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 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.
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.
You know, I wont argue that the system hasnt worked as it was intended. Sometimes I just dont like how the system is intended to work.
True ravers don't need drugs
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.
Its difficult for me to plant your fingerprint. I would have to somehow convince you to touch either a soft moulding material, or collect a fingerprint which I could then somehow etch into a moulding material. (There was a CSI episode about this...)
Its trivial for me to plant your DNA. I could just go anywhere you've been and pick up saliva from dinnerware or cigarette butts, or if you have readily visible hair, lost strands of hair. Granted, this wouldn't be much material, but I could gather more in a casual meeting. I could be walking down the street with an armload of wood or something and just accidentially bump into you and manage to draw blood. Sure, you would quickly remember that I cut you, but it wouldn't help you before the cops came to arrest you.
In the end, I feel that can trust DNA when its being used as a "final nail in the coffin" type of evidence in a case. When its the only evidence though, thats when I start to wonder.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.