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
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
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?
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.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
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