There are already privacy laws in place for medical information. As to the other, those issues already exist today. When someone's DNA is found at a crime scene, the majority of the time they are not related to the crime at all, but simply there for other reasons (visiting, family, business, et al). Those people are already ruled out during the process of the investigation, however, they try to collect DNA evidence after the crime now which makes it difficult to find some people (unless witnesses exist who saw you there at some time in the past) and rule them out. Also, DNA is used specifically to the crime. In other words, if your dna was on a disposed cigarette butt, but not anywhere near the victim (as opposed to on or near the victim), you would be ruled out after questioning (for anything you may have seen).

Perhaps John can correct me if I am wrong...



>>I think a guest worker program is necessary. I have no problem with any and all visitors (tourists) and guest workers as long as they provide solid identification and submit to fingerprinting or even a DNA sample to be here. Of course, strangely, I also have no problem with fingerprinting every citizen of the U.S. and even taking a DNA sample of every person in the U.S. :o) (I've been fingerprinted too many times to count in this country and others) I really don't see how that infringes on my rights other than the right (which doesn't exist) of committing a crime and getting away with it. The powers that be cannot watch your every move unlike the many cameras in the UK which do that. Still, I have no problem with cameras in all public areas but I draw the line on cameras in our homes.
>
>I see lots of potential problems with taking a DNA sample from EVERY citizen.
>First, I can see health insurance companies demanding a copy (or even the sample) to glean information. Their argument would be something along the lines of government-paid (the people), government-stored (the people) not a jeapordy to the country's security so they have the RIGHT to have it.
>Second, what if I just happened to be around an area at some time where a crime was later committed and they found that DNA collected matched mine? I could have just tossed a butt as I was walking by. I could have been good friends with a person living at the crime scene and my DNA is all over their place.
>I'm sure there are lots more factors, but these seem big enough to me.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>I know where you stand on illegal immigration but isn't there a difference between the policy(-ies) there and sealing the borders so hardly anyone can enter? The latter is what Bill was suggesting.
>>>
>>>>Great idea Mike! Thank you. I'll send out the notifications to the 12 million illegal immigrants to all come over to your house! :o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>> One other thing bothers me with the US, what would you think if, to be allowed into our country as a tourist you had to be fingerprinted at the point of entry. This currently is the case upon entry into the USA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is a violation of basic rights of freedom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your thoughts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have the freedom to not enter the US. The US has the responsibility to do whatever it takes to protect its citizens. The US has enough enemies abroad to justify closing the borders for all except critical commerce or medical emergencies IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>Isolationism is not the answer, as tempting as it seems sometimes. The U.S.'s isolationism between the two World Wars is viewed by historians as a key factor in both the Depression and the rise of Nazi Germany.