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.)
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.
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.
[...] and the system worked as intended."
Which system would that be? The system where only the poor do time, and the rich and famous get off scot free? Well then, you're absolutely right.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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?
Your use of the word 'misabused' is the most misabused abusive misuse I've ever seen here on /.
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
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.
Uh.. I think "the system" of properly going through the correct channels to obtain and use stored DNA samples in order to be presented as evidence in a criminal trial.
I fail to see the relevence and +insightfulness of your post. Way to go, mods!
Your use of the ad-hominem "conspiracy theorists" and the implication that anyone who objects must "be a druggie of some sort" further demonstrates that you're unable or unwilling to make a cogent argument. I'm surprised that you played neither the race nor the terroism cards -- equally intellectually dishonest means of attempting to debate an issue.
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!
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.
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 /,
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.