$10-50 is the going rate for your privacy?

[BaiHu]

I better stock up on some more identities and go into business for me, myself, I, Darren, and BaiHu

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/of...ma-roadblocks/

“They’ve got big signs up that says ‘paid volunteer survey’ and if they want to participate they pull over there and they ask them questions and if they are willing to give them a mouth swab they give them $10 and if they are willing to give them a blood sample they give them $50. And if they don’t do anything they drive off,” Turrentine explained to The Daily Caller.

[TCinVA]

If they're actually stopping traffic to do this, beau-coup problems Dr. Jones.

[RoyGBiv]

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation = PIRE = PYRE

[LOKNLOD]

Lately, it feels like I'm waking up daily to new stories that elevate me to a whole new level of "What the frak is going on here!?"

I guess once the camel gets the nose and neck in with so little resistance, it's a bit jarring when the shoulders and torso start crashing into the tent.

[Byron]

Voluntary, anonymous submission of bodily fluids to an independent, non-profit research organization for use in statistical analysis of population health/behavior? I guess I'm not understanding where the great surrender of privacy is taking place.

People (like us) give up more information than that every single day, for free. Our behavior on this website compromises our privacy more than this study does.

I don't know how the law treats roadblocks in this scenario, and that may be a separate discussion worth having, but for the purposes of the study, the methodology makes sense (after all, asking pedestrians to submit fluids would be pointless, no?). I wouldn't appreciate being stopped, but I simply would have said, "no thanks," and kept driving.

If there's any evidence to indicate that people were intimidated, harassed, coerced, or otherwise forced to participate, that's also a separate discussion, but it doesn't sound like it happened here.

It's also worth noting that the photo used is not a photo of the actual event in question. The photo is of a sobriety checkpoint; a reverse Google image search revealing that it has been used countless times in news articles over the years.

[BaiHu]

I understand your sentiment. However, I just disagree with the method of this 'study'. Why not set up a location where people can just drive to and get their $10-50 for their sample?

The fact that we use the police for this type of 'study' makes it a) suspicious that it's not that anonymous and b) a waste of tax payer's money/time.

JMHO on this particular matter.

[RoyGBiv]

Voluntary, anonymous submission of bodily fluids to an independent, non-profit research organization for use in statistical analysis of population health/behavior? I guess I'm not understanding where the great surrender of privacy is taking place.

Running road blocks off duty.... In uniform..... No problem?

And what percentage of those stopped didn't feel some sense of obligation to comply with law enforcement requests?

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/cops-...6/11/id/509305

At roadblocks in the Alabama counties of St. Clair and Bibb counties last weekend, authorities asked for identification, proof of insurance, vehicle registration – and blood.

......

Off-duty St. Clair County deputies stopped cars at random roadblocks.

[Byron]

I understand your sentiment. However, I just disagree with the method of this 'study'.

Your quotes indicate that you do not believe that this was actually a study. So what do you believe it was? An elaborate ruse to build a secret database of citizen DNA? There would be far easier ways to accomplish such a task that would raise less suspicion.

Why not set up a location where people can just drive to and get their $10-50 for their sample?

Because the mere fact that participation is voluntary already introduces a level of complexity to the data that must be controlled. After all, a person who knows themselves to be intoxicated most likely has a different level of willingness to participate than does a sober individual. This will have to somehow be controlled for when the data is analyzed.

If you add another step, where people are asked to go out of their way to a designated collection point, you're completely defeating the stated purpose for the study, which was to evaluate the likelihood that a given individual on a given road at X:XX time is under the influence of a substance.

The fact that we use the police for this type of 'study' makes it a) suspicious that it's not that anonymous and b) a waste of tax payer's money/time.

How do you suspect that they are tricking people into thinking it's anonymous, when it actually isn't? You don't think people will suspect foul play when in addition to their "anonymous" sample, they're asked for their name, DOB, address, etc?

Or do you think that the police would simply link the DNA to the license plate? If so, that would be the crappiest database ever constructed, and would serve just about zero purpose.

The utilization of the police makes little to no difference in the cost to taxpayers, given that this was already being funded by the National Highway Safety Administration.

[Byron]

Running road blocks off duty.... In uniform..... No problem?

Again, the picture in the original article has nothing to do with the story: it's just a stock photo.

And what percentage of those stopped didn't feel some sense of obligation to comply with law enforcement requests?

According to this article, which Newsmax points to as their source, most people declined.

A cop is free to walk up to people all day long and say, "Hi sir, will you volunteer to a search of your person?" and that's completely legal. According to all the reports, these stations took that a step further and had big signs that indicated a paid, voluntary survey was taking place.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/cops-...6/11/id/509305

I would love to see independent corroboration that they indeed asked motorists for identification, proof of insurance, etc. Newsmax seems to be the only source of the three so far saying that. Even the article that they link to as their source does not indicate such.

[Byron]

Here's an account from a woman who participated:
http://blog.al.com/east-alabama/2013..._about_pa.html

There is no mention whatsoever of turning over personally identifying information, such as identification, registration, etc.

She says she felt obligated to participate because she didn't want to "blow smoke up the dragon's nostrils." That same level of "coercion" applies to any voluntary request by a law enforcement officer, and isn't particularly compelling to me.

She also notes that motorists were turning away from the roadblock without consequence.