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.)
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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 ----
What's the difference?
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
You remind me of this. And maybe everyone should walk around with a GPS recorder everyday, so that we know where you went. Oh - you're opposed? You must have something to hide! Are you a terrorist?
As the police rely on DNA more and more, they stop performing thorough criminal investigations. And it is a slippery slope: do you start using DNA evidence to catch the guy who's only crime was to spit gum on the street? If this doesn't give you pause, then I hope you enjoy the fruits of such an environment.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
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!
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.
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 /,
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.