Doesn't the state collect DNA from all newborns by law as well?
Now, I do see in principle why one would want one's DNA profile removed if an arrest doesn't result in conviction, but if the state already collects DNA at birth by law, would that not supercede these cases? Alternatively, the state could simply pass laws making retention from this input stream legal.
Does it? I was not aware of that. I know that my state, Pennsylvania, does no such collection -- or at least it did not a decade ago when my children were being born.
My impression is that the collection is so routine and automatic that most parents don't even notice it's happening, and would need to assert themselves in advance in writing to exercise their religious opt-out.
This site suggests Pennsylvania's policies for sample retention (8 months) and use of results (by subject and their medical provider only) are more restrictive than "save indefinitely" states like California:
If indeed DNA is being collected at birth, without consent, the EFF would have similar grounds to object to that. If an act is against the law, it doesn't matter that the state is breaking that same law in another instance. Breaking the law twice doesn't validate it, or, as my first grade teacher Mrs. Thompson might have said, two wrongs don't make a right.
It does and people are aware. It's offered as screening for diseases, etc. Few parents opt out. Fingerprints are also collected at DMV, they should look into that, afaik, there is no opt out, except not getting an ID.
Now, I do see in principle why one would want one's DNA profile removed if an arrest doesn't result in conviction, but if the state already collects DNA at birth by law, would that not supercede these cases? Alternatively, the state could simply pass laws making retention from this input stream legal.