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.)
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
Sure it does. Your medical records (ALL OF THEM) are kept for 50 years and the DNA is no different. After 50 years it is destroyed.
If people want their destroyed sooner, they can write to
Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains
16050 Industrial Drive, Suite 100
Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
And request that it be done.
And for you conspiracy theorists.... pull you head out of the sand on this one.... the military told soldiers about this when they started doing it. I was a medic in the Army when this began and all of your questions were brought up back then as well.
It is funny how you were all smoking pot in college on momma's dollar while some of us had to actually go out and EARN our right to go to college.
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
not only that, but DNA has also exonerated many over the years. this week I saw something on Discovery Channel where a guy was locked up for 16 years for raping and nearly killing his wife. (the crime happened in the late 70's, long before DNA testing) He got jailed on his wife's testimony that he was the one who attacked him.
He got offered parole many times, but refused their requirement of confessing the crime. (That's another major problem for another discussion - a real crook can confess and get paroled while an innocent who remains adamant stays locked up)
He eventually found a lawyer who got the DNA tested, and the match was indeed negative. The state ran the DNA through their DB of previously convicted sex offenders, and found their man. He was already serving time for a whole series of rapes/murders in the same jail.
The wife got confused because the room was dark when it happened, and the two men bore similar appearances under that kind of lighting.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...