Twist on DNA Privacy

ConfusedVorlon writes "The BBC is reporting the conviction of a man for the murder of a prostitute 15 years ago. The interesting twist is that his DNA was not on record - 'But it partly match[ed] that of a youth's who was known to the police - but who had not been born at the time of the murder. The teenager, it turned out, was a close relative of [the murderor].' There has been concern in the past at the idea of keeping DNA of those interviewed but not charged with crimes. I haven't previously heard of the privacy implications of being related to a criminal/suspect. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"

Comments

More right wing new labour nonsense

[geeklawyer]

The basis of this legislation is so false as to be nearly comical. If you have dealt with as many cops as I have you will know that as inept as they are proving identity is virtually never a problem - even where false ID is provided - since fingerprints and direct corroboration is a standard procedure. In fact the police themselves have said just this in the recent identity card debate (where this was also used as a justifying excuse). Presumably therefore extremely low numbers of people escape justice based on false identity. And many of these crimes will presumably not keep you awake at night - tramps shoplifting, speeding etc. So the proposition is that millions of innocent people who come into contact with the police should have their most intimate detail stored on a system as a potential criminal in order to avert the terrifying prospect of a shoplifter evading justice.

A more technical legal objection is that this case points to a more worrying prospect: by this the police are effectively compelling you to give evidence against family members. This is a principal that many decent societies regard with horror. A character of many totalitarian regimes is that they force sons to betray fathers. That appears to be similar to what happened here - a close relative was made to testify, by DNA, against him.
What next? a mothers DNA used to convict a son?

The proposed law changes just further supports the view that new Labour is far more right wing and anti-civil liberties than even the Conservatives. Its interesting that the Conservatives (for Gods sake) have consistently criticised Labour on its proposed anti civil freedom legislation.

Re:Privacy implications are nill

[Lord Kano]

OJ walked.

Yes he did. Get over it. But, on one level that is a good thing. For one, OJ is not a threat to society at large. Maybe unfaithful wives should beware, but you and I have nothing to fear from OJ being a free man. Second, police departments across the country took another look at the way they process blood evidence after the OJ trial. "No detective, take the sample STRAIGHT to the lab, don't go home for the night first." These changes will help keep people who are dangerous to the rest of us off of the street. Thanks Juice!

If it now turns out that incomplete DNA can give a false postive then this should be carefully studied. Next time they will no that the DNA shows that "it is either him or a close relative". THen you can start talking to close relatives and see if they have an alibi.

Moot point in this case. The murder happened 15 years ago, I couldn't tell you where I was on July 5th 1988. Would that make me a suspect to a crime that one of my relatives committed?

LK