By Jennifer Lynch
source: EFF.org
In the amount of time it takes to get lunch, the
government can now collect your DNA and extract a profile that
identifies you and your family members.
Rapid DNA Analyzers—machines
with the ability to process DNA in 90 minutes or less—are an
operational reality and are being marketed to the federal government and
state and local law enforcement agencies around the country. These
machines, each about the size of a laser printer, are designed to be
used in the field by non-scientists, and—if you believe the hype from
manufacturers like IntegenX and NetBio—will soon “revolutionize the use of DNA by making it a routine identification and investigational tool.”
From documents we received recently from US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and DHS’s Science & Technology division, we’ve learned that the two agencies are working with outside venders NetBio, Lockheed Martin and IntegenX and have “earmarked substantial funds” to develop a Rapid DNA analyzer that can verify familial relationships for refugee and asylum applications.
In the refugee context—where people are often
stranded in camps far from their homes with little access to the
documentation needed to prove they should be granted asylum in the
US—DNA identification could be useful for both the federal government
and the asylum seeker.
However, DNA samples contain such sensitive,
private and personal information that their indefinite storage and
unlimited sharing create privacy risks far worse than other types of
data. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated in a 2008 Note titled DNA Testing to Establish Family Relationships in the Refugee Context that DNA testing “can have serious implications for the right to privacy and family unity” and should be used only as a “last resort.” The UNHCR also stated that, if DNA is collected, it “should not be used for any other purpose
(for instance medical tests or criminal investigations) than the
verification of family relationships” and that DNA associated with the
test “should normally be destroyed once a decision has been made.” Read the Full article at EFF.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment