DNA From Children

[rain]

What I think is the most disgraceful about the
But it gets worse. You don’t even have to be arrested now, someone only has to think you are unfit to get on the list.

A teacher recently changed jobs and when applying to a new school for employment she was turned down because her CRB check came back as her being unsuitable to work with children.

After a lot of fuss and stress she found out that some time before she was in the park with her three children, two just into their teens and one of eight years old. When the little one wanted to go to the toilet, being a responsible mother she escorted her there, leaving her two older children sitting on a bench with a few yards of the toilet.

She was seen doing this and reported to the police. The police did not approach her but simply put her in the CRB register. The horrifying thing is this wasn’t a mistake that could be corrected, as the CRB stated this was correct procedure and within the rules.

So now innocent people are being treated as criminals – I suppose it had to come since so many criminals are being treated as innocents.

unless it is a very bad area, I don't see the harm in two pre teens by themselves.

[Bob Hinton]

Totalitarian State

What I think is the most disgraceful about the way things are going in Britain is the acceptance that perfectly innocent people can be punished, not by accident but by design.

One of the Governments stealth taxes involved setting up the Criminal Records Bureau. This was trumpeted as being for the protection of the weak and vulnerable. It is of course nothing of the sort and is simply another way of the Government grabbing more of your money.

What is so sinister about this whole set up is the fact that you don’t actually need to be a criminal to get on the record. If you are arrested then subsequently released or acquitted, it doesn’t matter; you are in the records and when you try and get a job and your future employer checks up on you, you will have a CRB black mark against you. Obviously no employer is going to employ you after that.

But it gets worse. You don’t even have to be arrested now, someone only has to think you are unfit to get on the list.

A teacher recently changed jobs and when applying to a new school for employment she was turned down because her CRB check came back as her being unsuitable to work with children.

After a lot of fuss and stress she found out that some time before she was in the park with her three children, two just into their teens and one of eight years old. When the little one wanted to go to the toilet, being a responsible mother she escorted her there, leaving her two older children sitting on a bench with a few yards of the toilet.

She was seen doing this and reported to the police. The police did not approach her but simply put her in the CRB register. The horrifying thing is this wasn’t a mistake that could be corrected, as the CRB stated this was correct procedure and within the rules.

So now innocent people are being treated as criminals – I suppose it had to come since so many criminals are being treated as innocents.

[brummie]

I just wonder how long it will be before the ultimate big brother state where DNA samples are taken at every birth and from every citizen and a record of everyones DNA is on file. Maybe not acceptable to society as a whole now but how long in the future? We have already seen talk of biometric information such as iris recognition on a national ID card scheme (hopefully now sidelined after much opposition) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4630045.stm

[smezenen]

Brummie,
The way I understand it. The best and most reliable DNA samples are taken from soft tissue or body fluids. Those sample degrade once the sample dries out. DNA can be obtained from dried blood, saliva, semen, and other body fluids but the lenght of time, tempurature, humidity and other factors will take a toll on how good of a sample you get.

So if you leave a drop of blood in a hotel room and a murder occures in the next few days then I would expect that if your blood drop where found and processed then your DNA would be found.

[brummie]

I have mixed feelings about the growing keeping of information by government agencies who are not particularly good at keeping it. It seems to be a regular occurrence that some government minister or another has left a laptop/harddrive/disc in a train/taxi containing all manner of personal details, the more info given to them the greater the risk of losing it! On the other hand I can see the positive advantages to detection: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8037972.stm . I also wonder if we are not in danger of seeing DNA as the be all and end all of a case, as I understand it no DNA is ever 100% accurate so just how accurate does evidence have to be. Also perhaps someone can answer this question- how long does DNA remain at the scene? For instance if you stay overnight in a hotel room and a few days later crime is committed in that room would your DNA still be recovered?

[smezenen]

Ally, you assume RANDOM means they will pick a few people to test during the year but that is not the case. Everyone is tested every year, the RANDOM part comes by way of what drugs they test for (as you show in your above post) and when during the year you get tested.

We use a 10% method to test the people we are responsible for in our command or section.
The process uses the first digit of the last four digits of the social security number to deternine who is tested, for instance a social security number of 000-00-1234 would use the 1.

lets say there are 100 people in our command that means we have to test 10 or more each month.
During the first week of January we begin with the numbers 0-9 , for our example we will say the number 1 is drawn. Everyone that has the number one as the first digit of their last four is tested. but only 3 people in our command have the number 1 so another number is drawn, lets say 3 is drawn. There are 8 people in the command that have the number 3. we now have 11 people scheduled to test and have exceeded the 10% required.
Along comes Febuary and we discard the numbers 1 and 3 and draw from the remaining numbers until we have meet or exceeded 10%.

As you can see using this method you would be tested every year at RANDOM. Also using this method everyone is tested by october and becouse we test every month January thru December you can see that 20% or more of the command is actually tested twice a year.

[smezenen]

[QUOTE=Ally;90028]

But what they hay, a book on privacy and the law and it's application in federal law. You'll note the key word is RANDOM:


QUOTE]

so you are saying that a person can not be randomly tested every year?

[Ally]

Also,

""About 400,000 federal workers in testing designated positions – those who have security clearances, carry firearms, deal with public safety or national security, or are presidential appointees – are drug tested when they apply for jobs. Some are subject to random drug testing during their employment. Other federal employees are tested only if they are involved in a workplace accident or show signs of possible drug use.""

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/work/a/blsam040409.htm

And finally the whole policy intact:

The appropriate words here again are APPLICANT and RANDOM and Reasonable suscpicion testing..

programs shall test for drugs as follows:
(1) Federal agency applicant and
random drug testing programs shall, at
a minimum, test urine specimens for
marijuana and cocaine;
(2) Federal agency applicant and
random drug testing programs may also
test urine specimens for opiates,
amphetamines, and phencyclidine;
(3) When conducting reasonable
suspicion, post accident, or unsafe
practice testing, a Federal agency may
have a urine specimen tested for any
drug listed

http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Files_Drug_Testing/Federal/HHS%20Mandatory%20Guidelines%20(Effective%20November%201,%202004).pdf

[Ally]

Actually, I don't have to prove they don't do yearly drug testing. You have to prove they do, since that is what you have claimed. So prove that it is any agencies policy to provide yearly drug tests to all their employees.

But what they hay, a book on privacy and the law and it's application in federal law. You'll note the key word is RANDOM:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kMjQPJBRScYC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22Harmon+v.++Thornburg%22&source=bl&ots=7escU_3AeP&sig=_bu2R_rAFMsik39t7pskIcZ1BdE&hl=en&ei=niExSsidLoTWMK2GwdIH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA160,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=_1uZZN1E-MgC&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=DOJ+drug+testing+employees&source=bl&ots=VvOP7mp89C&sig=PUkTHHAe1Pcq0T-XmChE6rV5a9o&hl=en&ei=xB8xSuCRGoi6M7nAldsH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA291,M1

[smezenen]

The most any of these agencies do, is random drug testing and in case of probable cause drug testing. That's it.

prove it

[Ally]

The reason you haven't convinced me is that you haven't provided anything in the way of proof. You've provided a link that says the exact opposite of what you claim and anecdotal evidence that's in the realm of fiction, not fact. Proof would be the manual from the FBI, CIA, NID, ACA, Administration of Disabilities, Agency on Aging, USDA, Airforce, ATF, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Tax (treasury division), Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Transportation, ICE, Commerce Department and oh all five hundred other government agencies and found their policy on annual drug testing for all employees.

The reason you won't find it, is it isn't required by law or executive order. The most any of these agencies do, is random drug testing and in case of probable cause drug testing. That's it.

[smezenen]

If you had actually read that, you would have probably seen this section:

B) the Secretary of Health and Human Services has submitted to the Congress, in writing, a detailed, agency-by-agency analysis relating to–
(i) the criteria and procedures to be applied in designating employees or positions for drug testing, including the justification for such criteria and procedures;
(ii) the position titles designated for random drug testing; and
(iii) the nature, frequency, and type of drug testing proposed to be instituted; and



Notice "criteria and procedures to be applied IN DESIGNATING EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS for drug testing"

also...

"the position titles designated for random drug testing and

the nature and FREQUENCY proposed to be instituted.

In short, as is actual practice in ALL federal employees drug testing, they are not administered to every employee every year and there is no law, guideline or procedure that says they have to be.

yes and if you read the entire mandate you will see that the secretary is responsible for outlining the testing policy for ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES except the postal service which will be administered by other variouse agencies. I didnt give you the whole thing just a starting point read on, research more, that was ONLY A STARTING POINT. Im not going to cut and paste a bunch of pages of governmet regulation, i dont have the time. you can read for yourself. If you want more find it yourself. you have already decided your OPINION on the subject so no amount of proof i put forwrd will change it. now lets get this thread back on topi.

[Ally]

If you had actually read that, you would have probably seen this section:

B) the Secretary of Health and Human Services has submitted to the Congress, in writing, a detailed, agency-by-agency analysis relating to–
(i) the criteria and procedures to be applied in designating employees or positions for drug testing, including the justification for such criteria and procedures;
(ii) the position titles designated for random drug testing; and
(iii) the nature, frequency, and type of drug testing proposed to be instituted; and



Notice "criteria and procedures to be applied IN DESIGNATING EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS for drug testing"

also...

"the position titles designated for random drug testing and

the nature and FREQUENCY proposed to be instituted.

In short, as is actual practice in ALL federal employees drug testing, they are not administered to every employee every year and there is no law, guideline or procedure that says they have to be.

[smezenen]

You are still missing the point. You said that ALL government agencies drug test and DNA analyze all government employees. You are wrong. They do not test ALL employees every year. Does. Not. Happen.

Yes all federal government agencies drug test every employee every year or at least they are supost to. It's a Presidential Order. A simple internet search will get you the federal mandate information. to make it easy for you try starting your search with this. Executive Order 12564 and sec. 503 of Pub. L. 100-71. that order covers everyone but postal system workers who apparently fall under a few other regulations depending on their specific job for instance drivers of trucks 7 tons and larger fall under the department of transportation. I will concede the point that I do not know if all agencies are currently using the DNA screen to track the tests like the Army labs do but every federal civilian employee that works on every Base I was ever posted too is tested by that bases assigned lab because they fall under the jurisdiction of that bases commander. for example the employees and soldiers at Fort Hood are tested by the lab at Fort Hood while the ones at Fort Irwin are tested by the lab at the Loma Linda VA Hospital.

[Ally]

A pedophile kidnaps a child. The parents submit DNA; the ped submits DNA; the child's dNA is submitted. A card isn't going to matter diddly squat. They are still going to have to test the child, to make sure that the child matches. So it is no different to testing the child against parents, or testing against a card.

Wild, hysterical "what if a pedophile kidnaps your kid" scenarios are why I say these decisions are based on hysteria rather than logic. Because logically testing can occur without a card.