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 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.
You may not have the choice. What if you wanted to join the army? What if you needed it to get a job (in the scary world that many predict).
What indeed, if you needed to submit to DNA testing to get a government ID card so that you could get basic services?
I have no idea if we're going that way - but that case is completely different to the case under discussion... they did not use the DNA except as a fingerprint substitute
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
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
Absolutely. DNA evidence has freed many (dozens?) of people convicted of crimes they didn't commit. But can we trust the military? Are their processes governed by the same strict rules that govern civilian DNA testing? Remember, just because it was done in a lab by a contractor does not mean the same standards are adhered to.
Consider the Anthrax vaccine. Sure, different science, different subject. But while there are many questions about its safety, DoD refused to address these issues. And remember Gulf War Syndrome and Agent Orange? DoD studies dismissed these issues as well.
Given the militaries sloppy and slack and just plain corrupt handling of other high tech health issues, how can we trust that the DNA records are correct, the samples handled correctly?
Those of us who chose (note the choice is willing and uncoerced) were made fully aware that we were being DNA catalogued, that the DNA could be used not only to identify our remains, but also for prosecution under the UCMJ, and for identifying potential genetic diseases. We were also made fully aware that once we undertook the oath of service, our collective buttocks belonged to Uncle Sam.
I do not see any invasion of privacy here. I see a choice made by someone that perhaps failed to think through the consequences of his actions. Based on the tight security rules involved in acquiring that DNA information, they had to have sufficient evidence and reasonable suspicion, as well as several levels of security clearance. It's not like Joe Doughnut can just walk up and say 'I have a case here, lemme get some DNA'
I could see this as a problem under other circumstances, but not when someone made a choice.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
For you fucking ex-jugheads out there. Here's the info:
i r/ faq.html
http://www.afip.org/Departments/oafme/dna/afrss
afrssir => ARMED FORCES REPOSITORY
of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains
From the FAQ
When I separate from the service, can I have my specimen returned to me or destroyed?
DoD Directive 5154.24, dated 28 Oct 96, specifically states that a donor may request destruction of their specimen upon conclusion of their complete military service obligation. Complete military service is not limited to active duty service; it includes all service as a member of the Selected Reserve, Individual Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve or Retired Reserve. Upon destruction of a specimen the donor is notified in writing that the specimen has been destroyed.
Im putting me request in today. The FAQ has an email address to conteact these jokers.
semper fi dickheads.
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.
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
Except if he was in the military [before vietnam] he must have **voluntarily** given his DNA to the military.
In which case how is this an abuse of his rights to privacy?
I don't think the grand-parent poster was suggesting its a good idea to randomly poke people and steal a sample of their dna. But if you willingly give it out [e.g. use a public restaurant or give it as part of a job] why not use it if you can provably connect the dots?
We've been collecting fingerprints for eons now and you still cannot force someone to give one on their own.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
No. I'm self employed. But thanks for asking. I have had my many years of experience in the corporate and small business world.
But, I have turned down 2 jobs that required the screening. It's not like I think about it. In the first situation, we went through the whole thing, I accepted the job, got a start date, and then they threw the blood test at me. The donation of bodily fluids for a job just seemed pretty important to me. To them, it was beyond routine. This is the mindset that disturbs me the most.
The thing that REALLY irks me is that they just ask for the blood. They don't even bother to ask you if you use drugs or ever did. Seems that asking would help to build some trust and would be professional and courteous. Instead, they just skip asking, sort of assuming that you are going to lie anyway.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
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
It is Zacarias Moussaui, and as far as due process is concerned, didn't Michael Chertoff (Assistant Attorney General, note that his last name means "of the devil" in Russian), fly the witnesses against him outside of the US courts' jurisdiction so they can't be subpoenaed? They are in the US military's custody, but outside of US jurisdiction (Cuba?). What happened to facing your accuser?
Does anyone recall when some court, a couple of years ago, ruled that DNA is the property of the state? IIRC, it was in a case when DNA was collected by the state without suspect's consent, and the court allowed it, thus securing a conviction?
IANAL, but it seems that when a suspect is forced to be fingerprinted and their DNA is taken before any conviction, it automatically means that the state owns that data. Right?
What if I copyright my fingerprints and DNA, and then sue the state under the DMCA?
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."
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!
Oh Christ give me a break already.
Are you trying to say that someone who DID THE CRIME (really, he did it) and got caught because the investigation led them to beleive he did it, so they asked for samples since he was in the military, and it turned out the samples proved that he did it; is somehow bad? That's just good police work.
It's not like they are systematically searching a complete and encompasing database of pre-analysed samples for every Tom, Dick and Joe Six pack that gets stopped for speeding and hoping to get a hit on some unrelated crime in another state. They were following a lead.
If you do not like to get busted for stuff, do not do the stuff. It's that simple. DNA analyisis that goes through a process like this one did can only help us law-abiding citizens. It will a) catch the real bad guys and sends them to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or b) prove you were not it because there is no match thus allowing you to avoid pound-you-in-the-ass prison. [And then maybe even c) catch the real bad guy because they dont waste time lookin at innocent people who were ruled out by DNA mis-matches.]
The idea (implied in your post) that there is already some DNA registry they are searching is flat out fucking wrong. Even if there was such a thing, what would it be doing? A and B from above.
I see no problem with the method they used to catch the guy, and I'm glad that DNA is being used to solve crimes and set innocent people free.
No Constitutional issues are involved? That's absurd. I happen to be preparing a 4th Amendment legal brief for the Army JAG Corps on the this almost this subject exactly.
Requiring a DNA sample is a "search" for purposes of the U.S. Const. 4th Amendment. Because it is a suspicionless search, the interest of the gov't must outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. One factor of the privacy interest of the individual is that the individual have a legitimate expectation of privacy that society would recognize as such.
Because this man was a soldier, the extraction of DNA and placement of same into the DoD Repository was not unconstitutional; however, there are serious 4th Amendment issues implicated when the DNA in the repository is obtained and used against an individual in a criminal proceeding after an individual's tour of duty is complete.
I would say that this individual has a very case for a 4th Amendment violation. However, there is one caveat: if this man had finished his tour of active duty, but was still in the reserves, the DoD did have a compelling interest in preserving his DNA samples (remains identification), which then could be subpoened by a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Very interesting constitutional issues indeed!
All the best,
Alex http://www.VerizonEatsPoop.com
Show me in the enlistment paperwork where it is stated (even vaguely) that "all of your dna are belong to US[mil]...forever". doesn't exist... i can guarentee it.
so before you ultra-right AC ass-ponies start shootin' off at the pie whole, make sure you have some idea about the procedures involved in joining the military.