[NHern031]

Not being able to opt your child out of DNA collections seems like what could be a slippery slope to a Brave New World. What's even worse is the level of misinformation surrounding the situation. Even if the samples are held under the assumption that they will be used for research, one should be entitled to opt-in, opt-out, and know what is happening with their/their child's DNA. A lawsuit here seems reasonable if not to stop this, to atleast shed light on the situation.

[eeZah7Ux]

> Not being able to opt your child out [...] slippery slope to a Brave New World.

Having to opt out instead of in is already bad enough.

Not being able to opt out is way beyond "slippery slope".

[gcb0]

opting out of proven good health measures sound like anti-vaxer, but ensuring the state have apropriate privacy safeguards is paramont

[jjeaff]

There's nothing antivax about requiring opt in before the state can store your samples indefinitely.

[gcb0]

please, it was a one line comment, how could you have misread it?

the antivaxer comment is about opting out for something that is immediately beneficial (disease screening) and long term (research) in lieu of paranoia (in case of a working government) or privacy (in case of a broken government as it is now, according to the article).

the right course of action is not to deny your children of the proven benefits, but to force the government to respect the individual and its own processes/institutions.