________________

The Democratic Party has long gained political capital and much of its identity by holding itself out as a champion of civil liberties. From supporting free speech to protecting individuals’ privacy, Democrats have presented themselves as defenders of the basic principle that government should protect fundamental rights, and certainly not trample them. Yet recent developments suggest that this commitment to civil liberties may be wavering in one important respect: DNA databases.

Three recent political maneuvers highlight a troubling trend: Democrats’ endorsement of giving government unprecedented powers to expand the size of DNA databases by lowering the bar for collecting and retaining individuals’ DNA samples. Earlier this year, President Obama voiced his support for storing the profiles of those arrested but not convicted of certain crimes in DNA databases, saying “it’s the right thing to do.”

Along similar lines, Governor David Paterson of New York has introduced legislation — initially conceived by former Governor Eliot Spitzer, also a Democrat — that will roughly double the size of the state database by including not only individuals arrested for felonies, but many convicted of low-level misdemeanors. This would make New York the first state to widen the net in this fashion.

But perhaps most consequentially, the United States House of Representatives recently passed legislation that creates millions of dollars in incentives to encourage states to mandate taking DNA samples from individuals arrested for (but not necessarily charged with or convicted of) certain crimes. This provision (H.R. 4614) is part of the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010, named after the tragic rape and murder of a young New Mexico woman. The bill provides a 5% bonus in federal money granted to states under a justice assistance program for “minimum DNA collection,” which includes taking DNA samples from felony arrestees of specified major crimes. A 10% bonus would be given to states that partake in “enhanced” collection, which includes the extra step of taking DNA from those arrested for specified lesser crimes.

Should government control the people or should the people control government?

** Mark Lerner will be a guest on the Power Hour with Joyce Riley tomorrow Oct 1st to talk about his book “your Body Is Your ID”**

The Big Questionshould government control the people or should the people control government?

That is the first question we must ask ourselves. If you thing the people should be controlling the government and not the other way around then you will want to read “Your Body Is your ID”

A Surveillance Society or a Free Society?

Orwell’s prediction of a future big brother government came true. Whether acknowledged or not, Americans now live in a surveillance society.

Most of that American public falls into one of the categories the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) calls “potential threats”; environmentalists, animal lovers, anti-war protestors, pro-lifers, evangelical Christians, observant Jews, Constitutionalists, returning veterans, and third party candidate supporters are all “potential domestic terrorists.”

The Real ID Act 2005 mandated that facial recognition technology be used for all drivers’ license photos; facial recognition, a biometric, measures distances between facial characteristics – specific parts of the mouth, eyes, nose and so on — and digitizes this information. Using this technology, each citizen would be enrolled into a single global biometric identification system.

No matter where a person is – Oklahoma City, Oklahoma or Paris, France — that person can be identified with the use of facial recognition technology. Closed circuit television cameras/surveillance cameras (CCTV) and linked computer systems make possible remote surveillance and global information sharing.

Read More: A Surveillance Society or a Free Society by Mark Lerner

Excerpts from Your Body is Your ID;

“A surveillance society must be in place before the government can have absolute power over us, the citizens.”

from the book “Your Body Is Your ID”