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
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.
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
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
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.
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