DNA and Privacy

   The Supreme Court has ruled that DNA testing is merely a way for you to prove you are who you say you are, and is similar to photographs or fingerprinting, used mainly for identification.
   In deciding that police can take material for DNA testing from anyone, without their consent, after an arrest for a "serious" crime, the court ignored the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure, as well as the Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination.
   In addition, the ruling did not define what a "serious" crime is, leaving an opening for police to expand their practice to forcibly take cheek swabs from those they arrest, and using that DNA profile not only to track unsolved past crimes, but to forward that profile to a nationwide database, so that even if that person  is later cleared of an offense, the data remains in cyberworld to be used against that person in the future.
   DNA testing may well soon become routine, as police pick up the the court's reasoning that the test is similar to photographs and fingerprinting, and used mainly for identification.
   But the reality is that photos and fingerprints are not invasive, and DNA tests have been used to track unfound or unknown suspects. Moreover, photo arrays are not definitive; witnesses have identified many innocent persons as suspects, and many have been imprisoned based on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.
   
   It is not the responsibility of the accused suspect to prove innocence. The prosecutor must prove guilt.