Slashdot Mirror
Military DNA Registry Used in Criminal Case
bubblegoose writes "The Reading Eagle has a story about a man sought in a Reading, PA. murder who was arrested Thursday in Puerto Rico. This is the first time anyone has been apprehended in a criminal case based on DNA collected by the military. Apparently the DNA registry has a stringent set of rules that must be met for a blood sample to be released and those were satisfied." The DNA registry catalogs DNA samples from all US armed forces, ostensibly for identifying remains (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)
DNA should be used in all cases. It is our own identification and will point to the crook in all instances. Great job!
Before you tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork condemning this "violation of privacy", consider that no rules were broken, no constitutional issues are involved, and the system worked as intended.
Plus, michael is an idiot too.
In the event your buddy gets blown to bits in front of you, forget the dog tags and grab his toe.
let's role!
I get the impression that people will be entirely up in arms about this. I am all for protecting personal rights but, it is really hard to condemn a case like this, where a man has been brought to justice as a result.
Of course, there is always the issue of information (in this case DNA) being misabused: for many people this is why this is worrying. I'm sure it might be possible to implicate someone based on the data, but it would surely be very hard?
However, overall I am for these technologies. They enforce a justice system and have little negative effect (that I am aware of -- if anybody can provide examples, I would be very interested to hear, and possibly change my argument).
What does look worrying is the suggestion that the Military should destroy the data once the serviceperson has been discharged. If it is not being done (assuming, of course, the serviceperson were told it would be) this is simply wrong.
Sorry for a rather convoluted argument.
Question: Does the database have some law governing it's use after a person's been discharged?
Answer: No.
Move along, nothing to see here. No sympathies from me for this asshole.
I would never, ever give a sample for a DNA analysis to anyone but a doctor. And even then, with specific knowledge about the rules and where it was going and for how long. Even then, I make sure that an insurance company never knows anything about it. Never give your SSN to a doctor or insurance company.
I have and never will submit to drug/alcohol screening for a job or insurance.
Yes, we got a "good" result in this particular case. But the end does not justify the means.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Ofcourse it's not the only reason. Didn't you learn anything from X-Files?
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
This doesn't seem too bad.
DNA was used in this case to catalogue, not used to identify traits about the person (ostensibly, let's not go all X-files on it) - and only released when there was a criminal investigation.
As a matter of fact, this all sounds rather grown-up and useful, some static information which is never used until you're accused of a crime, and then only to match you up. I only get worried when it's used to identify your genetic makeup for making decisions on how you live your life (commercial and government).
This is just like using DNA instead of fingerprints
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
I don't see this as a big deal. I spent 20 years in the US Navy, and would assume my fingerprints and photo were available forever to anyone with the right access. The DNA does not seem like an escalation. I wouldn't want any of it to be public or EASY to get to mind you...
No pain, no gain: So if I keep automating with NT shell scripts, I should be a bizzlionare in no time!
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
I got fingerprinted when I joined the Canadian Militia and it's put a total crimp on my potential career as a felon.
If everyone's DNA was on file it would be hell on crime. The technology is coming where they just run a vacuum all around a crime scene and the computer will match up everyone who shed a skin flake there.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Of course not! Hundreds of years into the future, after they figure out how to create humans from simple DNA strands, they can resurrect the greatest generals who ever lived to fight the War for the Futur...
I'm such a dork.
Why?
the military also takes fingerprints in similar manner to DNA. those finger printings have come back to haunt more than a few servicemen after their discharge.
DNA sampling and profiling will be the single most important weapon against physical criminals (as compared to the slimy cyber sort). Scream all you like, but a national registry is inevitable: the promise will be that if you're innocent you have nothing to fear and if you're guilty, you can't escape.
Step 1: DNA matching to try to find perpetrators of murders, rapes, etc.
Step 2: DNA profiling to try to identify characteristics of perpetrator: gender, height, hair color...
Step 3: full-blown facial reconstruction from DNA samples. Expect this around the same time as it becomes possible to _fake_ DNA samples, and smart criminals leave mickey-mouse DNA lying around. Lucky for the honest people, most criminals are stupid.
Step 4: replacement of 'standard' tools such as fingerprinting and eye-witness identification (which is really, really unreliable).
This seems inevitable. Joe Public has two options: accept it and try to live with it, or fight it and watch it happen anyhow.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The blood samples are taken so they can CLONE them - they are secretly replacing our American Soldiers with Clones that will one day rule the world!!!!!
Ave Molech Setting
And enough for a conviction, apparently. But what happens when someone accidently gets their blood on someone they know (think two people working on a car or some other machine where accidents can happen) and then that person is murdered soon after? Unlikely? Sure. But possible.
Before you go all ape about it, remember that there are a whole lot of samples in there, and no system to really track when they need to be destroyed. Enlisted contracts do not end when the person ends active duty; most folks do have a several year inactive reserve commitment (they can grab you back if they really, really need you), and retirees don't ever really get away from the contract.
Somebody wrote:
Not particularly. If I learned how to fly planes, and a body that looks like mine suddenly shows up in North Korea, it might be nice to have a positive identification.
Likewise, if I learned how to blow up buildings, assassinate people, build nukes, or a whole host of other things (including how to use a fully-automatic weapon), it might be nice to get a positive ID before you start throwing people in jail.
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
Or after the statute of limitations has expired on all possible crimes... Which means keep forever, since murder cases don't expire.
I wouldn't say that just because some rich and influencial are able to beat the system we should ignore the ones we can catch.
So if they don't destroy them at discharge, will theyever. I know hospitals only keep records about 10 years back. But the government is obviously keeping DNA samples for their personal use. Is this permitted, or does it infringe on citizens' personal rights?
although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.
If michael had bothered to read the second link, he would have seen this:
Once you complete your full service obligation, you also can request destruction of your DNA record.
Complete with where you can get the form and instructions. If he's in the military, then he's farked. If he was out of th emilitary though, it's his own damn problem.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Hmm.
Although I have a long history of criticising Michael (and before that, Jon Katz until I stopped reading his articles at all) for his stupid editorial comments, I can't see anything he said this time which is particularly knee-jerk, shallow, or stupid. Not particularly insightful, but that's not a huge crime.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
If you've been active duty and served out a stint in active duty you might be called up for duty in case of a national emergency, war, mobilization or if your MOS is needed for up to 10 years. It's called the inactive reserves.
So even if the service is going to delete the records after a person serves it might be a while till they really aren't part of the system.
if he was, that would be why te catalog was not destroied.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
While many will say 'good, it caught a criminal', what happens when DNA is used to determine 'potential criminal' and they come collect you, just in case.
Don't laugh, research is being done into this ( even mentioned on here a few times ).
Now tat you can be arrested for 'potential intent of activity', not much of a stretch to use DNA... Or other such nonsense.
Soon every baby born will be required to give a sample. ' for their safety of course'.
Couple that with 24/7 monitoring of the populace.... Lets hear it for lack of privacy. It was nice while it lasted. IM sure our founding fathers are rolling in their graves about now, with what we have allowed to happen to what they created.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Consider the brady law/instant background checking. Under the Clinton administration, anyone who had a verification check done was recorded permanently. John Ashcroft changed the policy so records were destroyed after 30 days. And people complained!.
What's the difference?
John Ashcoft and Donald Rumsfeld announced in a joint press conference yesterday that their two departments would collaborate on a program designed to both eliminate military personnel shortages and prevent crime.
"If every young man and woman were to provide their country with just 6 months of their lives, the United States' anti-terrorism capabilities would be greatly enhanced.", stated Mr Rumsfeld, head of the Department of Defense.
The United States Attorney General, Mr Ashcroft, added that, "Too many young people today have no sense of duty, and fall into a spiral of crime, often becoming drug dependant and unwittingly supporting terrorism through their drug use. This program will give them back their self-confidence and sense of responsibility."
The White House later denied that they had any involvement in the 11th hour amendment to House Bill HR303 "Childrens Right to Free Healthcare."
The amendment, purportedly designed to promote transparency in political campaign funding, sought to provide exemptions from "Any form of mandated military service, now or in the future" to anyone who had a $10000 donation made in their name to the Republican Party.
Representative John Bloggs (D)(Ca) stated yesterday, "The terms of the amendment are completely unacceptable to the Democratic Party. We don't know how the amendment came to be in the bill, it certainly was not in the version that we read last week."
The amendment was later withdrawn.
Your use of the word 'misabused' is the most misabused abusive misuse I've ever seen here on /.
So you've proven his point, that there are other reasons.
According to the DoD themselves, "This is a very simple program, solely for the identification of remains."
o 030718can one expect from a government that's holding nearly 700 people against their will, US law, the laws of the captives' nations, and international law (the Geneva convention)? Did you know that they're building an execution chamber in Guatanamo bay?
They modify this somewhat, with this statement: "People also wonder whether the samples can be used in criminal cases. "The only way that they'd be released is if we had a court order," he said."
Well in a murder case, a court order to confirm evidence isn't that hard to get, as this trial showed. In other words, the DoD is entirely incorrect about the possible uses for this database.
Furthermore, this means that any US military personel are being held to a more rigorous evidence screening process than the rest of the population, due to their DNA files. Doesn't this violate the spirit (if not the letter) of everyone being 'equal in the eyes of the law?' Sadly, this leads to the "solution" of making a DNA repository mandatory for the entire population. In other words, being forced to give evidence in advance of any potential wrongdoings. This comes close to not having to incriminate yourself, in my mind.
Of course, what http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/18/uk_guantanam
But I digress. We've had fingerprints for a century or so as legally admissable evidence, and there's no mandatory registry for them. Why then does ANY nation need a registry of DNA samples?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
But for the sake of argument, lets say I get someone ELSE's DNA to leave at the crime scene...
How you ask? many different ways, I could grab a cigarrete butt from a public ashtray, collect hair from a public toilet (yuck!) or barber shop, etc....
Now, I simply have to plant that "evidence" and guess what: if you are in the database and I am not you are fubar....
Of course they may think you had an accomplis (if they find my DNA) but they will not find me, and wont give you a plea deal because to their mind you have not provided them with a name. To make it even worse, just select the DNA of homeless and/or the poor who will not get decent representation, and will probably not have an alibi.
The new government motto : allurbasepairsblong2US
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
yeah... you have to say Pretty please
I think that's exactly what the privacy people are concerned about. It's also not a flawless system. Ever seen Gattacca? The main character (played by Ethan Hawke) is one of the few people born to his world who wasn't genetically screened, and so is genetically inferior to almost everyone else. He hires Jude Law, a now crippled, genetically screened Olympian, to provide DNA and fluid samples (everything from skin flakes to hair to blood to urine) to use to fool the daily screening the people go through. He has fake fingerprints attached to his finger tips with adhesive, encapsulating a resevoir of Jude Law's blood, which stand up to fingerprint scans and pinprick instant DNA tests. Ethan Hawke kept his hair shaved extremely short, removed dead skin and body hair with intense scrubbing, and managed to avoid leaving samples everywhere he went.
What if the cops vacuumed up a murder scene, say the trunk of your car, and only found your DNA and the DNA of the victim there? What if the murderer (not you, just some guy who dumped a corpse in your car) followed a procedure similar to Ethan Hawke's, or vacuumed up his own DNA, or clothed himself in a neoprene suit? What defense could you possibly have against a prosecuting lawyer in this situation?
While this scenario is unlikely, I only use it to illustrate for the people who see DNA databases as a panacea for crime that their system if not flawless.
Other arguments (which have been made a million times but deserve to be made ahead) include the possibility of exclusion from insurance policies based on predispositions found for Alzheimer's, alcoholism, Huntington's, etc. in your archived DNA, true 'identity theft' involving the use of your genetic code for arbitrary illicit purposes, 'borrowing' of the DNA of models, scientists, politicians, etc. for the use of artificial insemination by anyone who can afford the appropriate bribes or hacker.
The world becomes a lot smaller with a DNA database. The more we rely on DNA checking in our day to day life (for example in place of a pin code for the use of a check card), the more often your exact location can be logged and tracked. I'm not extremely concerned about privacy (I have nothing to hide), but I don't much care for the idea of the government or corporations knowing where I am every time I make a purchase, open the door to my office, vote, whatever. While it's creepy that they have up to the minute updates on where you are, perhaps it's creepier that they could have an archive of everywhere you'd been for the past 10 years. Cookies in internet browsers pale in comparison to the tailor-made advertisements that could be created with such information.
while (!sleep){
sheep++;
}
A fingerprint can only be used to determine identity. Aside from that purpose, there is limited danger in maintaining a registry of fingerprints from military or civilian use.
DNA is a completely different story.
DNA can be used to determine almost anything about a person. Race, sex, hair and eye color, genetic medical conditions, etc... Because of this, we have to be very careful about what we allow these databases to be used for. If you think racial profiling is bad, think about the ramifications of genetic profiling. "We stopped you because your DNA profile says that you have poor depth perception and you shouldn't be driving."
In this case, the use was apparently legal and just. But if the Army could use this database to determine who is best suited for promotion, or who is gay, or any other nefarious purpose, don't you think they would (or have?)
I'm from Reading,PA and read this in the Reading Eagle, of course I, like most others didn't give it a second thought. But it's cool that we got mentioned on /.
Even people who have left the military are entitled to a military burial in some cases, or their surviving spouse may be eligible to receive a widow's pension. That could be a reason to keep the DNA samples of ex-servicepeople.
Your insurance provider isn't picking up the rest; the other subscribers to your plans are.
Most insurance works basically the same way: a group of people pay into a "pool" of money (that's the premiums you pay) that gets disbursed when one of them file a claim. It's kinda like a betting pool in that the money that the winner (insurance claimant) receives comes from the others in the pool.
The key to insurance is having (many) more people paying in than filing claims. Obviously, if everybody "wins" (hurricane, anyone?) the pool of money can't cover the claims. That's the problem with Social Security and Medicare-- everybody that plays wins!
So anyway, you're welcome for my contributions to your subsidized healthcare.
Using this method, the individual is tracked down in a way similar to finger-print comparisons or even witness/mugshot comparisons. The only difference is how much more information is in a DNA sample than in a picture or fingerprint. But I think if the suspect's sample can be analyzed into a unique code that can be sent to the DoD, which they then compare to their database, then there is no privacy breach for the remainder of the database. Sure, there would be some verification after a match, but I don't see how this would be objectionable.
Xesdeeni
Don't expect the government to destroy any information once collected. There is a registry in the US for people purchasing long guns (shotguns and rifles). It's used to perform a background check, and names on it are only supposed to be kept -- by law -- for a limited time (I believe 6 months). However, names are never taken off the list.
Political conditions change: that's why the wise worry about government lists. It's all warm and fuzzy when we talk about catching crooks, and most people in the US would find the notion of not trusting their goverment a crack-pot idea. What they never dream of happening is political conditions changing drastically within the space of a couple of years because of some "crisis."
When that happens, it suddenly becomes a very big deal what kind of information the government has been trusted with -- and by then it's too late.
It's sort of like trusting your neighbor with your house key while you go away on business for six months; only, while away, the neighbor dies and his heroin addict son gets a hold of the key (the black sheep of the family whom they never talk about). What do you think happens then?
Go ahead, trust the government without reservation! But, Washington, Jefferson, et al, understood why such trust is foolish.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
As someone who has his DNA tucked away in the big freezer, I just want to say that I find this comforting. I'll explain, and my explanation can be summed up in two words: unknown soldier.
I'm in a dangerous occupation (19D, Cavalry Scout), in a dirty, dangerous branch (Army) of the military, and I'll be getting a desert vacation for six to twelve months to go police some big chunk of sand in the middle east next year. I'm sure all the airmen, sailors, radio repairmen, hospital techs, and janitors in the service will be up in arms about the government keeping their precious DNA on file, but as one of the low-brows who stands a bigger chance of not coming home than they do - I'm perfectly happy to let Uncle Sam keep two drops of my blood in a freezer.
How easy do you think it will be to identify my remains without a DNA sample if I'm in a convoy that gets ambushed and I get hit by an RPG in the face, and the TOWs in the back of my HMMWV blow up? Not very easy - especially if they don't find the remains for a few years. But, oh, no, it's absolutely evil for the DoD to keep some material on file that would help identify me in that case.
Jesus, grow up, people. Not everyone whose service contract has ended is around to ask for their sample to be destroyed.
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
Sounds good to me.
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
for what they're worth:
This actually comes at a good time for me. I'm finishing up James Watson's book "DNA" which gives some length discussion to the idea of genetic fingerprinting, including it's moral and legal implications. You should pick it up if you're interested.
That aside, I think I agree with Watson's view that the benefits of DNA fingerprinting, for the most part, in both convicting the bad guy and freeing the innocent guy wrongly accused, greatly outnumbers the possibilities for abuse. And I'm normally someone that values civil rights and privacy pretty highly.
To make sure privacy and the DNA databases run parallel, there should be some rules. For example, most DNA identification that goes on comparing DNA at the crime site with the DNA in the database or from the suspect himself relies on comparing the "junk DNA" that has come to be from mutuations, which can, for the most part, narrow it down to an individual, or at least to a probability that it's him that would leave the exception negligible. Since we're concentrating on portions of DNA that really serve no purpose (that we can tell, at least), there shouldn't be any reason for a database to keep track of parts of my DNA that actually serve a function and may give details of my life like if I'm prone to getting a disease, if I'm lactose intolerant, etc. Involuntary collections should not include such information. Voluntary collections should give you the choice (the benefit being that if you're unconcious, your DNA database can tell a doctor what he or she should watch out for).
Furthermore, the use of DNA evidence should be restricted to certain kinds of crimes. Obviously, murder and rape should be good candidates for the technique to be used. However, crimes that, for example, have recently been defined (or redefined) by legislation, should be excluded. Like the fact that the Patriot Act, as it's written, can include something as harmless as protest under the category of "terrorism". Obviously, you should avoid collecting DNA databses here.
There have also been talks of keeping DNA evidence on people who have been detained but not charged, or who have been charged, but proven not guilty. This is ridiculous. If you're not a criminal, or you're not in the army, the only person who should be getting your DNA is your doctor. That's it.
DNA testing is not infallible. If you think it is, you're living in clooud cuckoo land...
DNA testing doesn't actually test wether your DNA is the same as the sample. What is tests is that when you remove one of the 4 chemicals in the DNA, the relative masses of the strands that are left are very similar. To do a proper DNA test, you've have to fully sequence both specimins, which is NOT what they're doing.
Statistically, this means that there's a large chance that they'll get the wrong person using DNA testing alone.
DNA is pretty good for proving you're innocent, buut lousy at proving you're guilty.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
I see no difference between this and your fingerprint. It's your personal identity based on your unique physiological characteristics. When I received a passport/drivers license it went on record. Also to my knowledge when has the military ever respected service men/women?s rights. My friend has been out of the navy for over a year and they still have the right to recall his ass.
That's because USMC doesn't stand for "United States Marine Corps", it stands for "U Signed the motherfscking contract". Once you sign in, it's like the roach motel - you don't sign out until you're dead. They pretty much own you for the rest of your life. By extension, all branches of the US military thusly own you.
This sig no verb.
(although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)
Like all military medical records, they're kept for 50 years after the release date.
It's not a big bad conspiracy at all.
As an anonymous coward, in the armed forces, fearful of IP tracking and alias tracking by Big Brother, (heavy gloom and doom tone on purpose), I knew that Uncle Sugar would soon become Uncle Satan when it required DNA data for new recruits.
Body identification etc. is all well and good but that data is not just for the future unknown soldiers, it'll be sold to insurace companies for health tracking by DNA, it'll be used for culling the herd, when that day comes.
The DNA data that has already been amassed is a goldmine that politicians and generals are already massaging to build a dbase of those they want and don't want. Recall that the Mormon church licensed/sold it's medical data/ family health history to a BioTech firm in San Diego (I seem to recall) for 7 million dollars. How much money would it take to buy a couple of politicians to put the armed forces health/DNA dbase up for auction?
Setting precedent in a court case for the *good* of the community is a necessary first step towards releasing *our* blood data to those who want to squeeze yet more money from it.
It wasn't very well done, but the movie Gattaca seems all the closer as a potential reality.
Simple statistics tells us:
if the test has a false positive rate of 1 in a Million, then, depending on the size of your country, there could be between 30 - 250 ish people who would test false positive.
Let's assume you're innocent.
Out of those, say, 30 people, another 28 are going to be innocent like yourself. Therefore the probability that you're innocent is 29/30 - a very high probablity. The probability that you're guilty is 1/30, very low.
So for innocent people, the 1 in a million false positive DNA match leads to a very high statistical probability that's you're innocent, yet most people think that the 1 in a million false positive rate means that if you test positive you're almost certainly guilty.
That's why DNA evidence should never be used to convict, only to acquit.
Even if there was just one other person in your geographical area that matched the DNA profile (the real criminal), if they pick you up, it's a 50% chance they're wrong to accuse you!!
That's why DNA tests should never be performed on whole populations to "trawl" for the criminal - they'll just stop at the first person that they find matches...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
The article, and the discussion which follows fails to address the most important question: what are the "standards for release"?
The are listed as strigent, but no details are given. "No shoes, no shirt, no DNA" might be strigent in someplaces, but not others. What where the conditions they met?
you're right - this speaks to a larger issue. the infraction is minor this time, but remains unnecessarily incendiary. there are many reasons the govt. would maintain that data - aside from costs, or the possiblity of drafting discharged personnel down the line. whatever the case, he has no business saying what he does. i'm not sure what his qualifications are to begin with, but i doubt they have anything to do with data security, the military, or public policy.
Dog implicated by DNA in chicken coop raid spared death penalty
By The Associated Press
(7/17/03 - WEST TISBURY, MA) -- A dog linked by DNA to a chicken coop raid has been spared the death penalty.
Officials in West Tisbury, Massachusetts, instead slapped a permanent restraining order on Sabrina, and ordered the dog's owner to pay $375 in damages to the owner of the dead chickens.
But Sabrina's owner says she's been told the dog won't be so lucky next time, if it's caught in a neighbor's chicken coop again.
Malcolm Jones' chicken coop on Martha's Vineyard had been raided three times. After the last attack, he sent the gray and white dog hairs he found to a California lab for DNA analysis.
The DNA matched that of his neighbor's malamute-collie mix.
Police pointed out that, while the DNA did place Sabrina at the scene of the crime, it did not prove that she was the killer.
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
The US has been in Baghdad less time than you were willing to give Hans Blix to find things Saddam was supposed to show him.
Just in case there's anyone reading the comments who also read the article...
The DoD's policy seems amazingly correct here. They allowed a suspect's DNA to be searched when there was already reasonable grounds to suspect a specific person. They did not allow a mass search of their database for anyone who might match.
Use of DNA to prove innocence is always valid. Use to increase the probability of guild after you have evidence on a specific suspect is equally as valid. The issue of concern remains preventing searching for a "1 in a million match" (something certain to convince any jury) against a large database repeatedly. If that is ever allowed, false positives are predictable.
In this case, the use of DNA was proper. The DoD should be applauded for limiting the use of DNA data. Stating that the records should never be disclosed is absurd. Nobody has ever objected to the use of dental records *after* a suspect is identified.
Meanwhile, having implied that the DoD did something reasonable, I better go find a thread where I can lump M$ or I will lose all credibility on /,
For example, a commissioned officer literally serves "at the pleasure of the President".
Just because someone's ended their term of active duty service does not mean they've ended all obligations to the military. Get your facts straight before you start bashing those that sacrifice much so you can pontificate on the internet.
...non-military members should shut up and let the military run itself (despite the fact that the militay spends a fair proportion of my Federal tax dollars).
This seems to leave no sentient being in control... much like your fingers when posting.
when you give your sample in basic traning you're given the option of having the sample destroyed after your enlistment is up
This is what sex is all about. Plus I believe that sex is much more fun than cloning, and children are probably much more fun than clones.
Would you prefer to read the same Slashdot every day? No, the fun comes from the unexpected.
The sci-fi image of cloning ignores two little facts. First, the huge cost of rearing a person compared to the tiny cost of sperm+eggs. Second, that success in one lifetime means nothing for the next. Perhaps Einstein would not have understood email, or would have died from AIDS at 18. Each generation has to adapt slightly to an ever changing world, and this (to come back to my starting point) is what sex is about.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I have two faults of logic for this.
First, you are on a very slippery slope with an "Ends justify the means" argument. Where do you stop with such a thing?
Second, and more specifically relevent, the information may, I hope, be thrown out as evidence. My reason for this is thus: As a discharged sailor, I was ordered, at threat of disobeying a direct order (a potential court martial offense), to give the sample mentioned. I need to point out that my sample was given one week prior to leaving the Navy during my separation physical. In order to get DNA evidence in every other circumstance the individual has legal protections that have been circumvented here.
Also, the military has, as in my case, reported falsely to the service member the reason for gathering the DNA sample in the first place. The link for the stated purpose of the repository has it that the sample is collected for identification of remains. That being the case, why take a sample for someone leaving the military?
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
The DNA registry catalogs DNA samples from all US armed forces, ostensibly for identifying remains (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)
But, if they destroy the samples, they wont be able to combine the samples and create Khan in the future. (Wasn't he supposed to have DNA combined from earth's greatest leaders?) That's no fun at all!
Then again, maybe I'm thinking of that Cobra-la guy from Gi-Joe, Sepentor.
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Everyone can agree that the potential benefits outweigh any possibility for misuse.
Imagine... a golden world free of crime!
Thank Government for these little training wheels so that I couldn't do anything to embarass myself, my family, or my country.
"I'm a loner Dottie, a rebel."
- Pee Wee Herman
Nice to know you get your feel of where the world is going from Hollywood.
Nice try, OJ. But you really did do it.
Just to protect the freedom and rights of ungrateful morons like you.
there's a large chance that they'll get the wrong person using DNA testing alone
cf
DNA is pretty good for proving you're innocent, buut lousy at proving you're guilty.
So to screen large populations, use the basic 'remove 1 of 4' test, which will exonerate most of the innocent, then follow up with a full sequence on those that remain. Has anyone been permanently convicted using only the basic test?
The ends do justify the means, once you recognise that those means have become part of the ends you get.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There are Pamela Anderson lookalikes!! Where?? Can I get a dozen?! Do they deliver!?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You damn bus drivers just won't admit it.
The military DNA samples are not in the nice convieniant form of blood samples, they are taken from mouth swabs.
I remember when they started building the database and they made the anouncment that they were coming for our DNA, and we thought oh no another pinprick, and instead got our mouths swabed
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Med Tech: Yeah, I need to swab your mouth for this new DNA thing they're doing on everyone in the Navy.
Me: ummm... yeah... not too sure about that. Hey, I've only got 3 months left on my enlistment. What's gonna happen if we just "forget" and I miss this appointment.
Med Tech: Well, they'll be reviewing everyone's records in January - in about 4 months...
Me: OK, thanks. Bye!
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
In some ways I do hope we have a draft again so pinheads like you who've been insulated from risk your whole damn life will have to face it.
Hmm. Every post commenting on michael is modded down as offtopic. Makes me think that an editor is playing with the system.
The simple fact is your freedom and ability to peck away at a computer instead of fighting for your live is bought with the blood and sacrifice of those who volunteer simply escapes you, doesn't it? Or have you forgotten so soon all those members of the military that Bill Clinton sent abroad?
Nothing, right?
Sex with pamela anderson ? It would take a hell of a lot longer than two minutes with that hag. Besides, you're not gonna have much of a sample if she takes a dump before she leaves...
Micheal wrote:
The DNA registry catalogs DNA samples from all US armed forces, ostensibly for identifying remains (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)
and even linked to a press release; had he actually read the press release he linked to he would have found:
Normally, the registry will retain DNA cards for 50 years, the same length of time military medical records are kept on file. Once you complete your full service obligation, you also can request destruction of your DNA record. The required form and instructions are available from:
Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples
for the Identification of Remains
16050 Industrial Drive, Suite 100
Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
His comment is moot. But then again; anyone can link, not everyone can read.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Combs....
Hair with folicles come out when you comb it.
So snatch a comb, and bingo.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
First of all, the testing is done by humans and very prone to errors. Also very prone to getting the results they want to get. There have been some noteable cases where it was found that the "odds" of a DNA match of what was tested were vastly overstated by an "expert witness" in court.
Second, while fingerprints are unique (and yet have still been found to be improperly matched by some FBI testers), DNA is not always unique. Want your life ruined by the actions of your evil twin (perhaps one you didn't even know you had if you were adopted) just because you served your country in the military and years later there was a DNA match to you?
The bottom line here is that keeping these records is a needless invasion of privacy. It was never to be used for this, but (big surprise) now it is. Who knows what it will be used for in the future? Perhaps to mine the DNA database so Monsanto can patent your genes (even if you personally would not give Monsanto that information). Perhaps to test for people with some "undesirable" genetic tendency. We at Homeland Security see from your genes that you're genetically a potential threat to national security, and so for your own good .....". In the end this is just information I (and many many others) don't want someone tracking on me, and a lot of people will elect not to serve in the military if it means that this information is taken from them and then can be used in any way in the future.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I think the line that will have to be drawn here is that one may use DNA to confirm someone's presence at the scene of the crime, but should never be used to find a person. If it is used to "find" a person, then it really could turn up someone very innocent... who happens to be close to the DNA, as I recall DNA fingerprints are one in say 10 million... well, how many million in the United States, 250 million? Could be your half-brother who you never new you had, etc. This sort of usage could be very dangerous.
However, the use of DNA as evidence, like any other form of evidence should be permitted. No?
That explains why they have to keep them for 50 years. We only want to clone the survivors.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes the swab hurt, but it was my impression that every time they came for my blood the took a bunch from that vein right on the inside of my elbow and caused me problems for the rest of the week when I had to do push ups
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
This is a layman version of the real process; I worked on some software to work with this data, and read some science books until I understood this. However, I couldn't do it in a lab
There are 13 standard locations in the genome, called loci. Each is the starting point of a string of DNA that repeats in a known pattern,
but the number of repeats varies from person to person, and is inherited. So for each of the 13 loci, you come up with either one or two repeat counts, one from each parent (they could be the same number). If all of these 13 pairs of numbers
match, the samples came from the same person. If not, then they did not.
There is more to it, since the different counts are not equally likely, and the frequencies vary by race, gender, etc. So determining if two samples are from related people, and how closely
they're related, is more complex.
I hope that helps, and isn't too over-simplified.
I think I saw this on CSI last night...
It is completely valid to take DNA and fingerprints from someone in the military, since they are going to be trained beyond what a regular citizen will be.
Imagine if we had no information whatsoever on a Special Operations soldier who retires and decides to lead a life of crime.
As I see it, most of the law enforcement efforts go toward stemming "little guy" (perhaps, blue collar versus white or poor versus rich?) crime.
But one Enron steals from thousands of pensioners and investers versus, say, a liquor store hold up.
The really big guys influence congress to make their shady dealings legal (but never just).
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Yeah, but on the plus side, we can harness the rotational energy in their graves, and achieve energy independence!
They could have just goten a court order to take DNA from the guy directly. If they had enough probable cause to get it from the millitary, they probably had enough to get it from him.
...a finger print?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It was mostly sarcasm in my post, but the problem is that the government WILL believe it and act on it, putting a lot of innocent people either behind bars or under heavy surveillance.
The will also convince the populace that its effective, and a small price to pay for 'safety'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Unless 'no other means' is construed ad 'no other legal means' or 'no other convenient means'. Because if is is alive and a suspect, they could get a sample from him. And if there is some legal reason they couldnt, why would his old sample be exempt?
And to those who keep saying they see no difference between this and a fingerprint, i say, no one can tell the sex, race, and medical history of you and your family from a fingerprint. That is a lot of additional information that makes it very personal and different from a fingerprint.
"Through my investigation, Casiano-Fernandez's name kept coming up, and then I learned that he had been in the military," Cafoncelli said.
He turned to Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Barbieri, the federal prosecutor assigned to the Reading Area Violent Crimes Task Force, to get approval to obtain the DNA from the military.
For everyone who has said "DNA is a one in a million match, therefore there are hundreds of people who have the same DNA", you should read the article where it says, "Casiano-Fernandez's name kept coming up" so he asked the military specifically for his DNA, and his DNA alone. He wasn't trolling through the military database for anyone who just happened to match. The guy was the prime suspect before the DNA was even tested!
Remember an article on slashdot about a week ago where an uncle commited a crime, leaving behind DNA evidence. 20 years later, that evidence was analyzed and searched in a database. He wasn't in the database. However, his nephew however did sommit a crime 15 years later and *was* in the database. When doing the search, they found the guy's nephew, and then him.
Thats rather impressive. A swab from a 20 year old crime was linked to a 5 year old swab from the criminals relative.If thats not a broadband database search, what is?
I used to live in reading...I didn't know anyone read the reading eagle...I didn't know anyone there could read!
What you're talking about are called VNTR's (Variable Number Tandem Repeats). There are other types of polymorphisms like SNP's (Simple Nucleotide Polymorphisims) and RFLP's (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms). "Loci" (singular "locus") are simply locations in the genome. There may be 13 variable loci that are looked at (I'm not a forensic biologist, just a molecular/cellular biologist) but there are many, many identified loci in the human genome.
Most of the genome is very similar from person to person, but there are regions of variability. Identification by genotyping looks at a number of these regions, and the chances of any two people having exactly the same variations in all the variable regions is so small as to be negligable.
I have done stuff like this, both in humans (looking for presence/absence/heterozygosity of an Alu site), and in grasshoppers from the Ozarks in Missouri (looking at SNP's in order to determine levels of gene flow). Hope this was helpful
That is all. Carry on. </transmission>
"On request" != "automatically" so his comment remains valid. Good to know that separating servicemembers can request this destruction, though.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Very fundamental to American justice is that we do not wholesale give away rights when there is no reasonable suspicion of crime. That's why your home (and even your car) can't be searched without a warrant or your permision. In theory you can't be arrested and held indefinately without a lawyer and without even being told what your crime is, although after 9/11 this has indeed been happening to a large number of American citizens; so it's pretty reasonable for people to be concerned about errosion of our rights and mistrust of the government. This search of supposedly private DNA information for a purpose that is not why it was originally given (as well as it was not given freely by rather by coersion) certainly constitutes an illegal search, even a greater invasion than an illegal search of a home. Over the years the courts have often released the known guilty in order to protect our individual rights and keep the U.S. from becoming a police state. I for one hope it happens again.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
As far as confronting this concentration of power, something inspiring to watch is how a powerful music industry can be held accountable by the power of just regular folks and their computers. Similarly, the Government Information Awareness program was very inspiring.
I was a service member, and had my DNA collected. I for one feel better knowing that (even now after the end of my term of service) that if I die, and for some reason my body isn't otherwise identifiable, the military DNA record will make it possible. Therefore loved ones will _know_ its me, so they can have a party (W00H00 the SONUVABITCH IS FINALLY DEAD!)
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
Most probably due to Slashdot Effect!! This sort of site should be mirrored, stored on Freenet etc so as to make sure no one can suppress its information by bandwidth overloading or DDoSing. After all, information is no good if you can't access it in a timely manner...
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
It's quite simple. We are still at war, albeit against an enemy who now has to resort to guerilla tactics. The style of warfare has changed from that of, say, the Germans in WWII to that of the Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. The war has not ended. We still have combat casualties. That's why they continue calling it a war: because it is.
This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
Stupid fuckhole.