Following his conviction for controlled substance offenses, appellant was ordered to provide DNA specimens and samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296. On appeal, appellant did not challenge his conviction, but challenged the constitutionality of the DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act of 1998 (DNA Act) as amended by Proposition 69 (Pen. Code, sec. 295 et seq.). He contended that the provision authorizing the California DOJ to share its DNA database with foreign law enforcement agencies is overbroad and a violation of the right to privacy. The appellate court held that appellant forfeited his challenge by failing to raise it below. Further, the DOJ is not a party to the appeal. Also, the challenge fails on its merits. The legitimate governmental interest in maintaining a reliable record of all convicted felons outweighs the minor personal intrusion involved, given the reduced expectation of privacy given prisoners.