Slashdot Mirror
Californians To Vote On Largest DNA Database
mpthompson writes "California law enforcement officials are backing a proposed ballot measure that would give them authority to operate the largest DNA database in the world and collect DNA samples from everyone arrested or convicted on felony charges."
Word is that they are bleeding O.J. dry to make sure that the database is very very large.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's already done with fingerprints... I don't see how this is much different.
Hey Clinton, better call that chick in Santa Barbara and make sure she washes her dress, and the sheets. Might as well start making calls all up and down the West Coast. It is going to be a long night: you can be sure that Ken Starr read Slashdot too, and he's going to be on this real quick.
2006 - Every baby born(for thier own saftey)
2008 - Every Person who commits a Crime (We HAVE to track them!)
2012 - Every Citizen (you have nothing to hide do you Comrade?)
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Oh, it'll only be used for felonies.
Two years pass
Felonies, and extreme, non felonious cases.
Two years pass
Felonies, extreme non felonious cases, and lookin funny.
What's that? Why, of course, we'd never use your toll bridge fast-pass to log your comings and goings!
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Now, if California wanted to make the database for every single citizen, I would object. If it was for anyone convicted of anything (parking tickets included), I would object. But it's not...
It's FELLONS. These are not jaywalkers, they are murderers, rapists, duggies (dealers, trafficers, etc), and more. I don't mind this segment of the population losing a little bit of their rights, because they chose to give them up when they decided to commit a crime. I don't mind this just like I don't think felons should be allowed to have guns (I am otherwise very supportive of right to bear arms). They are FELLONS, we shouldn't be crying for them.
Now that said, there are bound to be false convictions, and this is the one caviat that I have. When a false conviction is found, that person's DNA needs to be removed from the database IMMEDIATLY and any convictions/etc based on the DNA that was collected because they were a fellon (fruit of the poisonous tree). But ONLY THAT DNA. If the person submitted their DNA during the investigation, that obviously gets to stay in the database, it's only DNA collected after they were convicted that should be "tossed" in such a case. If this part is held, I have no qualms what so ever.
Bring on the database.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I just wonder how long before states, start selling the databases to insurance companies to help with the expenses. States already sell personal information, what could be more personal, than your DNA.
So when all white or black or hispanic males, ages 25-32, in the City of Los Angeles fit the description of a suspect then anyone of them can be forced to be DNA fingerprinted?
He dismissed the ACLU's concerns about invasion of privacy as "a straw man argument," pointing out that the measure has extensive protections that purge DNA information when a suspect or convict is exonerated.
I hope someone will look very closely at these "extensive protections". There have already been many cases where police have demanded DNA samples from innocent people. The DNA test exonerated them but the police refused to then destroy the DNA fingerprint. Also I have no doubts that the police would run blanket checks against other cases in which the innocent donors are not suspects. When a match comes up positive they will claim that it was done "accidentally". I bet that DNA fingerprints would never actually get purged either due to "computer errors".
I used to live there. That doesn't matter. Why would you give your DNA up? Don't do it.Fight anyone who wants you to do so.
I forget what 8 was for.
Me thinks it is pretty fair. After the decision to fingerprint almost "everyone" visiting the US, it is just fair, and actually just a matter of time before the Beast Turns Inward. "I think people have come to understand that an increase to security is necessary," said U.S. Homeland Security spokesman Bill Strassberger.
The Govt can keep the DNA of felons in a Central Database, but the rest of the citizens should be motivated to carry their DNA/Fingerprint ID card just in case they have to prove their identity when there is a security situation. The threat level is already at ORANGE and who knows what will happen when it turns RED !! People WAKE UP ! In fact, for your own protection you can already buy ID cards for the family that will store you DNA and fingerprints. These fingerprint and DNA identification cards are great for all families. Be prepared and have that vital identification information that may be needed in an emergency situation. Like when the threat level goes to RED !
Also NCSE provides DNA and Fingerprint Kits either for bulk sales or for use with our e-learning software or Child ID Kits.
FOR YOUR SAFETY Please Order one TODAY ! With your order please give my referrer code ref??###R@D@=sarcastic.
AGAIN, EVERYONE ! PLEASE ORDER YOUR DNA/FINGERPRINT ID CARDS TODAY !!! Don't Wait!!!!!! Make that life changing phone call today !!!!!!!!!
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
On the other hand is a huge privacy issue. While it is true that the innocent SHOULD have nothing to fear the sad fact is that this is not true. Nor can we assume that even if it is true now that it will remain true in the future. The germans had a registration of who had what religion in the 1930's. We all know how that ended. Can you be sure who is in charge of the US or any country proposing a similar scheme in 10 years? That is now 3 elections away.
I have little patience with people just concerned with their privacy. Most of them are just people who don't want to be caught should they ever decide to commit a crime. Guess what sherlock that is part of the reason for introducing such a thing. "Commmit a crime and we will find you" as opposed to now, "Commit a crime and maybe we will find you". The higher the chance of getting caught the more people will be deterred.
On the other hand I do have my doubts if such a system in future might not be abused. So on the one hand yes everyones dna logged will make life a lot harder for criminals. It will also make life a lot easier for anyone seeking to oppress non-criminals in the future. Or people we consider now to be innocent but who might be made to be guilty in the future.
The answer? I don't have one. Anyone who claims they have one are lying. Don't believe those who guarantee the safe use cause they can't. Don't believe the privacy people cause they are not now the victims of crime. The moment their child is murdered they will change their tune faster then a prisoner on his way to the chair.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Have you read the law books lately? Do you know what constitutes a felony? It's not just the drooling insane criminals lurking in dark alleys--you mention drug dealers and traffickers, but what about users? Do you think nonviolent marijuana users (even for medicinal use, in California) should be put in a DNA database?
I know you already conceded this point, but the law would also catalog DNA of those ARRESTED for a felony, guilty or not. There's no reason to think law enforcement wouldn't twist the law to suit their purposes, such as arresting someone with no evidence just to obtain their DNA. Then, with DNA in hand, they might be able to make their case. This might be for the best in certain cases (if the suspect really is guilty of a violent offense), but it's not worth the hit on our civil liberties. Remember what Jefferson said: better to free ten guilty men than convict one innocent.
It's also worth noting law enforcement's history re. search and seizure. Police can seize property they "believe" to be purchased with drug money. But if the suspect is found innocent, the police don't have to return the confiscated property. There are plenty of documented cases of police using this loophole to obtain valuable properties just to augment the department's bank account. There was a blind rancher in California who was actually shot and killed by police raiding his place, with no justification for the raid.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Mr. Johnson,
This letter is to inform you that your DNA has been found in several cigarette shops. We have therefore concluded that you are a smoker, and will be doubling your rates.
Steve Thompson
Nationwide Insurance
Lots of states sell personal data (driver's license info, etc.) to private parties. There's certainly no federal genetic privacy law, and I don't know if California has a state law limiting disclosure of genetic information. In the absence of such a law, what's to stop a state from selling potentially lucrative genetic information to well-heeled insurers and credit reporting agencies?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
While I see your point, I can hardly agree with the comparison of the German Regime in the 1930's to the current US Government (Note: this is not to imply democrats or republicans do a better job, just that the way the US Gov't is set up is different, so please don't spam the comments with political propaganda =D). As it was said earlier in the comments, I don't really feel that I have anything to hide. To me, this is similar to a current debate in my state about traffic intersection cameras. If you aren't doing anything illegal at the intersection, then why do you need to worry!?! Anywho, you did make a good point with the fact that anyone's personal decisions will be changed based on personal experiences, so Kudos for mentioning that! In summation, I don't think the analysis of Nazi Germany to current US is quite accurate, but the government is held responsible at some level for protecting us.
"Sure I like deadlines, I like the 'whoosh' sound they make as they fly by" - Douglas Adams
It's proof you wanted. Perhaps I shoulda gotten my href on.
Government always introduces things with the sweetest kiss, but the honeymoon ends slowly, and predictably.
The problem with databases as they relate to government, and really, any other enterprise, is they start off with very strict guidlines. (EG: Felons only). But once the DB is instituted, then legislature A decides to do one of two things.
1: Change the law to also cite this other group outside of the previously defined group, or
2: Change what constitutes a felony.
Do you deny for a second that if (to pick an example most will agree with) the RIAA and Orrin Hatch had their way, that downloading an MP3 of a contracted artist would be judged a felony? Given the loose nature with which the Interstate commerce clause is interpreted, that act would most assuredly invoke federal jurisdiction.
The reason they call them slippery slopes is because sliding down them is easy. And never trust a politician to ease the speed you slide down it.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
I would think it a good thing if it were for all
US citizens and legal aliens. If such a database
were implemented the Feds could require, e.g. all
supermarkets and food vendors in general to
collect DNA and on the spot verify immigration
status. This would make it nearly impossible for
illegal immigrants to buy food, clothes, medicine,
etc. You could also then investigate anyone
buying food in bulk and see if they sell it on
black market which would be sure to form. You
could then really open a hunt for illegal
immigrants and clean up US.
I had a completely clean record.
I recently placed a 911 call because I was being beaten and attacked, and when the police arrived the person who attacked me lied to police and I was arrested (not read my miranda rights) - taken to a processing facility - forced to give blood which I refused - they threatened to hold me down - it was noted on the arrest record that I refused the blood withdrawl. They took it anyway.
I stayed in jail, I bailed out for 2500$, and two weeks later they didn't even press any charges. They were dismissed. They had obviously not met sufficient evidenciary support to back up the claim.
So now I have been victimized by my attacker, the police, and the prosecuters. And now my DNA is in a public database.
Do you trust the police to make decisions of who's DNA is in this database? There is no policy and procedure regarding having persons *removed* from this database.
The answer is easy to understand, but so much easier to overlook. If your DNA is in the database, then anyone who wants to commit a crime against any of your acquaintances, or frame you for whatever reason, has only to obtain the smallest sample of your DNA (e.g. from a kleenex or napkin in your trash), use an easily available PCR kit to amplify it, add the DNA to some of your type of whole blood with leukocytes removed, sprinkle a few drops at the crime scene, and presto! you're in jail on incontrovertable evidence.
But it's not incontrovertable if the process of faking your blood with PCRed DNA is so easy, is it? Well, that's missing the point. The likelyhood that anyone would actually do this sort of thing (if they haven't already) is strongly correlated with the proportion of the population cataloged in a database. If everyone is cataloged, then everyone's friend is cataloged, and everyone's enemy is cataloged. So no criminal is then precluded from establishing this nearly perfect diversion.
In short, the larger proportion of people in the cops database, the more useless the database becomes. As soon as one DNA forgery is discovered, there goes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in every subsequent case.
Now we have a use for all the Oracle licenses we bought last year.
Look, nobody is overlooking anything here. DNA planting is already a staple of crime dramas. Regardless of who is in the database, you can easily obtain DNA from someone who is, or you can plant DNA from someone who isn't and just report that you think you may have seen them leaving the scene. Go ahead and report their license plate number, which is easier to get than their DNA. Then the police sample their DNA and it's just as if they'd been in the database all along.
If you can frame someone with DNA (and you certainly can), then you can frame them approximately as easily whether they're already in the database or not.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Jose Padilla
You can't really have your head so far up your ass that you can't see the slide occurring as we speak. Can you?
2006 - Every baby born(for thier own saftey)
Voluntary sample/Registration kits are already available and recommended in the name of safety. It will likely become mandatory by 2006
2008 - Every Person who commits a Crime (We HAVE to track them!)
A more likely date will be 2005 when DNA collection becomes part of the standard booking process, as finger rpinting is today. Note that this process occurs before you even get to court, guilt or innocence is irrelavent.
2012 - Every Citizen (you have nothing to hide do you Comrade?)
With the rapid advancement of the previous two dates, this will likely occur by 2008 when DNA registration will become part of the drives license or voter registration process.
It'll be interesting to see when Gattaca-esque circumvention attempts start showing up routinely.
... You'd have to ignore all that Simpson DNA evidence. And that would be downright wacky.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
I don't think the original poster was trying to equate the current US government to the Nazis. All that is being done, is pointing out that you have to be careful about what information the government is allowed to collect and keep. This is largely based on the assumption that, eventually, the government will become corrupt, in one form or another, and such information will be used to oppress people. If you don't want to use the Nazis as an example, just look back at our own history. We have the Japaneese internment camps (don't you think they would have liked to hide their ancestry?), we have the whole McCarthy era, where they made life hell for anyone who happened to believe in communism (sure, some of them were spies, but aren't people allowed to believe in any system they wish without being harrased?) We had Nixon and the whole Watergate scandal.
What I'm trying to get at, is that we have had, in the US, a number of times where the government has abused people. And a database of everyone's DNA is just going to help it be done again. Is our current government a problem? No, as long as you are not a suspected terrorist, but it could happen again. So its better to deny the government this tool, rather than run the risk of abuse.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
As long as this data is kept secret (no 3rd parties) and information is only kept for the convicted (not accused), I don't think there's a problem here. Don't they do something similar to this already?
Can we say "Unreasonable search and seizure". IANAL, but as I understand it the government needs to have a basis to investigate a person for a crime. Using this kind of database match is, in essance, like allowing the government to investigate people without having any basis to do so. If we allow this to be passed, where does this slope end? RFID tags implanted into every person so that the police can see who was in the area when the crime was commited?
We need the plans for the Terminator.
Remember, the RIAA and MPAA are making downloading data a felony - that 12-yo girl would be a felon had she not settled.
Once upon a time, felonies were dangerous crimes, now they are crimes that the rich want to hammer to keep the others down.
Imagine what fun we could have with all this collected data which will be secured from everyone but those savvy enough to get around the security and those who are supposed to be doing data entry and those family and friends of these.
We could build armies of people genetically gifted with violence. We could run true scientific tests on the effects of environment vs. genes. We could analyze diseases and DNA with a much larger sample. We could set up a huge distributed computer project to run simulations of society and as a bonus, you could see where your DNA was used. We could clone California governors and recreate movies! With Electronic Arts, the SIMS, and the DNA database, you could find out if you are really compatible with your future spouse.
Endless fun. As privacy goes, cloning would be beneficial too. It wasn't me, Officer, it was my clone!!!
What if we've had the mark of the beast all along and it was called DNA?
Past and current members of the US Military already have their DNA in a database along with fingerprints. Why should a convicted fellon not have the same privlage?
Now that PATRIOT allows law enforcement to enter your home without telling you, it would be pretty easy for them to lift a hair and plant it wherever they want. If they have your DNA on file, they can plant the hair, "discover" it at the crimescene, run it against their database and grab you...whereas, without having you in the database, planting the hair would do them no good unless they came up with some other probable cause.
And the idea here is to put anyone they arrest (for a felony) in the database, not just anyone convicted. Ie., a lot of innocent people. If they get this through, I'll bet you they add misdemeanor arrests later.
Not that the FBI and whatnot ever abuses their power, right?
It's always alright if OTHERS lose their rights, ain't it?
I'm always surprised by the arrogant premisse people start with, but never seem to acknowledge. So, you deem it ok that others lose 'a bit' of their rights, because they are felons? Well, maybe in some other countries they think it's allright that some lose 'a bit' of rights because they have a different religion, or they have criticized the government.
I mean, why would their estimate of who deserves to lose their rights be any less then yours?
Anyone can be arrested, and no one should be treated any differently because of it. But, once again, our civil liberties are happy trounced!
Since you are innocent until proven guilty, the mere status of "arrested" can not and should not change anything! But, arrest records are still used against people, and now, simply being arrested means that your genetic code can be put up for public display. So, if have one of several genetic abnormalties, you can be identified by the public at large. This is prima facia unconstitutional, as it a state attempting to usurp my privacy.