Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA Fingerprinting Of All UK Criminals

Posted by michael on from the gattaca dept.

mapryan writes: "Here's a link to a story that's in today's Independent (UK) newspaper. Apparently, the goverment is planning to DNA fingerprint all criminals. How long before DNA fingerprinting of *all* new born babies is routine, and logged away in some National Police computer?" Not long. Rudy Giuliani, a U.S. politician, has already suggested that all infants have DNA samples taken at birth.

7 of 17 comments (clear)

  1. Re:hey michael... by jamiemccarthy · · Score: 2
    "Could I have a source for the Giuliani comment?"

    A quick Google search on Giuliani DNA turns up a lot of hits. The comment seems to have been reported in the New York Times in December 1998, for which no free online record exists, but, the New York Civil Liberties Union mentions it in a very dry paper about DNA, if that's reputable enough for you:

    "The rounding up of a whole class of people, the collection of physical samples, and the extraction of DNA information from those samples are illegal in the United States of America. Or so we had thought.

    "New York Governor George Pataki wants to expand the state DNA databank from violent felons to all felons. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wants to include all newborn children. Meanwhile, the New York City Police Department has been collecting DNA samples from suspects without their consent or their knowledge, and without the benefit of court orders."

    This news report references thi s 404 NYT page.

    And this message-board post gives a specific date in the NYT, which is as close as I could get in five minutes:

    "When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: "...I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children...There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified..." It's not invasive," the Mayor said. "It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified."-N.Y. Times 12/17/98 "Giuliani Backs DNA Testing of Newborns for Identification"

    Finally, check out more of Robert Lederman's comments. As someone who's been falsely arrested over 40 times for painting unflattering portraits of Giuliani, he has a special interest in DNA fingerprinting.

    Jamie McCarthy

    --

    Jamie McCarthy
    jamie.mccarthy.vg

  2. Brave New World... by Brazilian+Geek · · Score: 3

    Aldus Huxley would have been proud of us, in so little time we - as a society - have already started to walk down the path he wrote...

    Damn, I can imagine several good things from DNA fingerprinting (unrefutable signatures, perfect identity tests, possible location of lost/missing people, etc.) but I can also see ONE single argument as to why this is bad:

    Man (as in species, not male) wants power. The ultimate power one person can have over others is the power to take their lives away - not by killing them, but to take away ANY and ALL freedom to do as they please. Think of it, would you prefer to be dead or to be a mindless minion? DNA fingerprinting takes away any means to keep yourself anonymous - that's why I think this is terrible. Normal folks (Janes, Johns and Rupauls) shouldn't have to do this - never.

    One may argue that criminals deserve this and on some levels I'd agree - life sentance, repeat rapists or murders (some escape jail you know) and other VERY dangerous prisoners may deserve this but the legal system would have to be VERY VERY VERY trustworthy and apply this sentance only ocassionaly. It's a definate violation of privacy but this could be an intresting form of punishment for the repeat muderer - but not for the average pickpocket!

    That's my rant... Mod as you wish.

    --
    All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
    1. Re:Brave New World... by Weezul · · Score: 3

      Criminals rights need not be central to the discussion. Searchable DNA database are just plain stupid no matter how you look at it for simple statistical reasons. I will explain:

      Case 1: I'm a cop and I have a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the suspect and a DNA sample from the crime sceane. It is unlikely that I will get a false positive, but far from impossible.

      Case 2: I'm a cop without a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the crime sceane and do a database search based on the sample. It is now about a million time more likely that I get a false positive. If I do this for 1000 case per year it is now 1 billion times more likely that I get a false positive sometime during the year. Ultimatly, I end up convicting a lot of innocent people based on bullshit.

      There are two solution to this problem: (1) do not build finger print, DNA, etc. databases or (2) do not allow ANY evidence used as part of a search to enter into conviction, i.e. If a DNA search is used to identify suspects then DNA may not be used in court period.

      Anyway, the U.S. already has a erious problem with false convictions based on DNA evidence from databases. There really needs to be some kind of reform of the policy allowing DNA evidence to be used both for locating suspects and for convictions.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    2. Re:Brave New World... by jellicle · · Score: 2

      Case 2: I'm a cop without a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the crime sceane and do a database search based on the sample. It is now about a million time more likely that I get a false positive. If I do this for 1000 case per year it is now 1 billion times more likely that I get a false positive sometime during the year. Ultimatly, I end up convicting a lot of innocent people based on bullshit.

      This is actually a +5 Insightful comment. Cryptography has the concept of "collisions", that is, the odds when generating a hash of some sort that your random hash will be the same as the hash of something else. They call it the birthday problem: what are the odds someone else in the room has the same birthday as you? Relatively low. What are the odds any two people in the room have the same birthday? Much higher - so much higher that it's worth betting on in any large group (where "large" is "23 people or more").

      Essentially, if your database of DNA values is large enough (like, the whole population) it's extremely likely that you'll find a match with a random sample. Now, prove you didn't commit that murder - after all, "your" DNA is at the scene...

      --
      Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org

  3. they don't take finger prints at brith by bluGill · · Score: 2

    They don't take a babies finger prints at brith. I think (but do not have eveidence other then a failing memory) that courts have not allowed it. DNA should fall under the same laws.

    Either way vote against the congressmen who wants this.

  4. Re:hey michael... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    Does it strike anyone else as an odd assumption US citizens only have rights if they are written in the constitution?

    This assumption is only made by those who wish to to take them away, and those stupid enough to buy the catch all boogey man arguement. 'If we don't do X criminals will hurt OUR CHILDREN' blah blah blah...

    Let me remind you of a little something...

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    That's the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  5. [Australian] Nats Senator seeks universal DNA data by tooth · · Score: 2
    [I've submitted this as a story, but I wanted to post here as well in case it doesn't get accepted]

    http://www.abc .net.au/news/politics/2000/09/item20000908085054_1 .htm

    A National Party senator (Sandy MacDonald) is planning to lobby the Federal Government to legislate for DNA profiles to be taken from all babies at birth for use in a national database.

    The NSW senator, Sandy MacDonald, says it should be part of a bill before the Parliament, which would allow samples to be taken from some convicted criminals.

    Senator MacDonald says a comprehensive database would save police time, with enormous advantages to the community.

    "It's about providing, from day one when we're born, a DNA profile that would be of benefit to the community," she said.

    "It would only be used to identify where we were at a certain time if it were necessary.

    "It would also provide some assistance if necessary for things like perhaps tracing congenital diseases and things like that."