Slashdot Mirror
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?"
If you feel the need to object to DNA privacy issues, bear in mind that three men were wrongly convicted of the murder initially and cleared much later before a new investigation finally caught the real perpetrator.
You, out of the pool!
Not only does the cost of DNA testing, but the whole procedure.. throws off a lot of the personal risk..
Now a risk with law enforcement et al.. might be a problem.. but you are already registered (unless you're an illegal alien!) so why does the govt. having your DNA really matter? I guess, if they had a huge database of DNA records for every citizen, that could be a problem
But the problem with DNA is that you need a sample to test against the subject's dna.. what use would this have to a criminal? High-tech duplicating and leaving at a crime scene? The cost alone would leave it to large orginazed crime stuff, and that still doesn't seem to me like it would be a problem.
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Now, I'm well aware of the fact that DNA testing is probably the most vital forensic tool since the finger print, but how exactly does it work? I remember seeing once that all Humans share about 99.9% of the same DNA (Please do correct me if I'm wrong), so what do they look for to say either "Yes, this person did this" or "No, this person didn't do this"?
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
WARNING: Kazaa users. Make sure you vaccuum every last bit of hair, saliva, and skin slough from your keyboard. The RIAA has formed a new bioevidence division and are connecting DNA proven keyboard users with known fileswapping.
Unless the judge/jury have some serious scientific backgrounds, I think the prosecution has its work cut out convincing a SECOND court this is valid.
It might well be reasonable evidence, or even close to undeniable, but there's gotta be some doubt in the minds of those who decide the fate of the accused guy. I mean, they're going to convict this guy of a 15 year old killing on the basis of some extrapolated data out of a lab? Remember these are people who don't browse the same magazines as us...
Tough call finding people to do it once, much tougher getting a second group to confirm it...
that DNA tests either matched -- or they didn't. Where is this "close enough" stuff coming from?
this thing gotta be twisted. (pun intended)
DNA Profiling
...it all goes right, this is a GOOD thing :)
I like my privacy as much as the next person, I like seeing evil bastards locked up even more though.
Its obvious from a couple or three replies already up that some of you are not reading the article first.
The dude was not convicted on the DNA evidence alone. In fact, there apparently was no trial. The DNA only lead to a suspect...who then CONFESSED AND PLEADED GUILTY.
I fail to see where there is a privacy implication here. All I see is good police work (which makes up for the initial very bad police work).
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Because the close relative admitted to the crime. duh
(or to use slashdot terminology: read the fucking article)
What is the accuracy of a DNA test? In other words, if they had everyone's DNA on file, how many people would they round up after a crime, and what would be the probability the test worked, and the suspect was only in this group?
And what accuracy would be tolerable here? Specifically, supposing my DNA matched a crime in the local area, and anybody else that was a decent match was proven to be elsewhere. Suppose I didn't do it. What are the chances of this situation? If this was fed to the jury, would I be freed?
Of course, there would likely to be other pieces of evidence in these cases. Assume what you want for these.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
This reminds us of a problem with DNA testing: it can't distinguish identical twins or clones. Also, inbreeding might increase the odds for a false positive match, and there may be many other real-world factors we don't know about that increase the probability of a false positive beyond what common estimates would lead you to guess.
These problems are compounded by the widespread misapplication of statistical prodecures in the biomedical sciences (most of the FDA drug testing is based on outdated and basically faulty statistical procedures, and it's probably the same in the forensic sciences).
I predict that this will become standard procedure. Say a murderer leaves a DNA trace, but this matches nothing on record. It will be possible to match this DNA against known samples to come up with a fairly accurate picture of the criminal's ethnic origins, facial features, blood type, and much more.
Quite probably police will be able to search for criminals by family or community, much more precise than saying "an asian male did this", more like "we're looking for a young chinese from Guandong province who has long ears and eyes of this and that shape".
Eventually, a single DNA sample will allow scientists to create a detailed facial reconstruction, the only problem for identification being the age of the perp. And that can be pinpointed too, since DNA frays at the edges over time, and this fraying can be measured.
DNA profiling is probably the single most important anti-crime tool of the future. It will make it almost impossible to escape punishment for one's acts.
The big question will be (and it is almost too late to answer this) whether society is willing to pay the price for this security. I suspect the answer is "YES" for most people except theoretical libertarians. I think most people are wrong on this.
The tentacles of the state reach too far already, and that crime is not solvable by a better police system, but by better social structures. I was burglared last month, robbed of about $30,000. The thieves left a cigarette stub on the carpet. Yet would it really be a good thing to apprehend them and put them into prison?
It's an easy answer but prison is like crime college. Lock up a small thief and release a hardened criminal.
Conclusion: the current trend towards giving the state more power, aided by the sword of science, will not result in more security. Technological solutions are not a replacement for social policies that attack the causes of crime, by providing youths with alternative careers, and by dismantling the structures of power that nuture organized crime.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
A recent case here in Canada had me a bit uncomfortable.
A young girl was murdered and police asked Men in the neighbourhood to volunteer DNA samples. About 20 men refused. 19 were innocent and refused for personal reasons. One of these men was eventually implicated in the crime when Police followed these 20 men and picked up "pop cans, et al" used by these men to obtain DNA samples.
This implies - You have no right to refuse to give a DNA sample because one will be taken secretly against your will anyhow.
What happens to these samples? Could I be implicated in a completely separate crime because my second cousin lived NEAR a murder victim who's and had his DNA "stolen" by police?
This can only get scarier without laws to protect us.
Police are very well-practiced in the techniques of obtaining confessions. So much so, that many confessions have been obtained from people who it turns out could not have possibly committed the crimes they were accused of.
Cute open source babes, eh?
;)
Well, well, that's an idea, an open source robot babe
...some of you are not reading the article first.
You must be new here. Welcome!
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"
Exactly, that is the way it is supposed to be, and hopefully is right now(maybe not everywhere though, in most places that is right). Let us hope it will stay that way.
I can not say that I have never done anything wrong though. I am comitting crimes as I am writing, that is not a good thing. Oh well, at least DNA can not be used to frame me for the crimes I am committing, luckily.
Modern DNA testing isn't comparing the 4 bit code but it compares the weight of each chromosomes. If they match, the law will not be on your side.
Any information they have on you is power they have over you. It depends on the information they have and what they want to do to you, but it's power nonetheless. Just like a theif gets blueprints of buildings or hackers get copies of software and gather information on vulnerabilities, a goverment will always always gather information before regulation and banning. And they'll do it slowly and try to distract you as well. Listen to the shows in the link in my sig, they're free and oncemore, they report on these kinds of things and give you information that the media otehrwise wouldn't give out.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Nothing, perhaps, except that "throw-down" piece the officer has hidden in his hand as he demands to search your car/home/person without benefit of warrant.
Oh? How do you know that he doesn't?
DNA testing doesn't do a "bit for bit" comparison between the two DNA samples - it uses a couple of techniques to simplify that matter.
Even if the "false positive" rate was as low as 1 in a million (I suspect it's actually much higher) then there's likely to be many people in a country who fit the profile.
This means that DNA evidence is really good at proving you didn't do something, but really bad at proving you did do something.
DNA evidence alone should never be enough to convict someone.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
One big issue is that with the pressure often brought to bear on police forces to solve crimes quickly, one could be prosecuted simply because one's DNA was present at the crime scene -- even if just coincidentally. Police officers should need some reason to suspect you first, and THEN match your DNA that found at the crime scene.
DNA on its own should not be enough -- it should be used only to support an existing connection (much like fingerprints).
As far as I can tell, in the U.S., if you throw something away, the police don't need a search warrant to obtain it. They can go through your trash all they want.
It goes likewise for eavesdropping on conversations. There's something called "reasonable expectation of privacy". If I'm talking to someone on a crowded street, then the cops can record my conversation and use it as evidence because I wasn't taking steps that someone would reasonably take if they were trying to keep something secret (as in, secret from everybody and not just from the police).
This DNA thing strikes me as something similar. Just like if you throw a murder weapon with your fingerprints on it into your trash, I think you're "discarding" your DNA if you were to, say, have children. The parallel to "reasonable expectation of privacy" is that, if you were someone who really didn't want their DNA (or half of it) out there running around loose, then you would elect to not have kids.
So, if you have kids, then I think that the cops should, clearly, have a right to use the DNA of those kids (provided they're over the age of consent and provided that they volunteer their DNA) to catch you. What's a little more murky is whether the cops should be allowed to catch you based on DNA from any familial relative... including ones you have no control over the production of (like, your parents, cousins, etc.). Again, I think it would hinge upon whether you had kids. Going back to "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you have kids, then you aren't exercising what little control you have over the dissemination of your DNA... so it must not matter to you that much... so everything's fair game at that point.
Legal issues aside, I must say that this is one really cool thing about DNA. Everybody knows the obvious advantages that DNA has over fingerprints: you get usable evidence from smaller samples, from a wider variety of fluids, smudges, etc. What's less obvious is the idea of "proximity". Two people with similar fingerprints are not necessarily closely related, and two people who are closely related don't necessarily have similar prints. With DNA, that's not the case. With DNA, you're able to tell when you've got some DNA from someone closely related to some "target DNA". Even cooler, you can probably tell how many generations away they are.
I must find a way to encrypt my DNA.
"Haven't you seen Jurassic Park?" Now, joke aside, I guess that in this case, the paint have protected the sample well. DNA samples (from blood, at least) survive much. In a case where an arsonist(?) bled on the stairs (concrete) outside a house, reliable DNA was gathered from the stain - after the house had burned to the ground. The stain was buried in rubble and ash, less than a yard from the main door.
.sig?
Yes, I can easily take my conversation indoors if I want to
and then I can maintain my reasonable expectation of privacy..
-- trash? have you considered what is required to keep all your trash?
it's unreasonable for the state, that both prosecutes people for keeping landfills within their homes
(those people that make the news somethimes?>)
and to call trash potentially theirs at all times by default (at least from my house cans)
can't burn it... bury it... chemically consume it ... stockpile it..
you gotta put it on the curb
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
And I guess that there might be a spate of people knocking off their relatives too; just to be safe.
This seems as good a time as any to revisit the discussion of Microsoft DNA (msDNA) vs. GNU DNA (gDNA). What was once seen as a lively, relavant and important social debate has now faded. msDNA has become the "defacto" standard and people who question the morality of it all are seen as "quacks". I for one take my genetic material a little more personally than most people, it would seem.
Look, one can hardly imagine an argument for the legality of a contract that was, essentially, imposed on you at conception. Your parents used msDNA and, therefore, you were *forced* into it under the terms of onerous contracts that your parents never understood the implications of and likely never read. Face it, they were just horny one night, and never considered the future autonomy of their potential offspring. Have you ever tried to read the EULA's printed on condoms these days? It's simply not possible to read print that small.
While the imposition of msDNA is bad enough, in the msDNA product itself we find another embarrasing and potentially evil example of the "embrace and extend" philosophy. (Hate to say it, but "I told you so!") As an expirement, try to find a non-msDNA family member and then compare your mitochondrial DNA. Ha! Good luck! Does anyone outside of MS even know what those 2 extra chromosomes are there for? I've heard the party line before "backwards compatibility". I for one think the ability to procreate with previous versions of homo-sapiens qualifies as feature bloat.
The truth is that they are there for one simple reason. According to a recent statistic, msDNA is now running a whopping 95% of all reproductive organs. Take a moment to think about that chilling statistic. In fact, read it again. Out loud. And in bold. Perhaps in all caps, as well. The obvious implication?
You either switch to msDNA, or face certain extinction.
Most of us have heard the rumors of Agent Green and many now accept as fact that MS is in possession of a genetic virus that will key in on those two extra chromosomes. While there has been wild speculation in the media as to the effects of the virus, my personal theory is that it will turn all those unforunate enough to be running msDNA into mindless drones, gleefully signing their paychecks over to Bill Gates, the Evil Emporer. All the while gibbering like bastard idiots. And by the attitudes of some people, I tend to think the virus is already on the loose.
Each of you must look at the organ tucked between your legs and ask yourself: who does this thing really belong to? If the answer is Bill Gates, it's not too late. Reach down with both hands, grab it, hold it and take it back...by any means necessary. And this time, don't ever let it go!
MikeAtIF*ckStuffedAnimalsDotCom
Not even if she had 20x magnifying glass?
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear
Yes, because as we all know the criminal justice system is completely infallible, and never ever makes a mistake leading to the conviction of an innocent for a crime they did not commit. Honestly, any cop who says "If you're innocent you've got nothing to worry about" to a suspect should be taken out back and beaten.
That sounds absolutely amazing, the lengths they went to. I'd like to know how they know when they've found some DNA. Is it like dusting for fingerprints? Do they have Star Trek-like scanners?
I have been falsely arrested twice. These two "false arrests" are on my record from my childhood. I'm now 29. Every 3 years I make "total information requests" from everyone from whom I can think of that collects information from me. (credit, mail, email, post office, clubs, memberships, utility, etc)
One interesting thing is my complete "litigation/arrest" history. Essentially my file that the FBI would "examine".
I find it unfair that my peeping tom arrest from 18 (false arrest) & my theft from Walmart at 22 (false arrest) are still even capable of being associated with me. Also, every traffic ticket I have ever gotten, every court case I have been involved in; are all on an easily accessed file. If I were ever accurately arrested for an associated offense, wouldn't I then have a pattern? Even though wiped from my record or not guilty?
For the peeping tom incident I was handcuffed, made to take a lie detector test (failed), and kept in custody for 4 hours from 11pm to 3am. It wasn't until my girlfriend came in and said she was with me and that I wasn't doing it, that I got off. It was all because the next door neighbor girl was jealous of my having a girlfriend.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Guys and Girls there is a RealVideo clip in the web artical that explains in far more detail how the murderer was caught.
Facts:
Victim stabbed more than 50 times.
DNA samples from flat collected 12 years later, hidden under layers of paint on skirting board.
Rare detail in DNA Component "27" linked to youth, DNA collected after traffic offence.
Convicted murderer was youths uncle.
'Fresh DNA sample' |= 'Fresh DNA'
No matter how old the DNA is the sample can be a fresh one.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Investigation is investigation. We're talking about the murder of a young girl here.. if the cops want to follow you, they CAN. If they have reason to follow everyone in the neighborhood, which they were probably going to do ANYWAY, because they had a strong reason to suspect someone from the neighborhood, asking everyone to submit a DNA sample to clear themselves is NOT a bad thing, it's your chance to simply help them out, and not have to waste time following you. IT's your way of saying "I didn't do it" and having them believe you.
Notice they didn't ask everyone in Canada.. just those who were in the neighborhood, and hence, already suspects.
If you feel worried about privacy issues than remember this, the government probably already has a sample of your DNA. I believe when they did polio vaccinations they kept a blood sample of everyone.
Somehow, the police managed to establish a connection between the nephew and his uncle based on the DNA sample. This could have been as simple as someone noticing that the uncle was mentioned in the original investigation (same surname), or as complex as some biological DNA jiggery pokery. Uncles and newphews have a common parent/grandparent respectively, so there will be a sizable chunk of identical genetic material in there (25%) to go on. In this specific case the suspect admitted guilt and justice eventually appears to have been done, but we need details on that missing step. It's all very well saying that the police would still have to prove the that someone identified in this way was guilty in court, but most jurors are going to hear the phrase "DNA match" and think "Guilty!" as their knee bounces off their chin.
On the whole, I have no privacy problems with this, it does seem like some brilliant police work from the forensics team. However, I am left wondering how this might have turned out if the uncle's DNA had been at the scene for a perfectly innocent reason that he could not justify, or if the DNA match was just a coincidence. The key is just how much additional investigative work was there to get from nephew to uncle?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"
I suppose that if you've done nothing wrong in your house, you don't mind if the law enforcement groups come in and take a look. If you've done nothing wrong, you don't need a lawyer. If you've done nothing wrong, you won't be arrested.
The list can go on. I think there needs to be caution before these types of statements are made. DNA profiling (as mentioned somewhere else in this replyset) is not far away...unless it is not allowed to happen by those of us the government is supposed to represent.
DNA is good, but privacy is paramount.
You can have my DNA when you pry it from my cold, dead cells.
To me this story wonderfully illustrates the fact that there is good utility in a powerful police/state. It still worries me though.
Nobody argues that it is a good thing that a murderer was caught.
Many would however object to compulsory collection of fingerprints from all citizens / immigrants / visitors etc. Again, there is no doubt that this would help to solve some crimes and result in some good things. Many of us worry about the prospect because we do not trust our police / state to use those powers only for good. This mostly comes from differring beliefs in what is acceptable (speeding / P2P / looking at photographs by a famous photographer whom some consider to be a pornographer / reading communist literature the list goes on)
We have convinced ourselves that it is OK to keep fingerprints for criminals - though perhaps less so for those never convicted of crimes.
With DNA, this case shows us that when you store the DNA of a criminal - you effectively store the DNA of a family. Is that OK?
the argument is not about stopping criminals. It is about how much power we will grant to that end. It is about whether you believe that power corrupts.
I don't trust my government. Hence my concern.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
A common question.
A good primer: How DNA Evidence Works
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Retaining or acquiring DNA is no more of a privacy issue than retaining or acquiring fingerprints. Use of DNA increases the precision with which we can identify both the innocent and the guilty.
If folks are concerned about DNA privacy issues, perhaps they really ought to ponder the privacy lost when an innocent person is sent to prison because no DNA evidence was available.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"
So why don't you let them install a camera in your bathroom? After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.
I am sorry if this is OT, but I have wondered for some time now - if they have mapped the human gene map, wouldn't it be possible to construct a list of characteristics of the suspect based on DNA resude left on the crime scene. Can't they guess the things like body size, hair color, color of eyes, race, susceptibility to miopia, and other stuff from the sample? It is all written there.
I guess it would be helpful to police to know that the suspect is 5' blond male, probably wearing eyeglasses.
I have no problems with anybody having samples of my DNA as long as:
1) They don't get any friggin ideas about OWNING it or any stuff derived from it. e.g. "intellectual property" and other such crap.
2) They don't do nasty things to me to get em. I don't have to give em samples if I don't want to. Fine if they want to go through my garbage to get em.
3) The same rules apply to everyone - the people in power, the police etc. If it's fine for them to do XYZ to get my DNA, it's fine for me to do the same thing to them.
You sir, are proof that just because you live in a place doesn't mean you know fuck-all about what is going on there. It's called due diligence, try it before you put your foot in your fucking mouth.
I know they have lights that cause many biological materials to fluoresce. I've seen it a few times on TV. Once in particular Diane Sawyer(I think) took one to a hotel. A word of advice, touch nothing but the sheets.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It is very easy for a criminal to get a sample of blood from a random person. Afterwards he can use it to drop some "DNA evidence" at the crime scene. If that random person DNA will happen to be in the police custody, I think it will be virtually impossible to clear yourlself of the crime.
They murder someone in a gruesome and nasty way.
The folks from CSI come along (hopefully Cally or Sarah) and collect the evidence.
They pass it back to SK in the lab. Snoogins - contact with the ladies.
Cally or Sarah grab a suspect and ask for a sample (and steal it when he tells them to go stuff themselves).
SK swaps the suspect's sample for his own - hey presto, positive match. Case closed.
Or, for more fun, they could find criminals with violent records, but no DNA on record, post their DNA to CODIS (or whatever national variant they have access to) as that nasty criminal and then go on a killing spree, knowing that their DNA is going to be identified as the nasty man's.
But this is just silly, because we all know DNA evidence has never, ever been tampered with.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
Suspect: "I ain't giving you my fricken DN.....ah aaaaaCHOOO!"
Sargent: "Got it!....and bless you."
Table-ized A.I.
One being that a key thing connecting Briere to the crime was actually his bath mat - which police saw when he invited them into his house. They noticed it because it matched fibres found on the girl's clothes.
I have to admit that while I completely understand discarded evidence being allowable, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that citizens can legally refuse to give dna... the police are allowed to take it from other discarded evidence. To me, that seems to be crossing the line.
The trouble is, if it results in a conviction... no politician in this country would dare try to bring a law up to correct the issue.
The other problem? If this technique is sufficiently questionable, the case may be thrown out of court. Given the other evidence against him, I would have a hard time with an otherwise reasonable case being destroyed because the police crossed their boundaries.
~ Leilah
...that you don't live under Soviet rule.
They always got their man. They were guilty, because they were caught, and the state said they were guilty.
I suppose you'd feel very comfortable with all of your mail read, phone calls recorded, and movements tracked. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? The state knows what's best for you, and needs to know your every action in order to act for you.
I forget what 8 was for.
That if instead of matching a kid, if it had been the suspect's brother instead, and he'd been old enough, that "partial" match would have been good enough to convict him if he happened to be the first match in the database.
You use 10x more, but I've heard 1 in a million thrown around too much when someone is trying to manipulate statistics.
Planning on commiting a crime? Buy our new Evidence Obscurer... Guaranteed to contain the concentrated spit of no less than 250 people (guaranteed racial diversity)!
- DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.
White House seeks to expand DNA databaseThe questions this begged for me when the statement came out from the WH:
It may not pass right away here, but I'd be really surprised if it doesn't eventually. Already DNA samples are collected from suspects. However, AFAIK those samples (collected from suspects) *cannot* be kept in the national DNA DB b/c that DB is supposedly only convicted criminals.
DNA collection is one of the encroachments on civil liberties that scares me the most because SO many people are so unaware of any potentially nefarious results from it (eugenics being the most tame) and simultaneously are so WOWED by how DNA evidence solves cases that they will willingly submit to this new rule WHEN said initiative hits stateside in earnest.
When the National Research Council were asked to give a report on the accuracy of DNA profiling, The New York Times got hold of the report two days before it were supposed to be published.
The conclusion from the DNA Technology in forensic science comittee was a reccomendation that DNA evidence should be barred from courts.
Of course, this caused various law enforcement agencies, which had uses these techniques for a long time, to protest. What would happen if an official report stated that DNA evidence was faulty? They would get hundreds or thousands convicted felons who would want a retrial on these grounds. Many of whom were judged entirely on DNA evidence.
Naturally, the NRC had to revise their report. So while still remaining critical to the conclusions from DNA evidence, they should be admittable if the profiling process was under strict quality control. Still there is no such common quality assurance, only for each lab individually.
I reccomend the book "The Doctrine of DNA" by R.C. Lewontin, for an interesting read about this topic, and other controversial DNA cases.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
In february, an 79 years old lady was raped and murdered in the wood near the place of Emmen in the Netherlands. 90 men were selected by the police for DNA test. It didn't match. Then 1200 people in the neighbourhood of the house of the old lady were intervieuwed and 120 men were selected (made suspicious by their neighbours?) for another round of dna tests. One week ago a match was found and a 29 year old men was arrested who confessed the rape and murder.
I had been running in the wood and my name was noted by the police at the place of the murder. So i was asked to take a dna test and i took it.
Now i have a nice letter from the police thanking me for the cooperation. It also says my dna sample and profile will be destroyed.
and just encrypt yer dna...silly sheeple
You remember that old line about our justice system: "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."?
In asking those people to have their DNA tested, the cops were not working toward proving the guilt of the perpetrator. The were demanding that random, uninvolved, parties prove their innocence; exactly the OPPOSITE of the way our justice system is SUPPOSED to work.
Beyond general principle, it's a matter of basic common sence. You never EVER volunteer ANYTHING to the cops. They are NOT your friends. And they are NOT trustworthy. And they are NOT "looking out for you". They're trying to figure out a way to put you in jail.
Check out just about any civil liberties organization; the ACLU or copwatch will suffice; and read their guidelines for protecting your rights when dealing with the pigs. Said guidelines pretty much always run along thelines of: "Suck up, provide ID if driving a car, but NEVER volunteer ANY information to them, and do NOT talk to them until they provide a lawyer, never consent to any search, protest loudly to non-police witnesses if they do search without your consent, and do NOT give them physical evidence (like a DNA sample) unless compelled to do so by a court order.".
You're not being "uncooperative". You're simply protecting your rights.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
but ... but ... information wants to be free !
I'd be curious to see how many people here are hypocritical enough to advocate privacy *and* freedom of information.
Shit man, that's ridiculous.
I was falsely arrested for credit card fraud last year (cuffed and questioned by police officers in public, I would've been taken to the station and booked if I had not been able to have the cops call my parents and confirm that the bank had fucked up). The bank was really apologetic about it, so not counting the compensation they gave me I had them pay for full background checks on me twice (1 week after the incident and 6 mos later) and I charged them with ensuring that my record was completely clean from what was essentially their fuckup. It is my right to not have that on my record, and if they had not complied or if the police had not cleaned my record, lawsuits would have ensued.
You have to get this in order. Unless you have been TRIED and CONVICTED of a crime, the government/police/anyone has no right to maintain these records of you, nor to correlate these with other records when investigating future incidents. The next time this causes you any trouble at all, I highly reccommend you threaten suit, and follow through if they don't comply. Hopefully the next time you get trouble from this won't be the time that having a clear record will be important to you.
Since the UK poineered the idea of a DNA manhunt, this is simply another extention of the UK laws which invented Speed Cameras and Congestion charges. The idea that technology is infalible and will not affect you if you are innocent is something thats been used for a long time in the UK. I agree with the privacy ideas, but the fact is that this method catches murderers and has allowed several wrongly convicted killers to go free, having previously being forced to serve extended life sentances. As far as i'm concerned thats a good thing.
Joseph Farthing
http://josephfarthing.com
I actually never had to threaten litigation, they were very cooperative even without that threat. Still, you are probably right that the incident is on file somewhere, though I'm sure the bank would like to bury it as much as I would. However, I can be reasonably sure that unless it's the same bank, the file will not come up because it is not a public police or government file.
It wasn't until my girlfriend came in and said she was with me and that I wasn't doing it, that I got off. It was all because the next door neighbor girl was jealous of my having a girlfriend.
You're posting on Slashdot, expecting our sympathy for a story that hinges on you having a girlfriend???
Quis metamoderunt ipses metamoderatores?
I like my privacy as much as the next person, I like seeing evil bastards locked up even more though.
I like chocolate, but I like ice cream even more. Does it mean that chocolate is not important any more?
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
You mean like, I shouldn't worry about the government recording my phonecalls if I've never broken the law?
Or I shouldn't worry about having cameras placed in my house if I'd never commit a crime in it?
Or maybe they could perform random audits of my household, because I shouldn't have to worry about them finding anything if I'm not a criminal.
"Civil liberties groups believe it is the long-term aim of the state to keep the DNA of everyone from birth." This is not paranoia.. Later the article states, "the Government is determined to increase the National DNA database from around 1.8m samples to at least 3.5m by next year." Basically, the more people that are accused, (however unconvicted) the more DNA samples may be collected, eventually reaching the goal of 'maximum security(?)' Sounds like the scientific approach to the Homeland Security Act. Parallel the government thinking you are a terrorist and taping into your phone lines to them believing you are guilty of a crime and comparing your DNA to that "collected" from the crime scene. Its Understood that this specific article suggests that the DNA of the relative "closely resembles" that of the convicted criminal which led to the guilt of the convict, however, DNA may be collected incorrectly, and therefore may lead to an incorrect conviction. Yes, from this article we learn of one occurence where similar DNA LEAD to the murderer admitting his crime, however, how many times has this strategy failed? And one must ask, how you may feel one day if you recieve a call to come in because YOUR DNA closely resembles that from the collected crime-scene. Or hell, matches so indefinitely that IF you do avoid conviction, your thousands of dollars in debt due to the lawyer you had to hire to get you out of this government-prompted b.s.
An excellent source on the prevelance of false convictions can be found at www.innocenceproject.org.
However this page shows that faulty DNA evidence is positively rare as a factor in false convictions, at least so far.
But if you really have doubts about the ability of police to convict innocent poor people then you haven't been following the news. Illinois had a stretch where more people on Death Row were exonerated than were actually executed. By anyone's definition that is a very troublesome error rate.
This is slashdot, i think theres a lot more dna on everyones keyboards from sources other than "hair, saliva, and skin slough".
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
If you are suspected of a crime in which officers of the law have some DNA evidence, you may be offered a glass of water or a piece of gum in the interviewing room. There is a good chance this is an easy way to get a DNA sample from you if they do not already have one.
Take the gum, but think twice before spitting it in the trash.
It isn't a matter of the current technology being inaccurate. It is a matter of limitations on our knowledge of how DNA varies from individual to individual. It is also a matter of courtroom practice. The last is probably the biggest problem.
The current technology does generate exact matches of DNA. It does not generate exact matches to individuals. The difference would be like proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the last four digits of the killers social security number were 7395. That is an exact match, but not to a single individual. If the suspect has an SSN ending in 7396 they are definitely innocent. If the numbers match you then have to argue the probabilities. In this case, 1 out of every 10,000 citizens have a match (assuming random distribution of these digits).
The solution in the social security numbers is to determine more digits - narrowing down the populaiton gradually to a unique individual. The same can be done with DNA - if you sequenced enough DNA you could be certain of getting the right guy.
The difficulty with DNA is knowing how much is enough. With a social security number you'd just use the whole number. You can't do that with DNA unless you spend a TON of money on each case. What we rely on are statistics on the variability of various regions of DNA. An exact match in some region of DNA is useless if it happens to be a region that is identical across the human race (kind of like telling the police that you think the guy who robbed you had a head, two arms, and two legs). Unfortunately, the only way to gain this knowledge is to sequence lots of DNA from lots of individuals. This is being done, but it is still an area where much is unknown.
The courtroom practice problem boils down to this. Suppose I have two DNA profiling techniques I can employ. One has been around for 20 years and will give me a 99% certainty of identifying the right person (meaning also that there are probably 10,000 innocent people in the same city who would also be falsely incriminated). Let's also say that this technology has been in use in court cases for the last 15 years and survived a supreme court challenge. Then let us propose that there is a 2nd, newer technique. This technique is about 5 years old and there isn't much evidence it has ever been used in court. It does have strong scientific backing, however, and uses so much DNA sequencing that it could narrow down the whole case to two people who probably live on opposite sides of the earth (but who in theory could just happen to live next door to each other). Let's suppose the two technologies have the same price tag.
Lawyers would tend to go with the older, less accurate technology. 99% is good enough, and court precedent is more important than solid science. If they used the newer technology there would be talk of "risky new technology" and "unproven results". There would be a shortage of expert witnesses to testify (for the old technology you can hire a guy who does nothing but testify in court cases for a living - for the new technology you have to drag somebody out of a lab - somebody who is probably not good at public speaking and convincing juries).
Trials are more performing arts than solid science. Your goal is to pursuade the audience that you are right, not to determine the actual truth. The most relevant science to courtroom practice is consequently psychology...
As far as I can tell, in the U.S., if you throw something away, the police don't need a search warrant to obtain it. They can go through your trash all they want.
I think, however, you will find legal issues with tracking the individuals to obtain said DNA in the first place. Police harrassment perhaps? Remember, for these people the only indicator of guilt is close proximity, which could happen to anyone.
Just like if you throw a murder weapon with your fingerprints on it into your trash, I think you're "discarding" your DNA if you were to, say, have children.
But not all 20 individuals threw away a "murder weapon?" It's a bit different in this case... as non-incriminatory items were being collected. Sure, I'm all for catching the actual person at fault, but the other 19 still don't deserve the scrutiny they were put under.
All-in-all, the perp should be arrested and booked accordingly, but those other 19 who were also being examined when the refused the test should be pressing suits again the police for the invasion of their privacy, etc.
"And those who add 'essential' bias to their side of the argument by adding a few 'temporary' adjectives are prejudging the issue. (Me)