Everyone ? I bet it won't be the rulers & their families etc etc though, ONLY everyone else Simple, don't go to Kuwait Who wants to anyway
They are off any sane person's list ... I wonder why so many people consider this type of region to be an exotic destination ... there are places on a 100 mile radius around my house that would fill a lifetime of travelling... it's all in one's eyes, not in the distance covered
Kuwait has relied for many years on imported labour, mainly from Egypt and India. The state is a creation of the western powers, as the original population density was very small - they used to have the highest GDP per capita of anywhere, and they're still up there. I do not think that tourism is significant, certainly not in comparison with Dubai etc. To get more relevant to the topic, they referenced the UK and the US when it comes to DNA testing. The UK was found to be in breach of the Human Rights Act over its process for taking and retaining DNA data (which was indeed a disgrace), because it was discriminatory and did not cover the whole population. They retained records indefinitely including from innocent people, as well as doing familial matching - which greatly increases the chances of unjust determinations. To the extent that this law actually (nominally) treats everyone exactly the same and covers everyone, it is actually better than partial coverage from a justice point of view. Then, "all" you have to do is to a) ensure that the judicial system is savvy about DNA evidence collection & handling (and the risks of contamination, mislabelling etc), and knows how to deal with false positives (particularly with the use of LCN amplification), and b) keep the records safe. As we know on this forum, b) is a highly dubious and difficult proposition, particularly when excessively detailed records are kept, by multiple and commercial suppliers. From a privacy perspective, I believe there will be compelling reasons for acquiring full DNA profiles of all newborns in future (not just the SNPs that are used in forensics) - but the privacy implications of that are very far reaching, and the behavior of public and commercial bodies around that give me very little trust in doing so, despite the potential health benefits.
