YSK other states have similar laws. Off the top of my head NJ and TX.
California can share your baby's DNA sample without permission, but new bill could force state to publicly reveal who they're giving it to
Submitted 6 months ago by Xaphanos@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
Comments
FireTower@lemmy.world 6 months ago
ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m glad they collect dna from newborns. This protects people’s identities. My dna was collected at birth, as was the dna of my babies at birth. It really is in everyone’s best interests.
workerONE@lemmy.world 6 months ago
How does it protect people’s identities?
ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I think it would help in cases like this one, where a man stole another man’s identity and posed as him for years. The person who had his identity stolen was sent to mental hospitals and labeled as crazy until he could prove who he really was. With dna taken at birth, there is a record of who you are from day one, and you won’t have to fight so many legal battles to prove otherwise. Identity theft is scary.
EasternLettuce@lemm.ee 6 months ago
[deleted]ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Well, I am related Jimmy Carter, but I’m on the Catholic side of the family tree. I doubt the feds even like me. Thanks for the downvote, though.
FireTower@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Pretty sure he meant that satirically
BertramDitore@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Wait, what the fuck? This is inexcusable. This means even if you weren’t born in CA, parts of your genome will still be in their database if you’re related to anyone who was, and those parts are often enough to identify you. This isn’t just about personal privacy, it’s about our collective ability to retain ownership and control over the most fundamental parts of ourselves and our families. And this data will obviously be abused by law enforcement, if it hasn’t already, because that’s what they do.
Babies deserve even more privacy protections than adults, since they can’t consent to anything.
Aeri@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I still think I should be able to copyright my DNA and sue anyone who uses it without my informed consent, if Monsanto can do it.
BertramDitore@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Right??
Pistcow@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Don’t worry, it’ll get fixed once it affects a politician.
Woozythebear@lemmy.world 6 months ago
A Republican softball game got shot up and a republican member of the house(or senate, I can’t remember) was shot and they are still against any type of gun laws so I’d hold me breath on that.
KevonLooney@lemm.ee 6 months ago
This has been around since the '80s, 4 decades. It’s not controversial. It saves babies lives, as they are diagnosed with genetic diseases.
cbsnews.com/…/baby-dna-parental-consent-genetic-r…
BertramDitore@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’ve been a CA resident for nearly a decade and had no idea about it. And now that I’m aware, I’m furious.
I don’t have a problem with them doing genetic testing for the reasons you mention, but they should absolutely not be allowed to retain the genetic material beyond a reasonable time limit, and under no circumstances should it be legal for them to share it with anyone for any reason. Seems quite controversial to me.