California Initiative to Expand DNA Database

vervais_sucks writes "A California attorney is personally bankrolling, to the sum of $1.3m, an initiative to require law enforcement to take DNA samples of every person they arrest for a felony." The (lengthy) initiative is available here (search for DNA on the page).

Comments

I agree with this

[(1337) God]

If we already fingerprint criminals, what's the big deal if we take a "biological footprint", if you will, of them?

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

The process might be expensive to buy DNA kits for each arresting officers and have them be processed at a lab.

We need to find out if it's worth it to spend even more money on criminals, the wretched humans who should never have been born.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a normal fingerprint can't tell you that I'm 5'9 and have blue eyes, or that I had a bed wetting problem when I was 6...

Re:I agree with this

[MoonBuggy]

Maybe, but firstly I'd say it's only fair to take it after conviction not arrest - if you haven't done anything they have absolutely no business even knowing your name, let alone your DNA. Secondly, you'd want some solid legislation in place to prevent the use of as-yet impossible sequencing techniques to scan the database for people of a violent disposition (for example) since while possibly helpful many people can control themselves and do not deserve to be bumped up the suspect list.

It can work, but as with all things the potential for abuse should be eliminated before its introduction.

Re:I agree with this

[daveashcroft]

I agree with parent completely. I, along with many other slashdotters like a degree of privacy......but this is one technology where there is a TINY (ie 1 in a billion) chance of matching DNA by mistake. Its only those who are guilty who have anything to fear.....AS LONG....as DNA evidence is never taken to be enough evidence on its own. If DNA was to mistakenly identify you, but you have a cast iron alibi by being in a different part of the country etc.........then the 1 in a billion problem is solved.

Re:I agree with this

[Seumas]

If we already fingerprint criminals, what's the big deal if we take a "biological footprint", if you will, of them?

Um... Because a criminal is someone that is charged with a crime, arrested, has evidence presented against him by a state prosecutor, has his defense presented by a defense attorney, then has a judge and a jury decide that he is guilty and sentence him.

An arrested person is just someone a copy has stuck handcuffs on for any number of valid or often invalid reasons.

I knew someone who was arrested for suspicion of counterfeitting currency and was released later in the day when they realized he just physically resembled the person they were after. Does this upstanding, hardworking, nice guy deserve to have a DNA sample taken and stored as potential evidence in an as of yet unoccurring, presumed future crime merely for an hour in jail due to mistaken identity?

Re:I agree with this

[Qacker]

DNA can't tell that your 5'9 or wet the bed, dumbass

Re:I agree with this

[Trailwalker]

Here, in Virginia there are good results from a DNA database.

However, I have neither faith nor trust in politicians and the police. If there is a possible way to abuse this information, they will.

Re:I agree with this

[CaptainFrito]

DNA sequencing is usually done on sequence fragments and not the entire genome. Therefore it's not as unique as one might be led to believe. Most criminologists (with a moral conscience) know this and many feel that this a useful tool to rule someone out, but it is not reliable enough to single someone out. Take the case of identical twins: identical genomes; you would have to rely on fingerprints.

And the potential for abuse is just too huge a risk. And since fingerprints can distinguish beteen identical twins, it should be obvious even to the casual observer that physical uniqueness is determined by more than the entire DNA sequence. Moreover, we already have fingerprinting, so what's the need for DNA? My guess is that the other uses of DNA are too compelling, such as letting insurance companies determine your premiums against worst-case risks, while simultaneously disqualifying coverage for diseases you likely would contract.

I read somewhere (can't find the reference ATM) that the portion of DNA that is PCR'd for identification purposes repeats about 1:400. My guess that in some rural communities and suburban or urban ghettos it might even be more frequently repeated in the sample population.

I am left to wonder how much money this politician, his relatives, heirs, assigns, financial backers, etc., have invested in DNA fingerprinting companies and databasing companies...

Re:I agree with this

[tylernt]

If only the guilty have anything to fear, then why do you have the right to remain silent after an arrent? Why aren't you required to testify against yourself in court? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear, so you might as well be forced to speak, right?

Re:I agree with this

[daveashcroft]

ahh, but you are being USA-centric. in the vast majority of the world you dont have those constitutional rights. For instance, in the UK, you CAN remain silent after arrest, but if you fail to mention something which you later rely on in court as part of your defence, the jury can draw conclusions as to your guilt by your refusal to speak.

Re:I agree with this

[harlows_monkeys]

If we already fingerprint criminals, what's the big deal if we take a "biological footprint", if you will, of them?

The problem is that law enforcement does not understand how to use DNA. It's true that DNA uniquely identifies an individual (well, to the level of twins and such). However, that is only if you do a very extensive DNA comparison. They don't do this in law enforcement. That is expensive. They only do a comparison at a few points, and that doesn't uniquely identify a person.

What this means is that when used in a Bayesian manner, DNA evidence is very powerful, but when used independently, it sucks. So, for example, if there is a crime, and they have recovered samples from the crime scene, and then, based on other means, they have identified you, me, and a few other people as suspects, and my DNA matches the samples, then it's pretty much a lock--those are my samples. On the other hand, if they just take the samples, run them through their DNA database, and I am the only match, that is pretty much worthless.

An analogy would be if they somehow could tell from evidence at a crime scene the last two digits of the criminal's social security number and the last two digits of the criminal's phone number. If they have three suspects acquired through traditional means, and one has a matching SSN and phone number, that is pretty clearly their man. If, however, they just go to the phone book, find all matching phone numbers, and then check their SSNs and find a match, and that's all they have, they have nothing. There will be plenty of other people that match.

That's basically how DNA matches are done. They compare at a few bases, which is kind of like comparing phone and SSN numbers at a few digits.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's the dumbass, the troll who leaves the bait or the one that takes it?

Re:I agree with this

[jmarpet]

I am a corrections officer, in a southern state.

We DNA anyone brought in for a felony, or when their charge is one of several on a special list, like Battery on a Teacher, Anything having to do with Domestic Violence, etc.

We DNA through a Buccal Swab (Cheek cell swab with a big Q-tip). If and when someone is convicted, they are DNA'ed again, with a blood sample.

The database is never purged, and once in, you are in. Period.

Do I agree? I take these samples, and when they trained us, we swabbed each other. I made damn sure my swabs went in the garbage. Let's leave it at that.

Re:I agree with this

[zors]

uh...how would it be expensive? In the article, it says a swab of the mouth when the criminal is booked. I agree there would be increased traffic at the lab, so they might have to slightly increase the staff. Or they could just weight certain samples in the queue, such as from violent crimes.

We need to find out if it's worth it to spend even more money on criminals, the wretched humans who should never have been born.

This doesn't even make any sense, the proposed expansion would work against criminals, not for them.

Re:I agree with this

[epistemology]

Why wait for a conviction? Or even a crime? Just take DNA from everyone at birth. You guys are too quick to give up your privacy. You are ceding too much power to the government. Why couldn't the government just say, target nigge... I mean inner city types by making it a felony to smoke crack, but only a misdemeanor to do powdered cocaine and then differentially enforce the law so that we get a good database of, you know, those kind of people who usually commit crimes.

Re:I agree with this

[Inspector Lopez]

mod parent up, and listen to the CarTalk "Puzzler" from yesterday, which presents a form of this problem.

One thing that is hard to do with finger prints is to leave someone else's at a crime scene. With DNA, however, it is not so difficult to imagine a whole new business starting up, which is the collection of DNA junk and bottling it.

So there you are, a smarter felon than usual, you commit some terrible crime, but you thoughtfully get out your DNA bomb, and set it off just like an insect fogger, painting the crime scene with the DNA of 100,000 individuals --- and in far greater quantity than what you left. If you've been a little careful, you'll generate a sufficient quantity of chaos to

• bring the DNA lab to its knees, or
  
• get some unfortunate schmuck tossed in your stead (remember the Portland OR lawyer whose fingerprints got mangled by the FBI for the Spanish bombing? Oops.), or
  
• you just get an expert witness to point out that a DNA bomb has been set off, and that the crime scene DNA is effectively worthless, including ...
  
• ... set off DNA bombs *elsewhere* which include your own DNA, thus presenting credible evidence that your own DNA has been captured for DNA bombs used by other fiendish folk
  

I guess the point is that we may be in a rather unique little window of time when DNA evidence is actually useful --- it just can't be that long before effective countermeasures are readily available to the thoughtful criminal. Go read some Phillip K Dick scifi to learn how to think about such things. "Minority Report" gives a perfectly entertaining presentation about the potential misuse of "indisputable" information.

So: if you wonder where could you get a bunch of junk DNA without working too hard ... how about the dumpsters at McDonalds? How about the garbage cans in restrooms (where you'll get the DNA of those upstanding citizens who actually wash their hands after peeing)?

I'm feeling a bit foolish about actually describing a potentially lucrative business opportunity. I take it all back. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

Re:I agree with this

[Moofie]

Define "good result".

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason #100495483 to never travel to The South.

Re:I agree with this

[tylernt]

But... the article is about California, which is in the US, so I think that being US-centric is entirely reasonable in this case. :)

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, we already have fingerprinting, so what's the need for DNA?

I agree that DNA testing is a limited tool with many shortcomings that the legal systems seems determined to ignore , but fingerrprinting suffers many problems also.

Not least of which is that there has never been a legally recognised large scale study to investigate just how accurate fingerprinting matching is, nor how much variation exists in fingerprints.

Fingerprints as a form of identification is only slightly above using the use of polygraph tests to detect lies - scientifically they are both suspect.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems reasonable to me... I've never had a felony, nor do I intend to..better tracking of criminals is a good thing.

Re:I agree with this

[Hizonner]

DNA sequencing is usually done on sequence fragments and not the entire genome.

In fact, most forensic DNA work was originally done using RFLP mapping, which doesn't involve sequencing anything at all. Sequencing is relatively recent. Most (all?) of the databases are still based on RFLP.

Therefore it's not as unique as one might be led to believe.

If you bothered to read the literature, you'd find that there's been a great deal of study of exactly how reliable it is in various circumstances. Also, if you think about it for a minute, you'll realize that there's no a priori reason to care about what percentage of the genome is examined; the question is how much variability there is in the part that is examined. Additional variability in the unexamined parts has nothing to do with the reliability of the test.

Most criminologists (with a moral conscience) know this and many feel that this a useful tool to rule someone out, but it is not reliable enough to single someone out. Take the case of identical twins: identical genomes; you would have to rely on fingerprints.

A criminologist is a social scientist who deals with the motivations and social contexts of crimes. You are thinking of "criminalists", or "forensic DNA examiners", who are the people who do crime lab work.

I know a lot of these people personally; it so happens that one of my parents was involved in the development of forensic DNA from the beginning. Some of the people I know are involved with things like the Innocence Project. Some of them are private practitioners who typically testify for the defense; if those people have a bias, it's toward clearing people, not toward nailing the innocent.

I have never heard any of them say that they would never use DNA evidence to uniquely identify somebody. Not once.

I have heard many of them say, loudly and repeatedly, that there are circumstances under which they wouldn't use DNA to "finger" anybody, including, but probably not limited to, cases where there's a possibility that a close relative of the suspect was involved, cases where samples were degraded or contaminated. I've never heard them say that they'd never do it. I have heard them say, rather vehemently, that DNA is a lot more reliable than the old serological tests that put a lot of people into prison in the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course, DNA is also more reliable than eyewitnesses, but then almost anything is more reliable than an eyewitness.

No, you can't apply DNA, or any other technique, mechanically, but to say that it's intrinsically unusable is just silly. It's about the most reliable thing out there.

And since fingerprints can distinguish beteen identical twins, it should be obvious even to the casual observer that physical uniqueness is determined by more than the entire DNA sequence. Moreover, we already have fingerprinting, so what's the need for DNA?

Think about how you're using it.

1. Criminals don't leave fingerprint cards at crime scenes; in fact, they seem oddly reluctant to leave anything at all if they can avoid it. You may have hair, or a blood spatter, or semen, or saliva, and no fingerprint, or no decent fingerprint. You want to find out if the person who committed this crime is in your database or not; you can't query on a fingerprint, because you don't have one. DNA is another completely independent way for you to find a suspect.
2. I don't know if it's still true, but coding fingerprints for database lookups used to be a time-consuming, error-prone manual process. Don't be misled by the biometric authentication systems you see on computers. First of all, those systems don't work as well as advertised. Secondly, they're usually trying to confirm an identity, not find one in a mass of candidat

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, has 25% of the world's prisoners. China, which has 4 1/2 times the U.S. population and which is not known for liberal sentencing of criminals, has a lower prison population. The current U.S. administration has knowingly violated international law by torturing prisoners, in some cases to death, and operates a shadowy network of offshore prisons in foreign countries. This all sounds crazy but these are all easily verified facts.

Do you really trust the government with DNA records? Why are they needed? Do folks think that there aren't enough people in jail?

These days you don't have to be in the tinfoil hat crowd to have grounds for concern.

Re:I agree with this

[Nyder]

I personally don't trust the police or even the "powers that rule" if you will. if they already have my dna, then hows it to prove they didn't plant it as evidence to begin with? Even though it would be easy to them to get some sort of dna off of me before hand, at least I would have that contact as some sort of evidence. if they already have my dna, well, there's nothing I could do.

and if you think profiling doesn't happen, that police don't have personally agendas, and even that police aren't human and capable of abusing they're power, then it just hasn't happen to you, yet.

I hope it doesn't, but unfortunelty, it does, and all to often.

Re:I agree with this

[CaptainFrito]

"A criminologist is a social scientist who deals with the motivations and social contexts of crimes. You are thinking of "criminalists", or "forensic DNA examiners", who are the people who do crime lab work."

No, I wasn't thinking any such thing. I actually did some quick research before posting and several criminiologists felt the tests were to be used as additional data points in an investigation, not as primary source to identify 'the bad guy.' A criminalist would be to prone to bias to be trustworthy (like asking a traffic cop if his radar gun is fallible...)

"They don't do PCR at all on the samples they use to populate the database; there's plenty of sample, and amplifying it would simply introduce errors."

Exactly. But they do PCR the crime scene samples, and for the purposes of this discussion what is relevant is the existence errors in the process.

"Why guess when you can look it up in the literature?"

Why imply what is in the literature when you can state your source directly? If you have a source (not statisical, but true empirical study) about how often DNA sequences repeat with in close communities and families, then just come out and say it. Don't confer to yourself superiority, then say nothing of substance. I cited what I beleive to be an obvious matter: DNA samples in close-knit communities do not vary as widely as general statistics would have you believe. An obvious example would be siblings, other close familiy relatives, closed societies (such as the Quakers in NE USA), and so on.

Furthermore:

- As for saliva at a crime scene, I suppose your assertion would be relevant if, and only if, the criminal's 'droppings' would be present to an exclusion of all others, and it was axiomatic that the true criminal could not have prevented their's from being left at the scene;

- You mention in your post that fingerprinting is time consuming and error-prone, but you're not sure anymore. Assuming you just didn't have time to consult the literature before you spouted off, and assuming that DNA searches are instant, you yourself, after presumably having consulted the literature said that PCR introduces errors, and thus the process is error prone. Outside of being faster and more expensive way to misidentify someone, I'm not sure the advantage offered by DNA over fingerprinting;

- I am not convinced that DNA is more 'studied' than fingerprinting. You'll have to make some solid references here, or it just sounds like you're trying to impute intellectual superiority to your argument with actually having reasonable grounds (a recurring issue in your post).

Now, clearly I do not support these superscientific approaches because they end up conveying infallibility wheras they are quite fallible. And, no I am not an expert here, nor have I read all theliterature, but that is a far cry from "spouting off" and not having read anything. I did read some literature, and the fact that you misinterpreted what I wrote (or more accurately, put words in my mouth) doesn't mean that you are more credible. But it does mean that you are rather immodest.

No, as for the misuse of the data, these types of legislations are always the thin end of a wedge. Once in place, the common folk won't know one metod from another, nor will they care, as long as politicians keep telling them that what they are doing is completely necessary to keep the streets safe. That's how people get vicimized by laws, thinking that all laws are moral and are only used in moral ways. I think that such a thing is really quite rare, on either count.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fingerprints and DNa are very different things. It's true that they are alike in that they can both be used to identify somebody, but fingerprints on their own tell you very little about a person. DNA, on the other hand, can tell you a great deal, which is why giving up your DNA when you haven't been found guilty of anything is an invasion of privacy, whilst giving up your fingerprints is not.

Re:I agree with this

[SMTarget]

Keeping in mind that I don't think this is a bad idea either-- We already fingerprint drivers, don't we?

It sounds a little bit like overkill

[sixteenraisins]

Perhaps if instead of taking DNA samples from everyone arrested for a felony, if they only took samples from people convicted of a felony. After all, a convicted felon already forfeits certain rights upon conviction. But what about people wrongly arrested?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[FlipmodePlaya]

What about people wrongly convicted?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[gatzke]

I think they fingerprint you when they arrest you and put that info in some database. Is this really that different from DNA sampling?

Wrongly arrested have legal recourse. Perhaps they can get it removed, but how often are people really "wrongly arrested"?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[dsanfte]

Why are you so afraid of having an oral swab?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[challahc]

"California already requires DNA samples from everyone convicted of a serious felony. "
From the article.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your fingerprints contain your blood type, ancestory, potential for diseases, race, health and other personal information?

The difference between DNA and fingerprints is the difference between taking a photo of my house from the street and coming into my house and taking things.

In fact, DNA is almost certainly a thing to be covered under the fourth amendment of the constitution.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone be concerned that the government was reading all their email?

Why would anyone be concerned that the government was listening to all their phone calls?

Why would anyone be concerned that the government was monitering their whereabouts at all time?

Ever read 1984?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[foidulus]

Perhaps if instead of taking DNA samples from everyone arrested for a felony, if they only took samples from people convicted of a felony. After all, a convicted felon already forfeits certain rights upon conviction. But what about people wrongly arrested?
Yeah, like OJ!!

*ducks

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Alan Hicks]

What about people wrongly convicted?

Well we don't exactly throw out the justice system because it's imperfect do we? Fact of the matter is sometimes some one is going to be wrongly convicted, so should we stop putting people in prison or taking their fingerprints because they might really be innocent?

People aren't thrown in jail because they are guilty, or kept out because they are innocent. People are punished under the law because a jury of their peers found them guilty in a (supposed to be) fair trial. Moreover, in America, criminal juries must reach a unanimous decision, else we have a mistrial and no verdict is found. It shouldn't be all that often that 12 jurers all reach the same guilty verdict concerning a man whom is innocent. I can't imagine coming up with a more fair system, or one more likely not to imprison innocent people (at the risk of letting guilty people go free).

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[kunudo]

What about people wrongly convicted?

That would be a problem with the justice system far more than a privacy concern. Once you're convicted, the government has to act towards you as if you are guilty. If you're not, appeal. If you lose all your appeals, well, then there's not much to do except to turn up new evidence. They shouldn't store your dna profile until you have lost all your appeals, and if you manage to be aquitted based on new evidence after having lost all your appeals, they should be required to delete the information they have on you.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[TroyFoley]

But what about people wrongly arrested?

But what about people wrongly convicted?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[ConsumedByTV]

How about Brave New World.

This is more of a self imposed lack of freedom. It's begged for!

For Safetys Sake! Take some Soma!

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[AndroidCat]

Umm, at what point to they get to take a sample to match against evidence found at the felony that they arrested you for?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Cali Thalen]

I can't speak for the country, but in California it seems like about 30% of people arrested for felonies are not convicted (as opposed to 'found not guilty)

http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/candd/ cd 96/cd96obts.pdf

Also, DNA gets you a lot more than a fingerprint does. You only get a fingerprint under good conditions (such as, the person wasn't wearing gloves), but you can gather DNA evidence much more frequently. This is especially useful in sexual assault cases, but there are a lot of instances where DNA is left at a crime scene even when no fingerprints are left behind.

DNA also can tell you a lot more about a person than a fingerprint. Even if you don't have the person's DNA on file, you can still develop a profile of the person given a good DNA sample. You can get the person's race and sex, at the very least. All that having a fingerprint of a person tells you is that they have a finger.

OTOH, DNA would be a bit easier to plant than a fingerprint (leave a few hair samples from someone else at the crime scene) than it would be to leave a fake fingerprint.

I'd not be overly concerned if the government had my DNA on file, as I don't generally commit those kinds of crimes :P Then again, I'm not the tinfoil-hat-wearing type, so I don't generally spend much time thinking about how that kind of info could be used to oppress me...

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[snarkh]

Perhaps they can get it removed, but how often are people really "wrongly arrested"?

You are kidding, right?

E.g, http://www.caught.net/innoc.htm: For every seven executed, one innocent person is freed-an "error rate" of more than twelve (12) percent. In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving they are innocent ...

And that is just for the most serious crimes, where the evidence is checked much more thoroughly.

I would imagine tens or hundreds thousand people are wrongly arrested every year.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

If they already get samples from convicted felons, that seems like enough. Any move to increase government records on DNA beyond this are in my opinion a VERY bad idea.

Mod parent up.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[magefile]

Actually, I believe I read recently that determining race from DNA is pretty hit-or-miss, and lots of forensics labs won't even try (not just because of its inaccuracy, but for fear of sparking "physical inferiority" idiocy).

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Tokerat]

Umm, at what point to they get to take a sample to match against evidence found at the felony that they arrested you for?

At the time the judge overseeing the case deems it nessisary. Sure, someone could post bail and skip town, but if you're not guilty just don't run. The fact that you are you could set you free.

Failure to look at how this could help you can also hurt you someday. Make sure things in this world are not done wrong, not that they're not done at all.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[ipfwadm]

They shouldn't store your dna profile until you have lost all your appeals

This is a ridiculous idea. Why not wait until they've exhausted all their appeals before putting them in prison? If you're concerned about their privacy, you certainly should be concerned about their liberty. Give me a friggin break.

Besides, do you have any idea how long it takes to exhaust all your appeals, especially if you're on death row? Having this DNA evidence on hand immediately after conviction can be VERY useful to connect a convict with other, as-of-yet unsolved crimes.

Personally, I have no problem with collecting DNA from anyone who has been arrested and charged with a felony, provided that DNA is destroyed if they are released/acquitted.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Hatta]

But what about people wrongly arrested?

Well, they'll just have to make more complicated and vague laws.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Moofie]

Right! If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!

So much for a free society.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[bobhagopian]

This may be one of the most powerful reasons for DNA recordkeeping (at least for those that are convicted). Many of those released from death row after being convicted are exonerated by old DNA evidence combined with new analysis technology. It's a sad reality of our justice system that, despite its reasonable attempt at assuring fairness, some innocent individuals do end up behind bars. I can't imagine how many innocent people would waste away in jail if law enforcement simply disposed of all the evidence after the trial. It is critical to keep evidence and information around, because it is entirely possible that it can be used to exonerate the wrongfully imprisoned. DNA evidence falls cleanly into that category. That said, I do agree that DNA information should be expunged if charges are dropped or the prosecution fails to acheive conviction.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

"What about people wrongly convicted?"

This is America - no-one gets wrongly convicted!

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[cavebear42]

Damn, now i not only have to wear gloves but i have to wear a full bunny suit from the clean room every time i do a crime.
i wonder if my work will let me take one home?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

... collecting DNA from anyone who has been arrested and charged with a felony ...
They should only be able to collect dna from a suspect if there's dna evidence involved in the case.
Otherwise, what's to stop them from arresting you walking down the street, collecting DNA, and then going "whoops, our bad, you're not the guy we thought," and then letting you go, going on to the next person.. bam, dna database of everyone.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[kunudo]

yes, that's what they want. Then they'd be able to skip parts of the investigation and just round up the people who's dna they find at the crime scene and go from there.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[theM_xl]

People aren't thrown in jail because they are guilty, or kept out because they are innocent.

Now that sounds very cynical. Sadly, it's probably far more correct than anyone would like, too.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[saforrest]

Now that sounds very cynical. Sadly, it's probably far more correct than anyone would like, too.

What do you mean? The point he was making was that this statement is completely correct, i.e. people are convicted because a jury convicts them, not because they committed a crime.

It is the job of the justice system to make sure these two events are correlated as strongly as possible, but it is not always possible for the correlation coefficient to be 1.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[ipfwadm]

Otherwise, what's to stop them from arresting you walking down the street, collecting DNA, and then going "whoops, our bad, you're not the guy we thought," and then letting you go, going on to the next person.. bam, dna database of everyone.

Riiight... because the police department in question wouldn't get sued in 10 seconds if they tried this.

They should only be able to collect dna from a suspect if there's dna evidence involved in the case.

You seem to claim that this would prevent the police from arresting you, collecting DNA, then letting you go. Well, what's to stop the police from arresting you for rape (in which there's usually DNA evidence involved)?

Once again, gimma a friggin break. Take off your tinfoil hat for just a minute, would you?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Epistax]

I have to blame our justice system for this one, not that I can think of anything better. When you have two sides arguing in a court room not even being allowed to represent themselves lest be labeled stupid, the case turns into a drama production by lawyers and witnesses who care less for truth and more for victory and money.

If my view if someone is found guilty, any lawyer representing them must answer to perjury charges depending on the circumstances (as well as the defendant). This is also quite plausible in reverse-- a plaintiff could also be charged with perjury if the ruling is such that what they said is ruled false.

Lawyers are completely unaccountable for their actions in court, and many just play it like a game. There is little more serious than court yet circus high-priced lawyers are becoming too common. Perhaps it is merely pop culture that is spreading this image but it is nevertheless wrong and harmful.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine tens or hundreds thousand people are wrongly arrested every year.

Yeah, but they're black and/or poor, so nobody really gives a damn.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Jim McCoy]

DNA also can tell you a lot more about a person than a fingerprint. Even if you don't have the person's DNA on file, you can still develop a profile of the person given a good DNA sample. You can get the person's race and sex, at the very least. All that having a fingerprint of a person tells you is that they have a finger.

This is complete BS. A DNA fingerprint does not work on the same markers that are used for determining these features. You will get the person's gender (e.g XX or XY) but that is it. It will not tell you that person's ethnicity, age, eye color, tendency to get diabetes in old age, or anything else that other genetic testing can determine.

It is just a pattern that happens to be unique to a particular individual (or set of individuals in the case of identitical twins) that came from a particular zygote.

Please keep the hysterical FUD to a minimum.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[taped2thedesk]

Many of those released from death row after being convicted are exonerated by old DNA evidence combined with new analysis technology.

Why would they need to have the DNA in a database to show that someone they already have in custody is not guilty? Couldn't they just go to the jail cell and take a DNA sample, then compare it to whatever evidence they have? It's not like their DNA is going anywhere.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Alsee]

how often are people really "wrongly arrested"?

I can't find convienent US nationwide figures, but extrapolating official Califoria government statistics into a national figure:

Roughly ONE MILLION per year.

Based on that, given a family of four, chances are that one of them will be arrested and released some time during their life.

One in four.

So much for the assumption that arrest implies guilt. So much for assumptions that innocent people have nothing to fear.

Law enforment are generally good people trying to do an important job. It is however an extremely difficult job and inevitably innocent people sometimes get dragged through the system.

Catching and convicting the guilty is a good thing, but it's not worth doing when it is a step towards turning the nation into a police state and trampling on innocent people.

-

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

These freed individuals are not PROVEN innocent. Rather, evidence comes out against their guilt. This is an outworking of the "innocent until proven guilty" system - many guilty individuals will go free, so that almost all of the innocent remain free.

Look on the bright side

[magefile]

No one wants their DNA in a database, right? Maybe it'll act as a deterrent! (Laugh, it's funny)

wow!

[mboverload]

They get your DNA just for a felony? Sure, some felonies are really bad but does that give them the right to take our DNA? SUre, child molestors, phycho killers, mass murderers, and rapists deserve it but not all felons are bad people. I know 2 felons who came from a bad backround and they are now some of the nicest people I know. DNA is not something to play with.

Re:wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, stupid fucktard. Yeah you.

The article ain't about takign DNA from felons. It's about takign DNA from people ARRESTED FOR FELONIES.

Not everyone who is arrested is guilty or even ever convicted or even spend much time behind bars. Just because you're arrested of a crime doesn't make you convicted of it.

Fuck. read the god damned article. Even the article SUMMARY on slashdot would have told you this you fucking ignorant hick.

Re:wow!

[trippinonbsd]

Sure, some felonies are really bad but does that give them the right to take our DNA?
Yes they steal your DNA from you; you can never have it back.
DNA is not something to play with.
Maybe you are somehow confusing genetic engineering and record keeping. The idea is that you keep a bit of DNA on record to compare against DNA captured at a crime scene. Its not like they are cloning people.

Re:wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice. Your completely pointless flame actually proved the parent's concern. I know your limited mental capacity will prevent you from understanding this, but taking DNA after an arrest, rather than after a conviction, actually worsens the violation to privacy.

Re:wow!

[dustmite]

Not very bright, are you. "not something to play with" = idiomatic language for "something that should be treated seriously, not lightly"

Re:wow!

[shadowcabbit]

I know 2 felons who came from a bad backround and they are now some of the nicest people I know.

Darl and Bill can hardly be said to have come from bad backgrounds. More than that, calling them "nice" is kinda stretching the term.

(Funny or overrated only, please; this was just an opening begging to be taken)

Re:wow!

[Alkivar]

yeah like myself, in the state of maine the same system is in place. the state has my DNA record because of a DUI charge in 1997!

Re:wow!

[trippinonbsd]

It is something to be treated seriously. People also need to understand it. I would only like to know why he is so afraid of the police having DNA samples. They already have fingerprints. If you have nothing to hide DNA can prove you innocent very quickly.

Good for a couple reasons

[dotslashconfig]

First - it makes it easier to determine if a felony was committed by a previously arrested criminal. It also expedites the speed at which information is shared if we can pinpoint perpetrators in this way.
Second - should someone be sentenced to death, reversing said conviction/sentencing is easier if you have DNA evidence to back up claims. Though, I suppose it sucks for the criminal if they then do some retests, and the final verdict of the testing is that you did it.

Re:Good for a couple reasons

[Ninwa]

should someone be sentenced to death, reversing said conviction/sentencing is easier if you have DNA evidence to back up claims

At first I thought you were implying, "Yeah this way if they're executed but were found innocent later, we can just ressurect them with their DNA".

Re:Good for a couple reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments only apply to someone who was CONVICTED of a felony. We're not talking about conviction with this proposed law. We're talking people who are ARRESTED and nothing more.

If you're sentenced to death, you have been convicted and your lawyer can submit DNA on your behalf to help prove your innocence. Using this as an arguement for requiring INNOCENT PEOPLE who are ONLY ARRESTED to be required to submit DNA is silly and wrong.

Re:Good for a couple reasons

[phats garage]

You mispelled "previously arrested suspect."

Re:Good for a couple reasons

[michaelhood]

You misspelled misspelled.

Re:Good for a couple reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck. Maybe we should take DNA from idiots like you so that we can isolate the naive push over gene and purge it from our DNA.

Just because you're arrested as a suspect in a felony, DOES NOT MEAN you were guilty or even CONVICTED of that felony. Jesus fucking christ.

If you commit a violent crime, and they match your DNA, then that gets kept as evidence. Fuck, it was kept as evidence before we had DNA testing. That is why you see people being released from prison after twenty years when DNA testing reveals that THEY WERE NOT GUILTY.

This is talking about making a database of peoples DNA. I don't believe this is a good idea. And I don't think we need to catalogue peoples DNA more than we already do.

I think you're a fucking robot for giving it your martha stewart 'it's a good thing' vote. Fuck you. You want your DNA stored in some SQL database? GO VOLUNTEER IT JACKASS. Otherwise go fuck yourself. Anyone who supports this bullshit should automatically have their DNA placed into the database.

Fucking losers.

Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[RLiegh]

So, let me get this right; you get arrested, have a dna sample taken and then -if youre found innocent... ...what happens to the dna? (how likely do you think it is that the sample will be destroyed in practice, even if thats the policy?)

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[alex_ware]

so if someone is found innocent for one crime and his DNA goes on the file and he has killed someone then a DNA search would find him,

and a murderer would have an unknown DNA on file which if he was arrested for anything, (even speeding) he could be found and bought to justice

If you haven't done anything wrong then what is there to fear

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[DrMrLordX]

They use the DNA to make a clone of you. They then use it as an extra in an episode of one of the Law & Order shows.

Presumably, the clone would play the role of a wrongly-accused felon.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[alex_ware]

then that would be an encouragement to commit crimes 1:"look, see that man they all think is guilty" 2:"yes" 1:"he's innocent" 2:"how do you know" 1:"he's my clone" 2 runs off sirens in background 2:"right it's ME on next week"

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have nothing to hide, why not let police come into your house without a warrent, read your email, tap your phone, see what you watch on TV, check out at the library, everything you purchase, who you have sex with, what kind of porn you like and everything else?

As long as you're innocent, why should you care if your privacy is invaded?

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[TheRealMindChild]

While I agree with what you are saying, your last line struck a nerve. The term "wrong" is relative from person to person. The law tries to become a general middle ground of the publics idea of what "wrong" is. But over time this definition changes, and things that you take pride in might be "ok" today, but who KNOWS when a time comes along when that one thing you enjoy becomes illegal... then what? When they come find you, you can tell me then what I have to fear "if Ive done nothing wrong"

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[jfengel]

"Upon written notification from a law enforcement agency that a person is no longer a suspect in a criminal investigation, the Department of Justice DNA laboratory shall remove the supect sample from its data bank files." -- Article 3, section 297(b)(2).

Whether you trust them to do so is another point, especially given the next sentence which says that if (by accident, of course) they don't delete it, and you get convicted of something based on that evidence, that conviction stands.

Security standards for that database are somewhat underspecified.

Article 5 is all about expungment of the samples. Basically, you request in writing that you've been cleared of all charges, and if nobody objects, they have to destroy it within half a year.

Again, whether you trust them to actually do it... well, we trust the police to carry guns, don't we?

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[jay2003]

Under the initiative, those acquitted have to petition to court to remove their sample. Seems like an undue burden after being falsely accused. I'd be more likely to support the initiative if the samples were only taken after conviction.

From the article:

Although the initiative allows people to have their DNA information pulled from the database and destroyed if they have been found innocent or released without charges, it requires a court order and a complicated stack of paperwork before it can be done.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[Jane_Dozey]

No. Only specially trained police in the UK are allowed to carry firearms. And I don't trust police any more than the stranger on the street.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>As long as you're innocent, why should you care if your privacy is invaded?
---

Perhaps you should tell that to the 100,000 innocents convicted last year?

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[ConsumedByTV]

The problem with databases full of information is that it's impossible to know who has the data.

Once it's there, I bet someone hacks into it and rysncs a diff of the database everyday.

But the good news is that it won't run unix!

So it won't have rsync!
Safe!

(ha!)

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[ConsumedByTV]

Having to work to have your things back after seizure is insanity.

Having to appeal to the courts or a company for the same thing is even worse.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've hit the nail on the head (posting anonymously as I modded you up).

I hate this argument that a person doesn't do anything wrong, he or she has nothing to fear. What you said is my exact response. If increased privacy invasions will help by either (a) enabling some more violators to be caught/convicted or (b) deterring crime, then why not take this to the logical limit? Have cameras and microphones monitoring all space, all the time, whether public or private. Require disclosure of identity at periodic checkpoints. This means monitoring of private homes, bedrooms, heck, even bathrooms. Have sensors and cameras in the toilet - analyze all shits to see if any drugs were taken, etc. After all, the innocent should fear nothing.

Just imagine how life would change. We all have behavior that we want to keep secret, I bet. Examples might be affairs, enjoyment of porn, messy bedrooms, the use of tupees, breast, and crotch stuffing, whatever. Many of us simply don't want others to know our private business. Most of us would likely adapt by having a threshold - behavior we want to ensure is kept secret would have to be forgone, unless necessary, such as having a bowel movement.

The thing about law is that it is completely made up - essentially it's not mandated by nature or the physical world, for example. Thus, we can make the law into anything we want, pretty much. Want involute privacy rights? Make access to what happens inside private homes completely inaccessible to law enforcement or the courts. Want to win the so-called "war on drugs", then likely it would require cameras in all spaces, both public and private, perhaps augmented with laws prohibiting hiding from cameras such as by putting a blanket over one's self (to do something illegal, presumably).

The end point is that likely everyone in society wants something different on a given issue, so it becomes a balancing act.

What I don't like is the use of the current envionment of fear to reduce our privacy rights. This is a layer on top of the always present pervasive pressure of law enforcement also trying to reduce privacy rights.

My fear (and that of many) is that people will adjust and become used to the invasion of civil and privacy rights and the process will keep continuing. Perhaps in 100 years or so there won't be any privacy rights as we know it.

While it seems to me that this is inevitable, is that the right balance to strike? Zero tolerance for wrong-doing at the expense of all other rights?

Hmm. Gross violation of the philosophy embodied in the US Constitution and other legal traditions (such as the right of due process and the right against double jeopardy - both of which allow the guilty to go free upon occasion in order to protect the rights of the innocent) or the next evolutionary stage in human society? Both?

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[jfengel]

Whether they have guns or not, you still have ceded substantial authority to police. They are allowed to arrest you, for example, and you (for the most part) do not have the right to arrest them.

(Yes, there are citizen's arrests, but your standard of proof is much higher than theirs. If you arrest somebody falsely under a citizen's arrest you are in massive, massive trouble. A police officer who arrests an innocent person as an honest mistake is just doing his job.)

They also have the right to invade your privacy under certain circumstances (e.g probable cause).

I cannot speak for the laws of the UK (heck, I'm not even a lawyer here in the US, merely an informed civilian) but I suspect that you have ceded many rights to the police. Whether the right to test your DNA is too much, well, that's up to the voters in California to decide. This is an initiative, and it goes directly to the people to say yea or nay.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[mburns]

This proposed law does not meet constitutional standards. Any intelligent court will toss evidence obtained by intrusive means not following from a warrant. A popular vote is insufficient to change this safeguard.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Upon written notification from a law
> enforcement agency that a person is no longer a
> suspect in a criminal investigation, the
> Department of Justice DNA laboratory shall
> remove the supect sample from its data bank
> files." -- Article 3, section 297(b)(2).

So if it takes say a decade for the law enforcement agency to get around to writing the note to the Department of Justice what then? Or perhaps they will take 50 years to send the notification. Or maybe after a few years, the Justice Department will decide that there is too much paper work or too much of a back log and will decide to save tax payer dollars by not taking the time to remove entries from the DNA database.

I think this is just asking for troubles.

Keep in mind that currently in the state of Florida, they can't even figure out who is a felon and who isn't for the purpose of voting. Now you expect that the State of California will be able to match a non-felon to their DNA sample to be sure to destroy the correct sample?

Gee, sounds like..

[bigattichouse]

sounds like a movie plot, where a lawyer bankrolling the whole thing had been sleeping with his sister-in-law, murdered them both - and then goes on a public campaign to sidetrack everyone from including him as a suspect. Just the cynic in me.

Re:Gee, sounds like..

[Anonymous Coward]

where a lawyer bankrolling the whole thing had been sleeping with his sister-in-law, murdered them both

Who both? Himself and the woman? Yeah, that would tend to "sidetrack everyone from including him as a suspect."

Why stop there?

[Ninwa]

Come on, do it already. Take and store DNA samples when we're born, you know you want to.

Re:Why stop there?

[n00b_101]

Mod parent up this is definately TRUE!

too far

[Sinful_Shirts]

So sometime in the future we are going to have people being arrested because their DNA indicates that they have a very aggresive/compulsive/sadistic whatever predisposition. It's easy for the authorities to say that they are only going to use it for crimes, but who knows what they might decide to do in the future. I think that this is going to far.

Re:too far

[ivansanchez]

C'mon, you've seen "Minority Report" too many times...

Re:too far

[ConsumedByTV]

C'mon, you've never ever heard of a government or police force abusing it's power?

How about other people getting into the data base by just joining a police force?

Think about how easy that would be?

You could join the police force and get paid to have access to these records.

Re:too far

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about how easy that would be?

Not as easy as it is to put on that tinfoil hat and stop forgetting to take your medication.

Re:too far

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it's "database", not "data base".

Second, you don't just "join" a police force.

Everyone they arrest?

[MacFury]

What if you are arrested but innocent and subsequently not convicted of the original crime you were arrested for? Would they have to destroy the sample?

Perhaps some cop looking for a promotion would just plant some DNA evidence at the scene to make sure you get convicted.

I'd have to say if a cop told me to give him a DNA sample, I'd respond "blow me" :-)

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[Seumas]

Do police departments remove your fingerprints from their posession if you are not convicted of a crime? I've always wondered this. I'm sure that, even if they claimed to, they wouldn't really do it. After all, even with minors, they don't erase their records. They are merely sealed. Same goes for adoption records. Getting a government agency to give up evidence or information or records probably is a lot like getting them to cut spending and give you back some of your tax money. Unheard of.

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[Paster Of Muppets]

Then don't let the Police hold the samples. Hold them at a Government Science Lab where the Police cannot access them unless they are investigating a crime that has already taken place. Then the problem arises when the Government wants to implicate you in a crime...

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd respond "blow me" :-)

They'd probably try and arrest you on charges of cruising.

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[freejung]

Do police departments remove your fingerprints from their posession if you are not convicted of a crime?

No. Not only that, but when a cop pulls you over and runs your ID, it's your arrest record that comes up, not your conviction record. Same applies when you're convicted of a crime: the judge gets to see all of your arrests, and often if you were not convicted, the record just says "disposition not given" or something like that. I met a guy in jail who had been accused and aquitted of rape (the girl in question admitted she was lying), but the rape arrest was still on his record and the record read "no disposition given" for the case. He had to go to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate to the judge that he had not actually been convicted of rape.

Under some of the anti-drug laws, they don't even have to give you back your confiscated property, even if you're not convicted.

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[ConsumedByTV]

When a cop pulls you over in California and in San Francisco to be specific, it's even more.

The MDT (Mobile Data Terminals) are hooked into a number of databases including the NCIC. Those databases hold much more than arrests, they also hold commentary.

It's not uncommon to see messages like:

********** DANGEROUS DO NOT APPREHEND **********

So imagine when it now says:

********** REFUSES TO GIVE DNA SAMPLES *********

********** SUBVERSIVE PERSON ARREST AT ALL COSTS *****

Welcome to a nice little mix of 1984 and Brave New World before it all locks down.

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to say if a cop told me to give him a DNA sample, I'd respond "blow me"

Well... that would be one way for them to get it.

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[strike2867]

if a cop told me to give her a DNA sample, I'd respond "blow me" :-)

Dear Penthouse,

Avoid Prison!

[Paster Of Muppets]

Don't do it in the first place! Off to find a super strength vacuum cleaner and DIY embalming kit to change my DNA...

Re:He who commits the crime...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

He who is merely arrested forfeits personal biometric identification (DNA) which is not at all like fingerprints, but carries very personal and private data about his genetic makeup, health, probability of disease and much else.

Remember, being arrested has nothing to do with being guilty. This means that if a couple little girls like the ones up in Seattle skip school and then make up a story about being raped by you or some other stranger that had never even seen the girls before and you're arrested because of it (or in that poor homeless guy's case, PUT IN PRISON), they will confiscate your DNA for evidence for eternity - even if the girls later confess that they invented the whole story to get away with skipping school (as those two little twats in Seattle did this past winter).

It isn't even so much the DNA itself as it is the shifting of our legal system from a "presumed innocent until proven guilty" to a "guilty until proven innocent, and even then you're still fucked" system.

'arrested'?

[Junta]

The article says anyone 'arrested', not convicted, which gives me concern. People can get arrested and found to be truly innocent. Fingerprints aren't particularly invasive, simply a unique identifier, but DNA, as they say, could be examined for more information about what traits a person could carry. Granted, fingerprints aren't nearly as reliable and much easier to eradicate the presence of compared to DNA samples and the DNA bank would be useful, but once you go beyond tracking that which is merely unique from person to person to that which potentially lays out behavorial tendencies, health issues, etc, it becomes much more disconcerting.

An interesting film based on the premise of too much focus on DNA tracking is GATTACA.

Re:'arrested'?

[CaptainPinko]

An interesting film based on the premise of too much focus on DNA tracking is GATTACA. Not to nitpick but I think you missed the point of the film. That was just a plot device to push the point of pigeonholing. Like most good sci-fi the point of Gattaca was much more everyday-- in fact you could related it to all those race theories and the civil rights movement. To make that film a commentary on DNA would be the result of a fairly superficial reading of the film. The film textbook by Comolli and Narboni has an interesting section on the four-levels of meaning, you might want to check that out.

Re:'arrested'?

[Jane_Dozey]

It still had some interesting points to do with DNA though. To compare to the topic here: the man in the film who actually comitted a murder had DNA that said he had no violent tendancies. This is the kind of problem law enforcement might forget about if technology allows a profile to be created in the future regarding peoples behavior. You cannot judge a persons actions based on their biological footprint. Psychology plays a far bigger role in this. Of course, I'm being totally hypothetical here since building a profile on everyone is not what is being suggested in the article :)

Yes, the film wasn't about DNA and has many other aspects, but it DOES bring up more than simply superficial points on the subject.

Re:'arrested'?

[geek]

Fingerprints are also taken to identify you IN the prison system. In case of riot they need to know who is who. I visited one a long time ago and had mine taken "in case of hostage scenario" so they could make sure that after releasing me, I was who I said I was. Fingerprints on arrest are as much for your protection as they are for control measures. DNA doesn't serve this purpose so they truly are different animals altogether.

Re:'arrested'?

[Junta]

You're right that to say the central point was DNA tracking, but some very relevant points were brought up.

For example, the main character became the prime suspect of a crime when his DNA was discovered near the scene. In this case, it is very much the same as race, where historically if a person of suspect race is seen near a crime scene, that person would become the prime suspect regardless of evidence.

I don't get it

[tobar mersa]

Maybe it's just me, but I really do not understand why they will take a DNA sample of every felon. I guess I didn't realize that the commision of fraud required leaving something from which DNA could be obtained.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, they already require takign DNA samples of every felon. THis article is about taking a DNA sample of every person as soon as they are ARRESTED for a felony.

People arrested for felonies are not felons. They are people who are arrested. Lots of people are arrested every day because of mistaken identity, an angry neighbor, a jealous ex girlfriend, a little kid looking for attention, mis-identification on part of the police, race or any other number of factors.

This is all a presumption of guilt over innocence.

Re:I don't get it

[geek]

Not every felon. Every felony arrest. So now to get your DNA they can make up a charge, grab your DNA, release you/drop charges and store you away in a little database ala big brother.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

A guy I know is sitting in the pokey right now because of this. His teenage daughter is a chronic school skipper, won't do her homework, general bad attitude. A few weeks ago he forced her to go to school, physically dragged her there in his car and dropped her off after she screwed around and missed the bus for the umpteenth dozen time. She got livid and accused him of molesting her after she got to the school, I guess to get back at him or some other hallucinatory deal. Cops came over to his work and arrested him based on just her word, repeated to some school counselor. They have no other evidence whatsoever except her initial accusation, there were never any priors, nothing, just the one incident AFAIK. As soon as the daughter found out he was actually arrested, she immediately retracted her story,broke down crying, told them the truth, that she and her dad were fighting over her attendance, etc, but at this point he is still in jail, has lost his job, has lost his rental house, his wife has moved back to her folks, the little brat is still a little brat, and the state is going ahead and pressing charges anyway. Last I knew anyway, haven't heard an update for a week or so now, but I saw the wife moving out last weekend with a rental truck. They live down the street from me, I have only spoken to the guy a few times before, this is relayed to me through his boss, who I am friends with.

Yes, I know, hearsay, etc, just a story I happen to have that coincidently fits inside this conversation

Gathering DNA of offenders...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they're performing a scientific study on what makes a criminal, and this is field-research, gather all the DNA of humans prone to trouble...(gasps and searches frantically for his tinfoil hat)

Re:Gathering DNA of offenders...

[Jane_Dozey]

Strange, I thought every human was capable of committing a crime. How many people have you met that havn't ever broken a law?

Yippie!

[Duncan3]

Now if they could just do this nationally, and allow nationwide searches of the data, then at least we can catch the criminals fool enough to leave DNA behind... This is a GOOD thing.

All they do is process it and record the CODIS score which is completely useless for anything but ID. If fact, knowing your CODIS for family members is a good thing, since there are alot of ways you can die where DNA is all that's left.

It can't reveal that you have geek genes and so women shouldn't risk sex with you, so slashdoters can all relax.

And a cheak swab is not exactly "invasive", the fingerprinting process is much more likely to involve the police having to beat you to unconsciousness.

Re:Yippie!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell me you seriously think that they'll just take the DNA sample, record the score and then throw the sample itself away? For one, they'd retain it for any future court requirements for evidence. If not now, then if you're arrested again later for another crime. Besides, when does the government ever not hold on to something that may be useful for them down the road?

This lawyer guy is just another one of those idiots like people who's toddlers drown in a bucket of water due to their own negligence and then go on a national crusade to develop anti-bucket legislation to child-proof the rest of the universe.

I hope this doesn't pass. I hope it is shot down in flames. I hope this lawyer guy just blew 1.3m on jack shit.

Re:Yippie!

[Seumas]

Do you comprehend the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"?

If you are taking someone's DNA sample today, even though they are not guilty of anything, with the intention of using it against them later to match against data commited from a crime in the future, you are automatically presuming their guilty today which is directly against the fundamental premise of our legal system.

Re:Yippie!

[ConsumedByTV]

And in addition to that, you're creating a system that allows for someone to help convict you by simply stealing a sample of your DNA.

Re:Yippie!

[dustmite]

You're either -1 Troll or -1 Naive.

Re:Yippie!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say he's more like -4 (Quad Damage) fscking idiot.

There is a brighter side to all of this

[Tim_F]

Scientists will now be able to predetermine criminal behaviour in individuals based on their DNA. At or before birth doctors will be able to tell parents wether or not their children will be predisposed to becoming criminals. THis will be a good thing for society.

The next step

[freejung]

So this is just a rehash of the so-called "slippery slope" argument, but it applies and is important.

This sounds eminently reasonable, though I'm not sure I like the "arrested for a felony" part, it would be much more reasonable to use convictions. But they print you on arrest, so why shouldn't they take your DNA too, right?

Ah, but they fingerprint you for a drivers' license too. They didn't, at one time, but now they do. Because the argument was made that, well, if we take your prints on arrest, why shouldn't we take them for a drivers license too? That will, of course, be the next step.

I would actually be completely in favor of this if we had a resonable law enforcement system, which we don't, and if there were any way to assure that this will not be used as an argument for taking DNA from everyone, which there isn't. As it is, I think this sort of thinking needs to be stopped before it spreads.

Re:The next step

[Anonymous Coward]

My new site: Free Nature Pictures [freenaturepictures.com]

Aw shit, I clicked on your link thinking it was "Free Naked Pictures".

Re:The next step

[ConsumedByTV]

You shouldn't argue that this isn't a good idea because of a unreasonable law enforcement system. To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable.

What would make more of an impact, even if it was a reasonable police force, iis that it would be unreasonable to take DNA samples, period.

It's an ironic day for the world when the only thing stopping an absolute police force from taking over in a very orwellian way is apathy.

Re:The next step

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The reason we have the bill of rights is because many of the Framers thought that police and government power cannot be inherently trusted. The justice system has often taken a stance that evidence illegally seized is not evidence at all.

I think DNA should only be required for convicted felons that commit some sort of physical crime (grand theft, rape, murder etc.). I bet that those that commited econimic ir IP crime would likely be thrown in, but DNA is irrelevant to those cases, because you don't leave that sort of evidence behind when embezzling and such.

Re:The next step

[Pentagram]

This sounds eminently reasonable.

No it bloody doesn't. This is bad in itself. My DNA is a blueprint of exactly who I am (minus cultural influence and random factors) and is solely mine. It is not the government's right to take copies of just because some coppers might be incompetent enough to arrest me. FFS, you need a warrant just to tap someone's phone[1], and this is much more invasive. If I was a Californian I'd tell them to fuck off, at least until all the politicians involved in the initiative had agreed to each release DNA samples to the public.

[1] unless this has been overridden by "anti-terror (C)" legislation recently.

Re:The next step

[freejung]

No it bloody doesn't.

You're absolutely right, of course. I was just trying to anticipate the opposition. You have to take into account that most people don't think of them as "coppers" (I prefer "pigs" myself), but as "law enforcement" or something like that, and they tend to assume that anything that helps them do their job is a good idea. If you start the argument with the premise that police are an inherently bad thing (which they are) you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from the majority of the middle-class American public. You have to try other angles.

Re:The next step

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright your DNA, dude. They sue THE MAN for making copies without permission...

Re:The next step

[JimBobJoe]

Ah, but they fingerprint you for a drivers' license too.

Only in five states. Most Americans have never been fingeprinted for anything.

They didn't, at one time, but now they do. Because the argument was made that, well, if we take your prints on arrest, why shouldn't we take them for a drivers license too?

Actually, if they had made that argument, no state would have license fingerprinting, since it would have made the association between being a criminal and just being a citizen needing to get a license. That's exactly the association law enforcment and DMVs wanted to avoid, because it plays into the hands of the civil liberties peeps.

The research I've done on the issue implies to me that legislatures were lied and hoodwinked concerning the fingerprinting requirement--vendors and DMVs said things like "it'll prevent fraud" and no one actually questioned them, because they never said how it would.

Re:The next step

[freejung]

Only in five states

California, the state in question, is one of them.

Gattaca, here we come?

[btharris]

Things like this naturally conjure up images of sci-fi dystopias. Ironic that although science fiction has repeatedly shown us the horrors of the misuse of science, we nevertheless charge forward blindly and even aspire to achieve these dystopias of science fiction.

Iceland has recently had a major controversy over creating a general DNA database of the people. Maybe if we can't learn from fiction, we can from reality.

Question

[DarkHelmet]

I know this may be incredibly ignorant on my part. Keep in mind that I do software for a living, and not forensics or anything of the matter...

But would it be possible to store a hash of a person's DNA? I know that people who run open source software typically check any sort of download for MySQL, PHP, or anything else for that matter against an MD5 string? Now, why couldn't somebody's DNA sequencing match against something like SHA1 or MD5?

I figure it might have to do with mutations / etc screwing up the hash generated. But isn't there some kind of hash that could compensate for that sort of thing?

I'm just wondering if there's a way of matching DNA without storing sensitive information like possible health defects, etc..

Personally, I would not mind something like this used for homocide or rape. I'm just concerned, like everyone else, that this will be a slippery slope towards other things.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, everyone has a very odd understanding of DNA fingerprinting. They take a sample of cells. They DO NOT and CANNOT sequence your entire DNA sequence (the Human Genome Project took years to do this for just two people). What they do to make a fingerprint is to copy the DNA, slice the copy up with enzymes looking for certain sequences, then look at the relative weightings of the bits. This IS the hash that you're talking about, only it's a biological hash function, not a mathematical one.

Jeez, I wish people would find out about the technology (it IS /. after all!) before running scared. We're now seeing "satellites tracking where ex-felons are" (no we're not: the GPS system is passive; it's the box on your leg that's (failing) to track you). We're seeing "fingerprints will identify you from a database" (no they won't: there's about a 1:10000 match chance, so matching a random fingerprint against a 250,000,000 database is going to get a lot of false positives).

You know, (supposed) technologists talking to politicians is a very dangerous combination..

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? How does this change the fact that they are presuming your guilt before you have been convicted of a crime or that thay are gathering evidence against you in a very anti-4th-amendment sort of way?!

Re:Question

[Dun Malg]

But would it be possible to store a hash of a person's DNA?

As another poster noted, they'd only record the CODIS score of one's DNA, which is essentially a hash. That being the case, It's probably not as big a deal as people are making it out to be.

Re:Question

[ConsumedByTV]

Obviously you have something to hide!

Shoot the pig in the streets!

(Oh what a sad day it is)

Even if it wasn't the 4th amendment, it's still wrong.

One day the 4th amendment will entirely be gone if people like this get their way.

Re:Question

[Dun Malg]

As another poster noted, they'd only record the CODIS score of one's DNA, which is essentially a hash. That being the case, It's probably not as big a deal as people are making it out to be.

What idiot rated the above "redundant"? It's a short, simple answer to the question. The other poster is in a different thread on the second page, not this thread. It's only redundant if, upon reading the comment, one says something like "I just read a comment two spots up that says the same thing". Here's a link to the FBI's page about the COmbined DNA Index System for whatever mod thinks a post is redundant if it doesn't provide info that's not replicated somewhere in the huge list of posts under the story in question.

Now I'll probably get modded "flamebait"...

It Ain't No Big Deal

[jmt9581]

This ain't no thang. We all know that DNA stands for "Did Not Attack."

:P

Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

I don't see the problem with this. The standard argument with "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" revolves around potential abuse of the system. In this case, however, there isn't much abuse possible. DNA is DNA. Can't be faked.

If you are arrested for something you didn't do, then yes, you will be more likely to be caught for a subsequent crime you did commit. Thing is, you did commit the crime. This is nothing more than extra efficiency for law enforcement. We should thank these folks for decreasing costs and increasing convictions.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, support the booming prison industry!

Yes, make this cheaper so they can buy more super-happy-"nonlethal"-weapons to try out on demonstrators and random nearby civilians!

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain something to me.

You arrested me today for suspection of committing some felony.
You release me in the morning after a judge decides I was the wrong guy.
You keep my DNA sample.

In five years, another crime is committed. You find a sample of my DNA. You match it to the DNA you gathered from me at this previous crime.

How does this help to commit me of the original crime? In fact, you can't because that would be double jeapordy. All it would do is help identify me.

In fact, it wouldn't do a damn thing. It would help you identify that DNA found at the second crime matched mine. Since I was innocent of the first crime, I should be presumed innocent of the second. You can't approach it as "he's guilty because we already had his dna from the last time he was wrongly accused!".

Thing is, crime or not, you can't go around presuming the guilt of people who are innocent. Dumbass.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

Yes, support the booming prison industry!
Yes, make this cheaper so they can buy more super-happy-"nonlethal"-weapons to try out on demonstrators and random nearby civilians!

Oh right, I can see the connection between a DNA database and.. demonstrators. Riiight. Good one.
Law enforcement is fun to critisize sometimes, but please keep in mind that without them, your geeky anti-prison ass would probably have been shot in the face by now.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

Please explain something to me.

Gladly.

How does this help to commit me of the original crime? In fact, you can't because that would be double jeapordy. All it would do is help identify me.

Who said anything about the original crime? You were innocent of the first crime. It's the second crime we're concerned with here.

In fact, it wouldn't do a damn thing. It would help you identify that DNA found at the second crime matched mine

Yes, that is exactly what we want. The ability to locate suspects based on DNA evidence left at a crime scene. No different than fingerprints, video cameras, eye-witness reports, etc.

Since I was innocent of the first crime, I should be presumed innocent of the second. You can't approach it as "he's guilty because we already had his dna from the last time he was wrongly accused!".

The two crimes are totally separate. In the U.S., you are assumed innocent of all crimes, until proven guilty. That has nothing to do with what previous crimes you may or may not have committed.

Thing is, crime or not, you can't go around presuming the guilt of people who are innocent. Dumbass.

There is no presumption of guilt here. This is simply a way to provide suspects. Even if there is some of your DNA at a crime scene, that doesn't even come close to proving you committed the crime. Nobody said anything about automatic convictions, or double jeopardy or anything of the sort. Please try to formulate meaningful arguments before going around calling people "dumbass".

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[geek]

Hello,

It appears after your 2004 arrest (without conviction) that your DNA profile has come up in a new and ongoing criminal case. As a result, you are now a "person of interest" and subsequently unable to apply for security clearance of any level. We have also taken the liberty of informing your employer who btw formally requests you do not return to work tomorrow. We will release your friends and family members from questioning shortly.

Yours truly,
The Secret Service

Gee, no potential for abuse here. All that's required is the "label" or appearance of guilt and your life is ruined. This is exactly why privacy is so important.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

All that's required is the "label" or appearance of guilt and your life is ruined.

I agree with that statement. However, law enforcement can do that today. They can make you a suspect based on an insignicicant chain of connections. Happens already. This will change the way some suspects are thrown into the hat, but the effect is the same. Maybe it's more arbitrary, maybe not - that is debatable.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[geek]

Just because they can already do it, doesn't mean we should make it even easier for them. Sorry but this is why we have the second amendment. Before long we'll need our well armed militias to defend us from our own police state. It's no mystery why one of the first things Hitler did was institute gun control. After that he started slapping numbers on jews hands to "more easily identify the criminals". Then we just need national ID cards (stars on our chests) and the stage is set once again.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...[W]ithout them, your ... ass would ... have been shot in the face..."

Please, allow me to be the first one to say: WTF?

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

hmm... maybe he's an ass-face. :-) or butt-head.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, however, there isn't much abuse possible. DNA is DNA. Can't be faked.

You don't know much about DNA analysis as currently used. They don't sequence the ENTIRE DNA from start to finish. That would take far too long. They cut it up into small pieces first, then they match on whether the small pieces match. It is possible (but rare) for the small pieces to match without the entire DNA matching.

And you don't seem to know that DNA synthesizing machines exist and are used everyday in biological research.

It is trivial to plant a suspect's DNA at the crime scene. DNA is obtainable from hair, spit, skin, etc.etc.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

It is possible (but rare) for the small pieces to match without the entire DNA matching.

It is also possible for fingerprints to falsely match. We still use them in investigations. Also, DNA is enough to get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt." Our standard of proof can never be 100%, we wouldn't get anything done.

And you don't seem to know that DNA synthesizing machines exist and are used everyday in biological research.
It is trivial to plant a suspect's DNA at the crime scene. DNA is obtainable from hair, spit, skin, etc.etc.

Yes, I am aware of those machines. They can produce copies of DNA. AFAIK, however, they aren't capable of (today at least) producing significant quantities of blood, spit, skin, etc. You don't walk into a crime scene and start looking around for pieces of Deoxyribonucleic acid laying on the carpet. You look for blood, spit, skin, etc.

I will admit that this limitation probably won't stand the test of time, and one day there will be machines capable of producing these things. However, I think it's much simpler to realize that they can already frame someone today by collecting hair samples from your brush or comb. Why use the million-dollar machine to fake evidence when you can just collect it the old fashioned way?

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say to that is, don't leave any DNA lying about for someone to plant at the scene of a crime. Like, don't piss, shit or use condoms. Also, don't flush hair down the toilet or throw it in the bin [from the plug hole/hairbrush etc]. Incinerate all your body's waste. The system can, will be and is abused and abusable. 'nuff sed.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up fucking fascist!!!

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA most certainly can be faked. The numbers of people who can do it is the pertinent question.

How do you think DNA testing works? You isolate the DNA from a fluid, you magnify the DNA using a PCR machine, and you run a gel electrophoresis test comparing multiple samples (and yes, it's more complex that this, but I'm an attorney, not a DNA technician).

Now, even through you may be able to put a data description of the DNA analysis into a computer, you're also going to keep the actual sample in an archive for confirmation testing. PCR magnifies DNA. DNA can be mixed into a substance (especially in a mixture w/DNA from "excluded" individuals). Substances can be planted. QED.

(See http://www.d-fwmall.com/dna/dna_faq.htm [yes, I know, it's questionably "authoritative"], "Current DNA technology requires that all parties be run at the same time in order to make appropriate reliable comparisons."]

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

Now, even through you may be able to put a data description of the DNA analysis into a computer, you're also going to keep the actual sample in an archive for confirmation testing.

I don't think it would be necessary to keep the samples. If you find a match and need confirmation, why not go get a new sample from the individual?

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you need to obtain a warrant to get that sample?

I don't claim to know whether the computer database provides probable cause for the warrant, but I know that I'd fight any warrant and refuse to provide a sample until I got a hearing. You always hear about how unique the DNA match is in an actual comparative test, not how unique the "DNA match" is in a computerized summary of a blind DNA test.

My impression is the police use such databases to find "persons of interest" and conduct further investigation before obtaining a warrant. If that is the case, they're still being forced to work through deductive reasoning during the initial stages of investigation (good, the evidence points at the person), than through inductive reasoning (not so good, the evidence does not exclude the person, so continue to focus on that person).

We're starting to focus on esoteric points. My original point was that DNA can be faked - the sample can be obtained from any number of sources - people do not take Gattaca-like precautions. Again, the pertinent question is, how many people have the skill and resources to do it.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[JGski]

A troll, I presume :-)

Forensic DNA matching does not involving matching all or even a significant amount of your DNA to a challenge. Try 13 short, matching sequences of a dozen or so base pairs out of 3.2B base pairs for the mostly commonly used type of forensic DNA testing. Sure there are 6B people so that doesn't sound too bad, but are they indepenently distributed in geography or DNA space? Nobody knows - a whole company exists to try to find out - eventually). Afterall a single American White Male was the primary source of the DNA for Celera HSG work. What does that say about statistical relevance?

To put the statistics of forensic DNA matching in perspective, imagine that you wanted to "match" a suspect piece of literature to a book missing from your library (assuming that you have every copy of each author's work - no twins/clones) and that you could only match it based on the content of the book's words. Now say you decided to define a match by randomly picking one word that started with the letter 'H' of from each chapter from a book the size of War and Peace, up to 10 chapters only, and then saying that if more than 5 out of 10 words are the same, that defines a "match". Only to a certain condifidence interval you can claim to have a match and even then it's certainly never 100% sure. Basically that's how forensic DNA matching works.

You can probably be pretty sure that a given work of James Joyce is not Edgar Allen Poe, but declaring a match between some unknown challenge against a random library edition is a bit more iffy. The cases you hear about "long-shot hits" on "dead file" cases are both very long shots and (should) never (be) sufficient for conviction on DNA alone, railroading excepted. If used for a narrow range of matching tasks, DNA is superlative. Used for the wrong matching task, you might as well draw suspect names from a hat.

Please mod parent up.

[HBI]

Great film, and I tend to agree that limitations on this sort of database are required. What the correct metric is between preservation of privacy and public interest, I do not know, but there has to be some kind of middle ground.

search seizure?

[atarione]

Hmmm...

if you have just been 'arrested' aren't you still presumed innocent?

why should a 'false' arrest get's people's DNA into some big brotherish database. and isn't my DNA mine does the Gov really have the right to 'seize my DNA???'

Not clear cut, more information is required.

[twitter]

What's the difference between people arrested for a felony and everyone else? The answer is reasonable suspicion. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but obviously society has some power over people under reasonable suspicion. If society had no power over them, there would be no arrest.

The question then is if DNA sampling is part of a reasonable arrest. The fears expressed in the article were:

"DNA is not like a fingerprint, since getting it is more invasive and it holds information beyond mere identification,'' said Tania Simoncelli, a science and technology fellow for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Storing it permanently for future criminal investigations doesn't comply with the Constitution.''

Is that true? What information does a DNA "fingerprint" reveal? How is it any different from storing an image of someone's face, fingerprints and other identifying information permanently for future criminal investigation?

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear god... please tell me you are being rhetorical and you aren't actually this ignorant?

We are discovering more and more about DNA constantly and can already pinpoint some disease, personality and ancestry traits merely by analyzing your DNA.

What information does DNA reveal? Potentially ALL INFORMATION as science evolves its mapping and comprehension of the human genome.

And this isn't just DNA "fingerprinting". If they take your DNA sample to produce a "fingerprint" (ie, a score) based on it - you can bank on the fact that they will still hold on to the actual sample itself. They're not simply going to stick the score in a database and then throw the sample out with the morning trash.

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[phoenix.bam!]

Genetic diseases for one. Do you want your insurance company checking up on your DNA record and finding out that you have a dispotision to some costly disease and dropping you? Even convited felons don't deserve that.
How about if a violence gene is identified and those who have it get a +1 guilty in their court trials just because of that?

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[Senjutsu]

What information does a DNA "fingerprint" reveal?

Pre-disposition to any number of diseases, neuroses, personality traits, etc, etc. In the wrong hands, that information could be used to say, deny you any and all health insurance in perpetuity, even if you never develop any of the diseases hinted at by your DNA.

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[ConsumedByTV]

Try telling that to someone that thinks they could never ever be a felon.

Why do people not care about subjects?
Most of the time it's because they don't see how it applies to them.

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[Anonymous Coward]

please tell me you are being rhetorical and you aren't actually this ignorant?

Unfortunately, he is.

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[Stonent1]

All they have to do is swab the envelopes for DNA just like they do on TV.

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[Anonymous Coward]

> How about if a violence gene is identified and those who have it get a +1 guilty in their
> court trials just because of that?

Or if a non-violence gene is identified and the guy who raped your sister is acquited because, well, it must have been consensual?

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[Zone-MR]

From your DNA sample, they could track down anyone in your immediate family. That cannot be done with a fingerprint.

Thats why the majority of the debate about how people without convictions should have their DNA sample taken is missing the point. If you ARE convicted, your parents/childrens/brothers/sisters DNA can all be identified, even though they arent officially on record.

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[liquidsin]

Your character has contracted "violent tendencies", giving him -3 save vs. arrest, but it's almost balanced out by the +2 from his tin foil helm.

It really goes

[kingkade]

something like:

Blond-haired officer Lt. Susie Cox asks for your DNA you say "You'll have to take it?"

She says "Maybe I will, I haven't had anything to eat today and I'm just starving."

And you say "Well feast on this..." [flop]

[cue some Al Green]

Yikes, I've even disturbed myself.

Arrested != tried or convicted

[mabhatter654]

Arrested for a felony does not mean that you will even be tried neccessaraly convicted. At this point, police can "arrest" you for darn dear anything, lock you up for up to 72 hours, then say "oops!" "we know there's no possible way you committed the crime" but it's "our bad" and let you go* Therefore, they could legally "arrest" everyone for suspision of *something* and DNA test them. They do much the same thing with protestors now... they "arrest" them for something like "disorderly conduct" [i.e. marching in the street] so they can put their fingerprints in the Database wether or not they committed a crime. [or rather *protesting* was the crime and now you're marked]

* all rights reserved to arrest you again for this matter if we want!!

Hashes have collisions

[melted]

If you want to use something as evidence you have to have the real thing. You can still use the hash for quick lookup, though.

Re:Hashes have collisions

[ConsumedByTV]

Depending on the data set, you can be pretty sure you won't have a collision.

If you can produce a unique set of dna markers, you would be able to run it through a given hash function without fear of a collision.

Re:Hashes have collisions

[Joe5678]

I'm relying on intro college biology here, but I don't think current DNA samples are unique anyway.

They just have an enzyme that cuts the DNA at specific markers which appear at different locations in the DNA for different people, normally there's a dozen or so of these cuts. And then they run some water over them that pushes the different segments along a plate. The longer the string of DNA that was cut, the heavier it is and the shorter the distance it goes along the plate. So you end up with a banding pattern at the end of the test.

This banding pattern does NOT produce a unique signature, there's only a dozen or so bars on it across a 6-12" area. What you do get is probability when using it as evidence. For example, the odds of the DNA found at a crime scene and the odds of a suspect having the same banding pattern is very slim unless it's the same DNA.

DNA evidence is NOT good for proving people guilty, but only for proving people innocent.

Re:Hashes have collisions

[ConsumedByTV]

That's an entirely different problem and it's very valid.

If you assume that the data is unique (1 in 9,000,000,0000) it's entirely possible that you have 10 in a row. It reminds me of the book, "R&G are dead" where they flip a coin over and over and get heads each time.

It's not likely, but it's entirely possible.

DNA ca't be faked.

[Simple-Simmian]

"DNA can't be faked." No DNA can, but it sure as hell can be planted. Please take a good unbiased look at the police and explain why I should trust them?

We are talking about peole who have only been arrested, not convicted. Persons who are convicted fellons can already be made to give DNA samples in Califorina.

If this rich bastard is so gung ho for this then he can be the first person to give a DNA sample after all he has nothing to hide. Tjis is a asshat idea that will only be loved by ass hats, crooked cops and DA's and the simple minded.

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[Simple-Simmian]

typo "DNA can't be faked...

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[skraps]

"DNA can't be faked." No DNA can, but it sure as hell can be planted.

I don't buy this. If they simply sequence your DNA and store the results in an electronic database somewhere, then where do you think they can produce enough blood/urine/semen/hair, etc to "plant" at a crime scene? Unless there is a significant amount at the crime scene, I doubt it would be useful in court.

If they have already picked out someone to frame, they could accomplish this today by just going to your house and taking some hair out of your hairbrush or something. The DNA database doesn't make it any easier.

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[Simple-Simmian]

All you need to fake it is a comb or brush. Nothing more complicated than that. Cops plant evidence now. Sorry simply being arrested is not enough to have to give DNA. Convicted yes that is current law here in Calif. But just arrested no way?

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[topham]

DNA can be faked, no problem. You can have any sequence of DNA produced, they make machines which do exactly that. Once they have a DNA profile on record they just need to re-produce the sequence and dump it at a scene.

Probably easier to fake than a fingerprint; assuming other validation controls are not in place.

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[skraps]

All you need to fake it is a comb or brush. Nothing more complicated than that. Cops plant evidence now.

Here, you have simply re-stated my arguments.

Sorry simply being arrested is not enough to have to give DNA. Convicted yes that is current law here in Calif. But just arrested no way?

And here, made a statement of your opinion. Good show.

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[Diabolical]

Well, basicly it's not the police to be afraid of. Someone can get your hair of a brush, commit a felony and leave YOUR hair behind to sidetrack the police.. let's see you talk yourself out of that one......

Planting isn't done solely by the police. It can be anyone. Blood, fingerprints etc is much more difficult to plant. DNS samples are abundant and easily to come by. That idiot in the cinema yanking some hair out of your head? Could be a criminal in need of DNS material to plant, that nice whore offering you to give you a blowjob? Could be someone needing DNA for a sexcrime... etc. etc.

I know that you probably think this is farfetched, but in reality these things allready happen. Besides, the DNA tests are not watertight. There is always a possibility that you get a false positive. With the current law enforcement allready relying so much on DNA test this will result in alot of inocent people convicted of a crime they never committed.

Public Office

[aashenfe]

If more laws are enacted like this, maybe we should demand a law where anybody holding a public office should be required to give a dna sample.

That's what they all say

[freejung]

If you haven't done anything wrong then what is there to fear

By this reasoning, there is no reason whatsoever not to take DNA from everyone at birth, install a tracking device in everyone which contains your ID and a GPS, and arrange to have you monitored all the time.

The amazingly naive "if you didn't do anything wrong" argument overlooks the numerous obvious cases in which people who didn't do anything wrong were persecuted by our "justice" system. It also overlooks all issues of privacy, and the potential for abuse. If carried to its logical extreme, the only possible answer is totalitarianism.

Re:That's what they all say

[alex_ware]

In theory the innocent people need to fear argument is sound. In practice it's fundamentally flawed.
I'm sorry for being naive but if you are innocent then you can be pretty sure that it isn't your DNA they find at the crime sceen.
(unless you have an identical twin)

Re:That's what they all say

[ConsumedByTV]

Or unless I plant it there.

After all, if it's there and it's your DNA, you had to have been there!

Hair samples are really easy to get and even easier to drop.

I promise that this will happen without this law, but this is only going to make it go faster.

How long until some thug decides it's easy to walk past you, grab some of your hair (just one or two strands that you won't even notice), kill someone, drop the hair on the victim and then tip the cops that it was you?

The ways that are possible to get this sample are _endless_, they could pose as a janitor at your work taking your skin flakes from keyboard, perhaps they could go to your gym and use your hair from your brush?

Then the police come to arrest you and forceable dna sample proves you were at the crime scene. You had no proper reason for being around. Infact all your cover story about being somewhere else, that's not possible. You see, your DNA shows it so.

It's much like what happened in the USSA with the police snitches. They had power, they could screw you badly without having a reason.

In a police state, everyone has something to fear. Innocent or not.

Re:That's what they all say

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are innocent then you can be pretty sure that it isn't your DNA they find at the crime sceen

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But what if the crime scene is a back alley that just happens to be where the trash dumpster for your apartment is? You may never have seen the victim before but if your DNA is on file from a previous arrest (maybe a traffic stop where you failed a breathalyzer), you're a hell of a lot closer to being convicted simply because you left some cells on a dumpster near your flat.

Frankly, yes, I think this violates the privacy rights of the individuals who come under scrutiny, and those rights apply to those presumed innocent and those presumed guilty.

So, there are two of us, at least.

[dotz]

+1 here. Taking some samples at crime site also involves analyzing DNA found in semen, sputum, blood, and many more. Having whole DNA collected gives much more possibilities. Also, I agree with collecting DNA samples of people who are arrested and not yet convinced for a felony - no matter, what ID I have, no matter, what does my face look like, if the same DNA was found in a suspect some else place, well, you got me then.

Just like IP address. Only longer. You got mine already, what's the difference if you had my DNA right now? Yes, you could clone me, perhaps, someday or use my DNA to artifical fertilization. I don't mind both, I was born to spread my DNA, just like we all were. That's biology, that's evolution, it would be hard to disagree with that.

BTW: jokes aside. Please :)

Big Brother is watching!

[midifarm]

For all of you that haven't, please read George Orwell's 1984. This is yet another step towards that type of regime encompassing every aspect of our lives enslaving us like drones and sheep. For every bit of privacy that we give up, we're one more step towards putting on the yoke of opression. It doesn't matter if it's a criminal or as "benign" as getting your driver's license, you should have the right to privacy and freedom from tyranny from your own government

Putting
Americans
Through
Rediculously
Inhumane
Opression
and
Tyranny

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

Peace

Re:Big Brother is watching!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut it out with the damn Ben Franklin quote. The guy was brilliant, and a great leader, but that quote was obvious rhetoric.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of a political speech to shame his opponents into agreeing with him about some piece of legislation.

To disprove the quote just look at an extreme example - eg. abused wife goes into hiding. Oops, she just gave up her freedom of movement. According to good ole' Ben's quote she doesn't deserve any freedom or safety anymore.

Wow, sucks to be her huh?

See how stupid the quote is now? Just drop it please. We can all get the point that this idea is a bad thing without having that piece of "there is only black and white" ridiculousness shoved down our throats one more time.

Re:He who commits the crime...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hadn't heard of that one, but it reaffirms my initial relief upon hearing that rape, while once a capital crime, is no longer available to punish with capital punishment. My reasoning that it's good that rapists can't be executed is this: Murder victims don't lie through their teeth about being murdered.

Slightly different opinion.

[khasim]

#1. DNA test everyone arrested for a FELONY and run a match through DNA samples from other cases.

#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.

#3. All people CONVICTED of FELONIES will have their DNA taken again (the last sample was purged in #2). This sample can stay in the databases forever.

#4. Any DNA samples will ONLY be used to compare to other DNA samples from criminal cases. No scanning for violent dispositions (as you mentioned) nor any paternity suits or ANYTHING.

#5. All DNA matching will require at least double blind. I don't trust cops.

#6. There will be random checks done (no less than .1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).

I think DNA matching is good idea, but I don't trust the cops with it. I want lots of checks and balances and I want non-convict DNA records to be deleted. Keep the honest cops honest and don't keep records on innocent citizens.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[ConsumedByTV]

#6. There will be random checks done (no less than .1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).

What?!

No way.

Absoultely not.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[silverbolt]

#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.>/i>

I don't see this happening once law enforcement starts liking the power they have with all this new information. No government organization will willingly give up saved data.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Monoliath]

This would be an excellent idea, if no humans were involved in it?s implementation and daily handling, due to the nature of what being human is. Much like the justice system, it is perfect, and it?s ONLY flaw is the HUMAN factor. Individuals, who have their own agenda, and are in the right governmental positions, ARE going to abuse this. That?s a given, and the fact that this information will be stored in a digital fashion, makes it untraceable, because anyone who works near any of this stuff can make a copy of it and give it to whomever they feel deserves it, or for the right price, with no problem what so ever. Can you taste a new flavor of terrorism abound on the horizon? I?m sure they?re not going to spend a whole lot of effort keeping track of who has access to this information to begin with?

A lot of things about you, can be derived from looking at a copy of your genetic information. Re-read that sentence. We?re talking about the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, having a copy of your genetic blue-print, to do whatever they wish with it. Felony or not, I think fingerprints are enough, or maybe an alternative being that for DNA to be sampled, a process somewhat similar to obtaining a warrant, should be carried out, only with much more intense stipulations and oversight from officials, as well as severe penalties and fines for misuse / negligent handling of the information obtained.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

We?re talking about the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, having a copy of your genetic blue-print

Your "genetic blue-print" would be your entire genome, not just a DNA fingerprint.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What is 1 double blind? Do you mean a single blind?

A single blind would be that the experimentors can't identify samples. A double blind would be that neither the police, nor the lab testers could identify samples.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.

You mean, just like the database of people submitting to a background check for purchase of a firearm was purged (search for "Texas"), as requred by law? Yeah, I trust my government to scrub the database like it says it will.

Say, did I hear something about a bridge for sale?

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[pipingguy]

Define "felony". Does DWI count? If so, where is the limit drawn regarding BAC?

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Shakrai]

and I want non-convict DNA records to be deleted

That's a nice theory and in theory it's the way they do it with fingerprints but reality is somewhat different.

I found myself arrested for a felony I didn't commit and fingerprinted. Well $15,000 and a grand jury later the charges went away -- no conviction, no plea bargin, they were dismissed and/or dropped. New York State law requires them to return my fingerprints and all photographs to me (or destroy them).

That sounds just fine right? Nope -- guess what? Whenever you are arrested the policy agency typically forwards your fingerprints to the FBI -- the FBI isn't obligated to delete them if the charges turn out to be unfounded. The best thing that can happen is your state can "ask" them to delete them.

So now the Feds have my fingerprints -- not a damn thing I can do about it. Ponder that for a moment before you get all gung-ho about taking DNA samples (what's next? Retina scans?) of people when they are arrested. For my humble opinion it should be when they are convicted.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[pete-classic]

For those who don't get it, this is exactly why background checks are equivalent to registration. And registration is the first step toward confiscation.

See http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm for an example of how registration (by any name) leads to tyranny.

-Peter

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[incog8723]

Do you realize how much more taxes we'd all be paying if your plan went into effect?

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Law enforcement has my fingerprints and I haven't ever been arrested.

They were taken as part of a background check.

And they'll likely be in there forever.

This is actually better than fingerprints

[buddha42]

Simply put this is exactly as invasive as fingerprinting is, with the benefit of not being as mistaken-identity prone.

If you feel that it should only be kept/stored for people who have been convicted you should be railing against the current fingerprint system.

An inevitable scenario.

[Biotech9]

In the bad old days of Northern Irelands terrorism, a family of catholics were arrested for bomb making. One of the family members was one of the guilford four. The evidence used to convict the rest of the family came from a semtex detecting machin, which was later found to be contaminated. Every test came up positive for explosive(, laughably, there were no negative controls).

Now Imagine the possibilities with DNA evidence, as it is, DNA is becoming very relied upon for convictions, and the police are getting overly reliant on it. In the future, someone arrested and sampled may get a full iron clad water tight conviction over a laboratory error. A mix up of the DNA sample taken, and a DNA sample taken from the scene of the crime...

This isn't even taking into account the fact that a crooked cop could find it very easy to contaminate a crime scene sample with DNA taken from a suspect.

These concerns could be overcome with good safegaurding, and good laboratory practise, but if the past is anything to go by, it's time to get paranoid.

Re:An inevitable scenario.

[Jane_Dozey]

You forgot that a person may have left their DNA at the scene of the crime but may have had nothing to do with the crime. I'm pretty sure my DNA is present at my friends houses. If a crime got committed there would I become a suspect? What if I simply lend someone something of mine that has my DNA on it? That way I wouldn't have ever had to visit the scene, yet my DNA would be there.

Re:An inevitable scenario.

[Corporal Dan]

DNA is still only a part of a case. The prosecutor still needs to show motive, means and opportunity.

Re:An inevitable scenario.

[Shajenko42]

Heh, how naive. People, and juries, are easily swayed by emotional appeals. If the prosecutor can get the jury afraid of what would happen if this dangerous person is released to the public (never mind that there's not enough evidence to know if he's even the right person), or that the person is horrible enough to deserve prison whether they committed this particular crime or not, he's done for unless he can afford a good attorney. Public defenders have often put up no defense whatsoever or even fallen asleep during the trial.

Re:An inevitable scenario.

[Corporal Dan]

To convict, you need a unanimous guilty verdict from a diverse set of twelve people. It's hard to get three people to agree on anything, nevermind twelve. I have enough faith in the system to think that a emotional appeal would sway a few but not them all.

Criminals aren't the only ones!

[midifarm]

Try cashing a check out of your bank network! Try working for any sector of the government where you need security clearance. Try working at a casino! Where does it stop? It's coming that states are going to require DNA samples to get a driver's license. This needs to stop.

Peace

Re:Criminals aren't the only ones!

[Stonent1]

If you think that's bad, my mom made my dad give her a DNA sample before she would have his kid!

Re:Criminals aren't the only ones!

[midifarm]

That's a Todd Marunavich type thing... The boy that was bred to be an NFL quarterback.

Peace

Re:Criminals aren't the only ones!

[pyrrhonist]

Try working for any sector of the government where you need security clearance.

Having held a security clearance in the past, I can tell you that it does not require giving a DNA sample.

Of course, actually getting hired by the defense contractor required a urine sample.

Re:Criminals aren't the only ones!

[pipingguy]

Did it survive?

Re:Criminals aren't the only ones!

[Stonent1]

If being nearly 26 and posting on slashdot is survival I guess so.

what are they going to do with it?

[z00ky]

what are they going to do? clone a whole bunch of rapists and murderers so that the governator doesn't feel bad about touching some lady's boobie? i dunno why they need the dna. it's pointless. *sigh* stupid governor. i hate this state sometimes.

Do you know what a felony is?

[CSharpMinor]

I know someone who's a convicted felon. Want to know what the conviction is for? Graffiti.

That's right, he sprayed graffiti on someone's house when he was 18 and now he's a felon for life. And he gets a DNA sample taken.

How about people with more than $200 of pot on them? People who accidentally cut fiberoptic cables while digging in their backyards?

Do people not realize how idiotic laws are in this country? More than 30 states still consider it a felony to have sex out of wedlock!

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who's a convicted felon. Want to know what the conviction is for? Graffiti.

That's right, he sprayed graffiti on someone's house when he was 18 and now he's a felon for life. And he gets a DNA sample taken.

Was it the first time your friend committed a crime? He might have been convicted of a felony (or even misdemeanor) when he was 16 or 17 but tried as an adult if it was serious enough. Just because someone commits a crime that appears to be minor, doesn't mean they should be treated like they did nothing - especially if they aren't a first timer.

As for other laws.. You think things would be better if we just got rid of laws? There's always going to be a middle ground that we have to find when it comes to having either too many or not enough laws, but either way you look at it - its not going to make everyone happy.

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Zone-MR]

That's right, he sprayed graffiti on someone's house when he was 18 and now he's a felon for life. And he gets a DNA sample taken.

You make it sound as though his punishment was extremely unjust, which it wasnt. A DNA sample is hardly the end of the world, and technically grafiting someones property is and should be illegal.

I have had my DNA sample taken, as a result of a caution (not conviction) for "unauthorized access to computer data". My 'huge crime' was logging in to a small forum and reading a few PMs. Significantly less destructive than your friend who defaced other peoples property.

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[TravisW]

That the mentioned conduct being felonious (or even just criminal) is philosophically dubious doesn't have much to do with the legitimacy of DNA fingerprinting. I'd imagine it would be little consolation to a rape victim that her assailant couldn't be identified (or that she was attacked by someone who wasn't caught) because someone decided that it wouldn't be unfair to sample graffiti artists.

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Markus Landgren]

That the mentioned conduct being felonious (or even just criminal) is philosophically dubious doesn't have much to do with the legitimacy of DNA fingerprinting. I'd imagine it would be little consolation to a rape victim that her assailant couldn't be identified (or that she was attacked by someone who wasn't caught) because someone decided that it wouldn't be unfair to sample graffiti artists.

That's not an argument for DNA fingerprinting graffiti artists/vandals. That's an argument for DNA fingerprinting every citizen, guilty or innocent. And that does not make sense.

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Shajenko42]

You make it sound as though his punishment was extremely unjust, which it wasnt. A DNA sample is hardly the end of the world, and technically grafiting someones property is and should be illegal.

How about this then: making it much more difficult to get any kind of job, ever. Every job application requires that you say whether you are a felon or not.

Or how about being monitored at all times? What if they started requiring all felons to wear ankle bracelets at all times?

Does the penalty fit the crime?

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Alkivar]

not to mention DUIs, and various other things including sexual harrassment, littering in some states, and underage drinking!

i've got my DNA on file in Maine because of a DUI from 1997!

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Just be glad you didn't KILL yourself or someone else.

DUI is a very serious crime. I've seen what can happen to survivors and I almost lost someone very dear to me to one.

It's isn't a joke, or a minor "lapse in judgement".

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Alkivar]

i'm sorry but LISTERINE doesnt make me unsafe to drive! asshole cop, 0.02 BAC while under 21 ...

Re:Do you know what a felony is?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

You should've demanded a blood test.

That would have been 0.00. You'd be acquitted.
Or they could've refused to let you have one. That would look really bad for them at trial - you'd be acquitted.

have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

You don't need to be charged with a thing if you are driving with a license, you have already given consent to have a blood and/or a hair sample taken because of the contract you signed with the state agreeing to your legal ward position and under their care to be permitted to travel.

It's in effect in all 50 states and in DC now. Some areas are already doing this at "random courtesty checkpoints", where everyone is stopped and checked, and if you refuse, they are authorised the use of force to make you comply, all the way to strapping you down. This initiative in california is just a way to mandate a sampling procedure at every (felony) *arrest*, but it's already legal to do so at every traffic stop-no matter the reason,no arrest is required, no charges, merely if they choose to do it, they can mutter "suspicion of ..." yada yada, that's enough.

FWIW/YMMV

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[Monty845]

I've never heard of this, and it seems very unlikely, can you provide a link to were this comes from?

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[pboulang]

Far as I can tell, the consent in California is for either blood, breath, or urine for the express use of determining alchohol content.

Granted, I didn't look too hard.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[tylernt]

Here is some relevant discussion. A little long but it certainly does cover some of the finer points of the law.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[xigxag]

Look, let's be clear. You pulled that out of your ass.

The truth is that "implied consent" laws don't give the cops carte blanche to take a blood sample.

For example, in California, the cops must charge you with DUI or other violation or have a reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated. They can't just stop you on a whim and ask you for a blood sample. And yes, implied consent exists, but contrary to what you stated, there is no "use of force" authorized. However, you will have your license suspended and face jail time if the offense is upheld. (Note, California laws are particularly stringent - AFAIK not all states have will give you jail time for merely refusing to take the test. Also, even in California, bloodwork is currently taken to test for drug/alcohol content, not for DNA samples.)

> YMMV

Ha-ha. Indeed.

So in sum, there is a kernel of truth in what you are saying, but in reality things are not nearly so dire.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

it's in the fine print when you get your license, and the precise details differ state to state, but it is common to have breath/blood and hair being included. It is their discretion how far to push it. You can refuse, and then it is up to them if they insist on it. The "forced" case is from wisconsin, some doofus refused a blood test when he was stinko, they held him down and took it anyway, and he lost the appeal. There have also been a couple of test checkpoints where they did this, colorado and dang I can't remember the other state. Lemme see what I can find....

here's a reference to the wisconsin case

http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=3 4& i=275&t=275

Here's a good generic one on the whole subject of DNA sampling by law enforcement

general overview, implied consent laws:

http://www.legal-database.com/implied-consent-la ws .htm

Basically, near as I can scratch it out, you have to give a sample if they say they suspected you of whatever. Refusal penalties vary state to state, and how much force can be used varies, but more or less they can.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[xigxag]

Oops, I meant to give a link to the statute, but it got lost in the ether.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

yes, the state laws all differ, I realise I wasn't clear in the first post on that, mea culpa, but I didn't just yank it from my nether regions, supreme court said it was ok basically, and I had remembered that wisconsin test case back when it happened (I looked it up, there it was), and found the link to it, and implied consent laws are in all 50 states. and that appears to about cover it mostly. That was my main point, and they can force it if they "suspect" whatever,which is the vaguery I meant. They could say something like "In officer's opinion, suspect was slurring his words and gave the appearance of impaired reactions, and was observed weaving" yada yada. Along those lines. In general, the law was addressed, supreme court, 1965, Schmermber v. California, where they said the police could force-take blood. There hasn't been a newer case since then as far as I can find out, but it's common apparently in a lot of states now, and they appear to go beyond what the court said was hospitals-only, so another case is over due it looks like.

As an aside,related issue but not exact, I know I saw some newer fed legislation on it as well, but I can't find it right now. I *think* it's inside the model state health emergency powers act, which has been adopted/modified by a lot, but not all, states. It's a set of federal guidelines (the model part) that states can adopt for the latest "terror" stuff, it goes well beyond just blood sampling.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to be charged with a thing if you are driving with a license, you have already given consent to have a blood and/or a hair sample taken because of the contract you signed with the state agreeing to your legal ward position and under their care to be permitted to travel.

I want some of what you're smoking.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[xigxag]

The issue of Schmerber v. California which is relevant to my objection is that it involved a DWI accident. It wasn't merely a random or gratuitous stop, which more recent rulings by SCOTUS show are not allowed under the 4th amendment. See e.g., City of Indianapolis v Edmond.

Nevertheless, I'll grant you that it is rather frightening that Schermber strictly allows for involuntary bodily violations, regardless of the circumstances, and overall I don't doubt that a further expansion of California's DNA database will have no problem passing constitutional muster. Scary.

I'll be sure to look further into this model legislation you mention.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[SirGeek]

According to Find Law it would appear that only for DUI can the force a blood test ( and if you don't, they suspend your license unless you can prove you weren't under the influence.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In MA you lose your license for 6 months but the fact that you refused the breathalyzer cannot be used against you in court.

I found this out after my peers and I decided the guy wasn't driving drunk because if he was, the cops would have mentioned a breathalyzer...

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

*suspicion* of it, whatever the officer says. They take a blood sample before any conviction of DUI, not after. Like I pointed out elsewhere, the officer can merely state in his opinion you appeared impaired to him. You don't have to be, the test can come back negative, etc, but they can do it based on his word against yours, and back at the station or clinic or wherever they just take the sample. From what I was just reading it's pretty common in nevada now for instance. I'm not saying it's highly abused-yet-but I can say most definetly cops arrest people on trumped up charges all the time, happened to me personally before, long story, but they did it because they got embarrassed. And they really want to expand it to everyone arrested, and they also want to take dna samples of all children born today too. It's inside the overall police state-esque goals, total command/control/surveillance.

It's arbitrary, random, taking the samples, but the various laws say they can, and if you have a license it means you gave consent in advance to whatever tests your state say may be done. Refusing the test is usually some crime in itself, at a minimum it is usually loss of your permission to drive, and even then they can still take a sample if they really want to. The real practical bottom line is "you can't say no" with impugnity in most cases, cops hate that action, you could easily suffer a lot more than a small blood sample taken, you might have a few teeth and a pint of two taken,plus some additional charges they think up, and man, they got plenty of evidence kicking around to say "you had this" too, if you follow my drift.

It's just another slippery slope deal. They don't pull full big brother action overnight, they know it would be actively resisted, what they do is chip away here and there, always starting with any sub classification of humans that most people don't like to justify it. It's only the druggies, so no knock raids won't hurt regular people. It's only the terrorists, what do you have to hide? Think of the children and perverts, we need full web police. Why no, this isn't some stasi "papers pleez" roadblock, this is a "courtesy checkpoint". Gun control? Don't worry, it will only apply to "the darkies". That's a real one there, where gun controls first started, they were "jim crow" laws. And etc, etc, etc. to me it just fits the general trends.

As to DUI, I can't think of a single crime that driving drunk wasn't covered before explicit DUI laws were passed. They had "driving while being a doofus and the accident was your fault" if I may sillify it a little, from simple fender benders all the way to negligent manslaughter, so it isn't needed there. Weaving is an arbitrary deal, if you are inside the yellow, you are inside, and outside used to be covered by driving to endanger, it didn't matter if you were over tired, drunk, or just a lamer. And so on.

Frankly, all I see DUI laws are is as a new and exciting revenue stream and a way to further get people inside the criminal justice system, plus they got people sucked into thinking random roadblocks are the american way. It's disgusitng, I can remember when even thinking about roadblocks never happened-it just weasn't done unless there was like a mass jail escape or something. You only saw it in ww2 movies. Now it's "routine" and people just meekly accept them.

Exhibit A-driving intoxicated is in itself a "crime" now, but it is totally legal to go drive to a bar and get drinks. Uhh, which is it? The state insists on a scientific exact blood alcohol limit in their definition of this crime, yet they don't have state certified weight-scales and breathalysers for the customers as they walk in the door with an ounce of booze as per so many lbs of bodyweight per hour, etc, serving guidelines and hardware mandated by law in these bars. To me, that's an obvious one. It's stupid, but that's why the law is stupid, and why it certainly looks like just a cash flow enhancement for the government, plus a way to get more police state powers

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

as far as I know, they are still running "stop everyone checkpoints". I don't think that has stopped at all. I saw some mention of one just a two weekends ago over memorial day holiday period on the TV in fact. I think all they did to get around the law was stop calling them "drug" checkpoints, and now they are "courtesy" checkpoints and they look for seatbelt useage, child safety restraint systems, etc, and if they just by happenstance "notice" something else then they can immediately search/whatever based on the new "suspicion" well, they would call it probable cause then, of DUI or drug use or whatever.

Thanks for the link though, I hadn't seen that case before. It's hard as snot to try and keep up with all of this police state action, I do my best within an enthusiasm menu of hundreds of things.

%^)

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[Martin Blank]

While I'm not fond of helmet laws, putting a seatbelt on a motorcycle would be asinine. Would YOU like to get dragged by your bike -- with one leg being firmly ground into the pavement under the weight of it -- for the distance it takes to stop? Being able to come loose from the bike and roll (or even skid) to a stop is a lot safer without the added momentum of the motorcycle pulling the rider along.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

obviously not. Of course not. But therein lies the absurdity, 4 wheeled vehicles and you are required to wear a belt, yet two wheeled vehicles are lawful in and of themselves, and they are demonstrably more unsafe as designed. That's not my opinion, that is the insurance industries opinion, who make an actuarial science of this sort of analysis. Last I looked (back when I was an insurance agent, so it could be changed by now I'll admit) bikes were roughly something like 16 times more unsafe than cars. I *like* bikes although I currently don't own one, I have in the past, but I think it's about a draw which is more unsafe, driving without a belt, or just driving a bike in general. One is illegal, one isn't, but they are about equal in terms of potential risk, so therein lies the hypocrisy of the law, IMO.

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[Martin Blank]

Having a seatbelt in a car keeps you inside, reducing the likelihood of being ejected from the vehicle, whereas you want to be effectively ejected from a motorcycle.

I do understand your point, and there are laws that are arbitrary and sometimes even capricious, but lines have to be drawn at some point. For a thief, when does one raise the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony? If it's $1000 (for example), and someone steals something that costs $999, then it's a misdemeanor. Not inherently fair that someone should serve more time and have a worse record because he stole something $1 more than the guy who grabbed something just slightly less expensive.

Further background

[aka-ed]

Bruce Harrington, the lawyer pushing for his, is doing so because his brother and his sister-in-law were murdered in their homes a couple of decades ago.

The ACLU is doing what they can to slow or stop it.

Here's some informative blog entries:

http://www.jefallbright.net/node/view/1780

http://www.socallawblog.com/archives/001186.html

Hey troll:

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't read science fiction. Back into your fucking hole, shitworm.

Idiots!!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Great yet another attempt erode liberties. Someone should set up a site documenting these travesties.

And as usual the guy responsible has a ROCK SOLID excuse.

"People I love were killed!!"

Oh really! How awful! I guess it's OK to lead us all one step closer to a police state then! Here Swab me first!!!!

Of course he'll call us all heartless cranks who want criminals to get off and he'll say that this won't REALLY undermine democracy. Just like the PATRIOT act!

God I hate these people. Why didn't he donate his money to funding more social programmes that reduce the amount of criminals at an early stage! But I guess that just wouldn't be as efftive as having a poorly administered DNA database now would it.

Re:Idiots!!

[DarkHelmet]

Social programs don't stop serial rapists / killers. I don't think the social program argument would work with all types of criminals.

Re:Idiots!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not? So howcome do people Europe (with much more social programs) commit fewer rapings and homocides?

Re:Idiots!!

[iggymanz]

Do social programs really do that in the case of evil people? Maybe it just means we have strong, healthy, well-fed psycho rapists & murderers & child molesters.

Re:Idiots!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just stuck your toe into the murky depths of the 'nature/nurture' argument; I'd pull it out again before the piranha-psychologists bite it off.

Re:Idiots!!

[Moofie]

No, just the overwhelming majority of types of criminals. But, you're right, it won't work with sociopaths, so better to do nothing to get at the roots of the larger problem.

Re:Idiots!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue. There are a certain class of criminals that are destined to commit crimes regardless of how often they "get help"

The guy that murdered the family has left decades of destroyed families. How many people could a serial killer kill until you'd be willing to give up some pseudo freedom that'll never impact 99.9% of the population?

This is why initiatives suck

[SubliminalLove]

A ten percent increase in fines revenue is not going to cover the expense of sending DNA to the lab for every arrest in the state. We're not talking about an extra fifty bucks an arrest here; sending DNA in to a lab costs between a thousand and two thousand dollars! This is an excellent example of why initiatives are a bad idea; the public gets a hair up its ass, and makes a huge change that has not been properly thought out. If the state gets the responsibilty of enforcing this policy, CA voters had better realize that they're going to be footing a pretty hefty bill.

~SL

Re:This is why initiatives suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find any articles about it but before the Arnold election last year many commentators (also in Conservative publications like Economist) argued that many of Californias problems are related to stupid ballot innitiatives.
Many of them got passed on way to optimistic analyses of revenue. Others failled to account for rising costs as the state addopted to the law.

Re:This is why initiatives suck

[codegen]

Absolutely true. But unfortunately you have to fight against the T.V. culture built by shows such as C.S.I, where DNA samples are done on the spot with the investigator walking into the lab just as the laser printer prints out the DNA results.

These shows, while entertaining have little connnection with reality. When was the last time you saw a forensic analysis interogating suspects?

Take DNA samples at birth

[Anonymous Coward]

A DNA sample should be taken at time of birth. It should be a requirement for a SSN or drivers license.

Re:Take DNA samples at birth

[mcpkaaos]

How do you know they aren't already?

Re:Take DNA samples at birth

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born at home.

California adventure

[Anonymous Coward]

While on a business trip to California I had the misfortune to stay in the wrong motel in Redding. After work I had a beer (1) my room and went to another room in the motel to speak with a coworker.

On the way back I was detained by Redding PD on suspicion of public intoxication. They took me to the station for full prints, DNA and history check. They held me until morning. I was never arrested or charged (I have a clean record). I was detained because the PD was conducting an emphasis patrol on a troublesome motel.

The application of civil rights in California has slipped somewhat, I believe. I left California the next day and have not returned since. I would I recommend California as a good place to visit or do business.

Re:California adventure

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I don't do business in USA because of all the stupid laws and the much higher chance of getting wrongly convicted.
Life is just to short to spend time in some cell just because the system is fucked.

Re:California adventure

[extrarice]

I've lived in a town nearby to Redding for over 20 years. The Redding PD has always been a little "uppity" ;-p

Though, to be sure, Redding is not a good example of the rest of the state. Most of the communities north of Sacramento are kinda weird like this.

Re:California adventure

[Moofie]

So, as long as you're not north of Sacramento, you're safe from overzealous prosecution? Wow. I feel much better now.

Re:California adventure

[aka-ed]

Police in many localities need to be better trained. Police in general need to be taught that there is a basic human dignity that everyone, even those who have committed the worst of crimes, must be granted, lest we lose our own (as in al gharib, where the prisoners seemed more dignified than their grinning, thumb-signaling guardians).

That said, we are quite accepting of the idea that people can be photographed upon arrest, and that these photos can be used to pursue suspects in unrelated crimes.

I understand the fears involved, but if our government would be more receptive to the concepts behind such words as "oversight" "transparency" and "accountability," a nationwide database of all citizens' dna could be of great benefit in many ways, the least of which may be crimefighting. Certainly it could provide a treasure trove of data for medical research.

LOL!

[freejung]

I clicked on your link thinking it was "Free Naked Pictures".

Ha! Well, anything to get traffic!

Actually, interestingly enough, the number one spot for "beach pictures" in google, a term I'm obviously interested in, was, for a while, "naked beach pictures", a site with softcore pr0n. It's a pretty good site, but I somehow don't think that's what the "beach pictures" searchers had in mind. The big G must have improved their anti-spam algos, because it's gone now.

Collect baby DNA? Been there, done that...

[sleepingsquirrel]

They already do.

side issue with OJ

[Anonymous Coward]

I listened to a pretty long interview with this semi famous detective. It is very interesting if you are an OJ crime buff. He presents a completely alternative theory and spent quite some time coming to his conclusions, etc. I thought his idea was pretty good actually. Anyway, he wrote a book based on his findings,I haven't read it,just heard him on the radio like I said, but here ya go

zogger

What is everyone so scared of?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people are so bothered about having your DNA stored in a computer. Everything about you is on file somewhere.

I'd like everyones DNA stored in a database. If somebody is raped or murdered and some form of DNA evidence was found, I would love for the police to be able to input that data into a computer to get a potential suspect instantly. Think how much time and money it would save and would help to quickly track down culprits. If people knew that leaving a single hair behind at a murder scene meant they were guarenteed to get caught, they'd sure think twice about it.

And I wish people would stop using "1984." or "Gattaca." as an argument. They are ridiculous logical extremes. I think it is horrendous that we cannot quickly track down evil people like rapists when positively identifying DNA is found on the crime scene given our current technology. Yes, it could be used for bad purposes, but everything can, but the crime catching benefits would be enourmous.

And before anyone says DNA evidence is not conclusive, of course you would have to find other supporting evidence too.

Re:What is everyone so scared of?

[TeddyR]

The problem is that data werehouses like Nexus-Lexus would then be able to corrolate that DNA information with their existing databases to provide a complete history on you, possible children/parents...

lexus has public AND private databases from govt agencies (normally only for said agencies use, but at a "price" you can access it), as well as credit reporting agencies, store loyalty cards, AAA, medical and insurance records, and MORE... A detailed profile search can cost as much as $250K.

Re:What is everyone so scared of?

[Dachannien]

It's actually LexisNexis, but they evidently had the foresight to register the misspelled domain name as well.

Re:What is everyone so scared of?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn!

I did not realize that LexisNexis did more than the case law searches...

The one that seems particularly interesting is the "Instant ID" product (details)...

"

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

so it means that all the people from financial crimes will get their DNA put into a database?
give that shit up martha ;-)

psychological impact

[rsilvergun]

If people are born into a society where there every move and trait is tracked, I'd expect them to be much more likely to behave in the context of that society. That works great when you're society's a good one, but is there anyone on the planet who thinks the general state of human society is improving (and who isn't a member of the elite)? In an oppressive society, you need people to misbehave, otherwise the system never breaks down. The scary thing about 1984 wasn't the way people where living; it was the complete, utter hopelessness of their condition and the sense that things would continue like that forever.

AV question

[AnotherBlackHat]

Imagine that there was a complete DNA database and it was available to the "wrong" types.

What's the worst thing they could do?
I.e. what is it that they could do with the data that they can't do without it?

-- not a .sig

Re:AV question

[Anonymous Coward]

"What's the worst thing they could do?
I.e. what is it that they could do with the data that they can't do without it?"

Cancel your health insurance; make you uninsurable for the rest of your life; make it so your children cannot get health insurance.

As another post mentioned, it's a lot easier to get some of your DNA - heck there was even a Law & Order episode where a woman paid a hooker to sleep with her husband, take the condom with the DNA (sic) and murder his mistress, planting the semen as evidence.

Re:AV question

[AnotherBlackHat]

Cancel your health insurance; make you uninsurable for the rest of your life; make it so your children cannot get health insurance.

They don't need access to a database for that, just access to your DNA.
They could refuse to insure you if you won't give them a DNA sample,
or give you a greatly reduced rate if you agree to give them one.

The only thing stopping them from doing it now, is that they don't have a way to tell if you're a health risk by looking at your DNA.

-- not a .sig

Well, if you're going to have a govt...

[freejung]

To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable.

Oh, I'd love to see that. Please do.

iis that it would be unreasonable to take DNA samples, period.

Well, I agree with this to some extent. However, with a reasonable police force, it wouldn't have to be done in an Orwellian way. As others have pointed out, the data could be erased upon aquittal, the tests could be double-blind, the data could never be used for any purpose other than identification, etc. To me, "Orwellian" and "reasonable" are pretty much opposites anyway. No reasonable institution would be Orwellian. If it could be done in such a way that it's only used against the guilty, that it wasn't an invasion of privacy, and that there was no potential for abuse, this might be a good thing. But in this system, that'll never happen.

OK, confession time here: I'm actually an anarchist. I don't think we ought to have a govt at all. But since we do, it should be used in a reasonable way. Stopping rape and murder and so forth is a reasonable function of govt, assuming you're going to have one. I never bother to argue against govt in general, because the fraction of the audience receptive to that argument is extremely small. So granting, for the sake of argument, that we should have a govt, you have to grant that they should be given reasonable powers to perform reasonable functions. Unfortunately, our particular govt is far from reasonable.

Re:Well, if you're going to have a govt...

[ConsumedByTV]

To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable.

Oh, I'd love to see that. Please do.

I entirely agree, it would be hard. But ask an average person in a middle to upper class area if they support their cops. If they think they do a good job.

Ask them also if they could do a better job, then ask if they support measures that the police think are reasonable.

I am scared to tell you the answers to my questions when I asked.

Re:Well, if you're going to have a govt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we ought to have a govt at all

Well, I agree it would be nice if we did not, but that is just impossible. Think Italian Mafia. If we didn't have a competing gov't already, the Mafia would have just become the gov't. There will always be a group of people that want to tell everyone else what to do and are willing to enforce their "laws" with guns. Which is pretty much my definition of gov't.

DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[ggvaidya]

For instance, look up a British case (another link), where the DNA from a blood sample found at the crime scene was compared against Britain's national database. A match was found, with odds of 1 in 37 million of being wrong. The man was convicted of the crime.

The problem? He had advanced Parkinson's disease and lived 320 km from the crime scene. He couldn't even dress himself, let alone drive a car.

The problem is one of comparision - since you can't compare the entire 3 trillion base pair genome, you have to make do by comparing a small part of it - which, while it may have a "1 in 37 million" chance of being wrong, might actually be wrong after all.

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[EinarH]

I recently talked to some lab technicians about this. They argued that even if you did'nt account for human error the odds of being wrong are something like 1 in 20000/30000 depending on the methods.

So if one add the human errors (even reasonably smart peolpe like lab techs sometimes fail) the odds are below 1 in 10000. So if California checks their db with 1 million "records" they will get 100 false positives. Scary stuff.

But I guess this is up to the standards in California, because only criminals leave DNA samples on the scene. And since the people do have a felony history they are obviously guilty as the criminals they are..

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[Anonymous Coward]

world population as of 07/01/04: 6,377,641,642
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/p opclockw (US Census)

6,377,000,000 / 37,000,000 = 172+ persons matching a given profile!

This is oversimplified, of course, but still a bit scarry!

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[Corporal Dan]

Not scary at all. Out of those 172 people scattered across the entire world, how many had motive, means, and opportunity to do the crime? Only 1, I'm sure.

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[Moofie]

If you've got a means, motive and opportunity, why do you need the DNA database?

More likely, the means motive and opportunity can be strung together out of tenuous circumstantial "evidence" once the DNA match has found the One True Perpetrator.

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[Scudsucker]

...or they could be mixed up at the lab, like how a man named Rene Sanchez, arrested for DWI, has his prints mixed up with a drug dealer by the name of Leo Rosario. He got hauled into court numerous times because the cops were sure he was the other guy, and even went through deportation hearings before the records were finally fixed. I thought of this case and thought of Brazil. The NYTimes had a nice article on Mr. Sanchez, but unfortunately its in their archives now (i.e. they want you to pay to access the article).

TWINS & Family

[Anonymous Coward]

If my twin is arrested do I have any rights to the DNA gathering process? Also my children and my parents will also get affected automatically in this process.

Let's start with the politicians

[PaK_Phoenix]

Let's make DNA swabbing a requirement to get into public office, and see just how bad they want it.

Re:Let's start with the politicians

[Moofie]

That is an excellent idea. I think we should make all legislators subject to intensive enforcement of all new laws they enact for three years before applying to the general public.

After all, if we're going to make Sacrifices for Liberty, the people depriving us of our liberties should be the first to make the sacrifices.

I have no big problem with...

[incom]

a DNA database for convictions, but for arrest? That's just stupid. And there should be a method for getting your info removed if you are wrongfully convicted and succesfully prove your innocence. It seems as though the proponents of this have alterior motives, and are counting on abusing the system i9n advance.

Fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks.

More like OJ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Has he found the real murderer yet?

DNA is DNA, but are we matching DNA?

[shadow_slicer]

DNA is DNA. Can't be faked

If we were comparing DNA to DNA, then you'd be right. If we compare the entire sequence base-pair by base-pair for each of the chromosomes for a near-exact match (since the sampled cells could simply have small mutations from the original), then we'd have a near perfect form of identification (excluding identical twins and near-impossibilities).

The problem is that we don't currently sequence the entire DNA sample for legal proceedings. They have sets of markers that they look for and only compare at these markers. They then depend on the low probability of anyone sharing those combinations of markers. I don't know for certain how many markers they use, but I can almost guarrantee that it's not enough.

If you assume the combinations of these markers are uniquely distributed, you'd need 15.5 of them to identify an individual in 2^31 (a little over 2 billion). If you make the *significantly* more realistic assumption that the distribution is gaussian, then you would need either (a) infinitely many markers for a perfect match or (b) to pick a reasonable error rate and place it on the unknown, final, gaussian curve (knowing that the error rate will be higher towards the center), and increasingly more difficult equations (as your estimation of the number of markers increases) until you obtain a distribution that satisfies the rate you chose (I would like to do this calculation myself, but it would be a lot of trouble for this simple post -- sorry).

This means that Mr, Previously Accused is more likely to to be suspect (since the DNA was a close match) for crimes he had nothing to do with, just *because* a match showed up in the Police's DNA database. Should it really be the responsibility of a former suspected felon to have an alibi ready for every moment of their life?

This ruins the assumption of innocence of all people previously suspected of a felony, and puts felons on an unequal ground in the eyes of the law. If felons really have "paid their debt to society", then why are we still holding it against them? If these suspects really didn't do it, then why are we still suspicious of them?

Re:DNA is DNA, but are we matching DNA?

[skraps]

Your argument about false-matches is compelling - I admit I don't have the necessary background to argue it. However, I have heard that our current DNA testing is more accurate than fingerprints, which have been used for centuries. Also, we can never have a 100% standard of proof - we have to allow for some acceptable rate of error.

To address your other point, I think we should take DNA samples at birth. That would level the playing field, so previous arrests don't tip the scales at all. This may just be a gradual shift in that direction.

Re:DNA is DNA, but are we matching DNA?

[Anonymous Coward]

> This means that Mr, Previously Accused is more likely to to be suspect (since the DNA was a close match) for crimes he had nothing to do with, just *because* a match showed up in the Police's DNA database. Should it really be the responsibility of a former suspected felon to have an alibi ready for every moment of their life?

You're new here, aren't you? Let me lay it down for you. There are two kinds of people in the world. They belong to one of two categories:

1) Cops.
2) Not cops.

"Not Cops" are the criminals. If that's you, that means you're in one of two categories:

2a) Criminals.
2b) Criminals who haven't been caught yet.

So in answer to your question: Felons have no more requirement to have an alibi ready for every moment of their lives than you or I do. That is to say, if you're not cops, you do have to have an alibi ready for every moment of your life.

Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[khasim]

Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

I want double blind tests of clean DNA submitted at random intervals to "prove" that the system will not flag the innocent.

If clean DNA is run and it comes back saying that it is linked to a crime, it shows that there is a problem with the system.

The important thing to remember is that any DNA matching will just about "prove" that you're "guilty" of that crime. It will be up to you to show that you didn't do it.

Given that humans will be involved, there will be mistakes. So the planning has to include methods of testing for errors. And repeated, random, testing.

Also, a series of checks to see where and why those errors were made and a review process to fix the problem(s) as they are identified.

Don't trust the cops.
Don't trust the lab technicians.
Don't trust anyone involved with it.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

what if its dna from someone who hasnt been caught?

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[servognome]

just replace random citizens, replace with random goverment official. Then there will be a vested inerest in the officials making the system as good as possible

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. If this system were implemented, they would surely exclude public officials from having to participate in the system. I can gaurantee that if they had to be part of it, a great number of government officials would be matched up for various crimes they have committed, from rape and child molestation to god knows what.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[zbuffered]

And the majority that hadn't committed the crimes would vote to implement the system--child molesters begone!

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[sowellfan]

I'm fine with a database of the DNA of *convicted* felons.

My whole problem is in how it will be used. Say there's an unsolved murder, and a splatter of the unexplained blood is found nearby that lab tests say does not belong to the victim. The logical conclusion is that the perpetrator was wounded in the commission of the crime, and left that blood splatter.

At that point, I object to doing a full search of a DNA database to find the killer. From what I see, that could (and probably would, in time) lead to a frame-up of an innocent person. I say that, only if the police have reason to suspect an individual can they check the crime scene sample against that individuals sample in the database.

There's not much that I enjoy more than watching police mace or Taser some belligerant person, so I'm usually on the side of law enforcement.

This, however, would just make it too easy to plant someone's blood or semen on the scene of a crime and frame them.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[simonjester2424]

You can't prove a negative. And at .1% a year, you are only proving that it usually works correctly.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[gujo-odori]

Easy to plant someone's blood or semen on the scene of a crime?

Uh, yeah, every cop carries a vial of someone's blood and a condom full of his splooge around in the trunk of the patrol car.

Seriously, though, look at the way DNA is used in law enforcement cases. DNA evidence is sometimes used to convict, and it's highly reliable. Something people in this thread seem to be paying no attention to, though, is the number of recent cases where a person previously convicted of a crime has been freed because DNA evidence conclusively proved they could not possibly have done it.

Now, if a DNA fingerprint database had been available at the time of their convictions - many of which were 10-20 years ago - they would never have gone to trial in the first place, let alone be convicted.

As far as your objection to a full search of a DNA database to find a suspect, I wonder if you object to doing a full search of the existing fingerprint database to find a suspect? Because that's a routine procedure anytime fingerprints are lifted from a crime scene, and while it does help the police catch suspects and probably no one thinks it's a bad idea, it is far more prone to error - both human and technical - than a DNA fingerprint database would be.

If you get a match on the DNA database, it's far more certain than a fingerprint match, and really, certain far beyond a reasonable doubt. Would DNA evidence alone be enough for a conviction? Not in most cases. You'd need something else. It would be a powerful piece of evidence, especially in a case that was purely circumstantial, but if you had nothing else, it would not be enough.

For example, let's consider an alleged rape, the area where there is the most potential for abuse. A victim claims to have been raped, the police recover semen and take a DNA sample. There's nothing in the database, but they catalog it. One day a few months later, somebody is arrested for, say, felony drunk driving after he crashes his car into a tree and is found to be way beyond the legal limit. They take a DNA sample and find that it matches the one taken from the alleged rape victim.

At this point, he is likely to be charged with rape, but it still has to be proven. Right now, we have a he said/she said, and he is probably going to say it was consensual sex. The DA will have to take it to court and convince a jury it wasn't. Essentially, then, you have the same thing as we have with the Kobe Bryant case. She says she was raped, he says it was consensual. All other evidence is circumstantial. DNA would presumably prove he had sex with her, but he doesn't deny that.

While there is a distant potential for abuse, the potential is much lower than there is for abuse of the fingerprint database. And by the way, you might not know how lax the standards are for getting into the fingerprint database. Let me tell you. I once worked for a bank. Everyone who works for a bank is fingerprinted - all ten fingers - and their prints go into the FBI database. I suppose they probably stay their permanently. I haven't worked their for over 15 years, but my fingerprints are still on file with the FBI. So what?

Finally, as others have said, the only difference between a DNA fingerprint database and a database of actual fingerprints, is the DNA print database is far more accurate. Everyone arrested on felony charges is fingerprinted and those prints go into the database. Doing the same with DNA prints is nothing but a Good Thing.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[sowellfan]

I'm not so worried about the police planting blood/semen as someone else planting it. I guess the nightmare scenario I'm thinking of would be a disgruntled lover who could just save a used condom and plant that somewhere incriminating.

As far as fingerprints go, I don't know that they can be planted - maybe they can, but I'm not aware of that possibility.

I trust the technical accuracy of DNA testing - O.J. was guilty, and his DNA fingerprint didn't jus turn up by mistake from the samples at the crime scene.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[pu'u_bear]

I am confused. Your comment seems to indicate that there are some politicians that haven't committed crimes. While I have always thought that making our politicians use the same systems that we are imposing on the general populace (e.g. let us mandate that they are required to use Social Security and Medicare, then see how fast they get fixed), the fact that the majority of them are lying cheating philanderers gives me little faith in the "system".

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[dgatwood]

As far as fingerprints go, I don't know that they can be planted - maybe they can, but I'm not aware of that possibility.

Trivially. It involves gelatin, photoresist, and a fingerprint sample. I'll let you figure out the rest.

md5

[Dachannien]

Perhaps the DNA data should be md5 hashed, and only the hashed result should be stored in the database.

Re:md5

[Anonymous Coward]

But again, there's the question, do you really think any government is going to just chuck the dna they've collected? Or are they going to do anything they can to amass more information about you?"... or for that matter, if you do trust the government completely, what about the corporation that they outsorce the testing to? or the individual lab tech who gets paid $10k by some other corp, like your insurance company, to funnel all the results their way before they get thrown out?

1984 was about the Radical Left Wing, Idiot!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read 1984 you'll know that Orwell wrote it because he feared the Communists and other members of the _radical_ left. In 1947/48 when he wrote/published 1984, right wing fascism had been destroyed and discredited. At that time left wing communism was beginning to take hold. Why do you thing the party of Big Brother was IngSoc (which Orwell in the text of 1984 said was short for English Socialism)? And, there is plenty of other things in 1984 that point out that Orwell's primary beef was with the left-wing when he wrote this.

With your little "PATRIOT" jib you intentionally mislead and misinform. You decide to take the facts and conveniently ignore the ones that don't fit your cause.
Note, this isn't a comment for/against the DNA or the Patriot Act. This is a comment against you lying to people about what 1984 was concerned with and the motivation behind writting it solely to advance your political agenda. Actiosn just like the Ministry of Truth commited in 1984.

Liar.

Re:1984 was about the Radical Left Wing, Idiot!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

Please point out where the original poster makes any left/right wing comment? The only comment I see is regarding an oppressive police state.

Damn, that's some shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

sucks for people falsely accused

[r5t8i6y3]

a few years back i was falsely accused of breaking into and thieving half a dozen houses in broad daylight. a felony crime.

well, there i am, at home in my pajamas one morning and a knock at the door. two police officers, one local, one state trooper, ask if they can come in. being completely naive and a bit frightened i let them in.

they tell me that half a dozen homes were robbed in broad daylight and that neighbors said they saw a man fitting my dark complexion driving up and down the street days in advance of the robberies.

i explain (to no avail) to the officers that i had been on that road exactly *once* in my life (the day before) when i accompanied my girlfriend to her friend's home to feed her cat while she was away.

the officers didn't care what i had to say and they proceeded to play good-cop bad-cop and tell some enormous lies about me in the process. one of them asked if he could use my bathroom and then proceeded to case my home.

then they told me that they needed to take my picture and fingerprint all of my fingers. after about one hour they finally left.

after a few weeks had passed (in which i heard nothing from the police) i called the police department to find out what was going on. it took a couple weeks to get through the police bureaucracy, but eventually someone was able to tell me that i was no longer under suspicion.

when i expressed concern about having my picture and fingerprints taken and said i wanted them back i was told that wasn't possible. after expressing my displeasure and complaining to various people in the police department eventually my picture and fingerprints were released to me.

unfortunately, my friend who is a police officer told me that my picture and fingerprints had been scanned and sent to the national FBI database. when i asked him about having them removed from that database he gave me a look that indicated the possibility of that happening was as likely as a cold day in hell.

that experience taught me how easy it is to have your unique unchangeable biometric information stolen and forever stored in government databases just waiting to be abused.

Re:sucks for people falsely accused

[crimethinker]

Please repeat after me: "I'm happy to cooperate with proper laws and procedures, officer. Do you have a warrant?"

If you are stupid enough to let two law enforcement officers into your home without a warrant, you deserve whatever false charges they can cook up. NEVER admit an LEO to your home unless they have a warrant; doing otherwise voids your 4th amendment rights against search and seizure. In fact, the conversation you had with them should have been conducted on your front porch with your door closed behind you. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

-paul

Re:sucks for people falsely accused

[Moofie]

Yeah, because only people who don't allow themselves to be intimidated by peace officers with guns should have Constitutional liberties.

Re:sucks for people falsely accused

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you - I've already commented in a previous thread about the stupid Ben Franklin quote "those who give up essential liberty...." etc. etc.

But unfortunately, most gun-toting, Eric Raymond-worshipping slashdotters on here seem to believe that you only deserve protection and rights under the law if you're willing to shoot your way through everyone else to get it.

Re:sucks for people falsely accused

[Moofie]

You're welcome, but I'm going to disagree with your stereotype.

Why do you think /. readers have anything like a homogenous attitude on, well, anything? In point of fact, most times I see a story about ESR, the majority of the posters observe what a wacko he is.

I don't know if he's a wacko or not. He's said some things I agree with, and some that I do not. Multiply my nuanced and complex attitude aboutt any given subject by, what? Three million? and you get the complexity of attitudes exhibited by "slashdotters".

This is not a homogenous community.

Re:sucks for people falsely accused

[npsimons]

That sucks, but I think you would have fared better if you had understood and stood up for your rights in the first place. Not been rude or disagreeable, just firm and righteous.

Everyone should go get a copy of the ACLU's Pocket Card on Police Encounters. Print it out, laminate it, keep in on you at all times. Memorize it, love it, live it.

This lawyer is a moron.

[Simple-Simmian]

The moron "lawyer" behind this initative ought to be disbarred because he doesn't get the 4th amendment for starters.

Since when is getting arrested ( not convicted ) proof of anything? Convicted felons in California already are liable to give up DNA swabs. Just gettting arrested isn't the same as getting convicted, a lawyer should know this.

obsolete before it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind of evidence viewed in court is actually a photograph of electro-migration(?) gel of actual DNA that has been cut up by some emzines. There used to be a real zoo of quasi-standards = different emzines showing different 'markers'. A 'match' of course implies the same testing proceedure for the DNA from the crime scene and suspect.

Now in the proposal under discussion, it kind of suggest that since they are talking about doing 'searches' (for matches) they are possibly only talking about saving the results of 'processed' DNA (not the actual DNA sample). If this is the case then it somewhat implies unifying everything under one testing proceedure (one set of emzines and 'markers'). This somewhat limits what can be viewed/stored. ie. a good test for some kind of cancer might be a rather poor test for identity or things like paternity.

In summary, storing on a computer the results of a specific DNA test for identity is NOT the same as storing all those various test that have been developed for pathology. It is a shame, also, that in a few years we will almost certainly have better DNA test (better emzines, markers, machines) and better DNA test for identity. But the money and time will have already been spent building a data base using obsolete technology.

Re:obsolete before it begins

[forkboy]

I refuse to take seriously the predictions about the fields of genetics and molecular biology from someone who doesn't even know how fucking spell "enzyme."

Spelling aside, you have no idea what you're talking about. Advances in technology will probably be measuring the same genetic markers, just in a faster and more reliable way. (not that what we're doing now isn't all that reliable)

Good.

[N07I6X56]

As a homeowner who spent a few hours last week cleaning graffiti of off my garage -- I'm glad your acquaintance got swabbed. Serves him/her right.

Don't spray the can if you can't pay the man!

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't spray the can if you can't pay the man!

I'm not quite sure where to start as this is so moronic. I know of a person who has a low level felony for a non-violent crime along these lines. He was 21 or so when it happened, and now he's 30. So, for a non-violent offender society has taken away the possibility of him every getting a decent job. Admittedly he shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place, that's a given.. but...

then you wonder why ten years from now when somebody like him breaks in and Glocks your stupid ass, smokes your wife because she happened to be sleeping in the other room (no witnesses this time eh) to make a living it's "why, oh why did he do it! "...

For violent offenders and organized crime kingpins, fine, but for "victimless crimes" or crimes of a minor nature (yeah, smashing somebody's mailbox with a baseball bat while driving by will get you a FELONY in Indiana) nailing somebody with an offense that will prevent them from being productive in the future is just plain stupid.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the point was limited to being swabbed.

Being convicted of a felony has ENORMOUS consequences. Think of how many employers have application forms that inquire if you've ever been arrested, much less those that inquire into whether you've ever been convicted of a felony (and they're going to look at the explanation how closely?). Professional licensing applications, applications for loans, etc.

Then there's the minor problem of losing the right to vote. There are probably other consequences (can a felon hold public office?).

Now that's arguably reasonable when it's grand theft, assault with a deadly weapoon, etc. Things with substantial components of theft or violence.

But $200 in damage from spray paint? Certain crimes are misdemeanors for a reason. The person may be culpable and stupid, but they're not a sociopath.

Richard S. Strong will pay $140 million to the government/SEC for SERIOUS financial mismanagement as owner of Strong Capital Management. Guess what, he's not running around with a felony conviction, although he certainly will be infamous from now on. Steal $200 from one person, you're a felon, steal something like $200 from a million people in a complex way, and you're not?

There needs to be some sort of proportionality in the justice system. If not between putative convicts, at least between damage and penalty. Richard Strong obviously believes that freedom is more far more valuable than a large sum of money.

YOu had great ideas, until #6

[nurb432]

Random samples of citizens that are not under arrest/suspect for a crime is invasive and would fall under illegal search and seizure.

Its just plain wrong..

Print records arent purged now

[nurb432]

Currently the police retain your prints, even if the case is thrown out of court or you are proven not guilty of any crime.

Why would they treat DNA any differently?

Dont get me wrong, I feel that unless you are convicted, all records of your stay should be destroyed.. But i can attest personally that they are not...

Re:Print records arent purged now

[Anonymous Coward]

If you serve in the US armed forces, you have fingerprints, photos, vital statistics (height/weight/eye color/hair color/blood type) and DNA on file even though the collection has nothing to do with criminal suspicion. Fortunately, safeguards are extremely tight on use of DOD DNA samples to prevent fishing expeditions or other abuse.

Re:Print records arent purged now

[simcop2387]

or you are proven not guilty of any crime.

shouldn't that be "not proven guilty"?

Re:Print records arent purged now

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, safeguards are extremely tight on the DOD DNA samples to prevent fishing expediations or other abuse

Kinda like how they store their
fingerprints? (It was only mentioned a few times, but they got Mayfield's fingerprints from the DOD system; he had served in the military).

Re:Print records arent purged now

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you also give up other rights when you join the military. The solution is to not join the military. Asking people to not drive a car or not own a state id card or not live and breathe and not be arrested for something they're innocent of is completely absurd.

Re:Print records arent purged now

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be proven "not guilty". "Not guilty" is a commonly used phrase with a specific legal meaning (at least in Canada).

Re:Print records arent purged now

[zbuffered]

Perhaps, but how can it be proven? In the US, the standard is: prove me guilty, or else I'm not guilty. So proven not guilty is taking it too far. In theory, a jury could acquit you from a crime (by stating that you are "not guilty") and it wouldn't constitute proof.

Otherwise, how did OJ lose the civil suit against him for the murder of his wife? A jury "proved" he was not guilty.

Re:Print records arent purged now

[ralatalo]

Proved Innocent -> suspect -> Found Guilty

The trial is to find your guilty, it doesn't try to prove you innocent. That's a whole different thing.

It's the difference between they can't prove I did it and
I was locked up on the other side of the world and under strict watch ( or something else that could be conclusivly prove that you didn't do it)

Re:Print records arent purged now

[zbuffered]

exactly.

Re:Print records arent purged now

[mpe]

If you serve in the US armed forces, you have fingerprints, photos, vital statistics (height/weight/eye color/hair color/blood type) and DNA on file even though the collection has nothing to do with criminal suspicion. Fortunately, safeguards are extremely tight on use of DOD DNA samples to prevent fishing expeditions or other abuse.

Any security is only as strong as its weakest part.

Re:Print records arent purged now

[dgatwood]

The word you're looking for is "found", not "proven". There's a very large difference. One never has to prove one's innocence in a court of law, but one can be found innocent by a court of law.

Your brother's death

[Anonymous Coward]

Your brother's death is not my fucking problem.

That direction scares me...

[shadow_slicer]

To address your other point, I think we should take DNA samples at birth. That would level the playing field, so previous arrests don't tip the scales at all. This may just be a gradual shift in that direction.

I don't like what that does to the presumption of innocence (which is required by freedom).
How can a man be truely free if he has to always insure he has an alibi to protect himself against false accusations? This is the reason for the presumption of innocence. [insert overused "Atlas Shrugged" reference]

It doesn't make sense to gather evidence against the innocent, unless you're assuming they're guilty.

Evidence should be tied to a crime. Evidence shouldn't sit in some freezer or file cabinet somewhere waiting for a crime to happen.


I probably don't have sufficient background to argue the DNA matching either (since the only information I have on it comes from the Discovery Channel, and High School Biology.)
[Though I do remember the gene sequencing lab my class did where we used restriction enzymes to cut the DNA of a common bacterium into pieces (the enzymes cut places in the DNA that match certain patterns [the enzyme we used cut along a pattern of 4 bases -- ATTA, I think]), and then used gel-electrophoresis to pull the pieces through the gel. You can then tell the relative size of these pieces by how far it moved. (This isn't even as informative as it sounds because you still don't know what order the different pieces would be on the original DNA) If you do this enough, and use a large enough variety of different enzymes you could theoretically determine the sequence of the DNA.]
And since the pages of results shown on the crime investigation shows looked a lot like the gel-electrophoresis results I did in High School, I fear they may use the same method.
[In the high school experiment the results were *very* difficult to interpret (read open to subjective interpretation) as fragments that are nearly on top of eachother were indistinguishable from a single fragment. And fragments generally formed streaks, so it is difficult to decide where to measure.]

Of course now that I think about it, my analysis in the previous post was rather off. The math assumed they picked specific points on the DNA and used those bases as markers. If they're still using gel-electrophoresis and restriction enzymes for sequencing, the markers are probably patterns that the restriction enzymes match, which would give them multiple points of comparison for each marker. This sounds good, but a single small mutation (ie base replacement) could drastically alter the results of 2 points on for up to 2 markers, making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. Another problem is that you can have identical results for completely different DNA -- all that is required is that the two samples have the same spacings between patterns (and they need not be in the same order). As for statistical probability in using this method, it is heavily dependent on the enzymes used, and the distribution of sequences in the human populations and other factors I know nothing about [so sorry, no math for you].

Victim of Circumstance?

[Thunderstruck]

Perhaps we are a bit overworried about all this. Consider for example your shirt. You know, the one you wore to the bar last night at about 11 pm. The one you wore pushing through the crowd & getting a little closer to that pretty thing in the cheap sunglasses. By today, since you didn't do laundry, you've got SOME DNA from about 180 people clinging to your body and falling off in hairs, lint balls, and bits of dry sweat as you rob the convenience store... What on earth good will it do law enforcecment?

Why not?

[nwbvt]

What is so special about DNA that makes us so squeamish about storing it for identification purposes?

Note that DNA information stored for identification purposes would not necessarily have to give cops the ability to check if you have some genetic disease or other trait.

I would go a step further and keep DNA of everyone in the US, arrested or not. It would take time to compile, so I'm not saying we should have this database by this time next week, but it could be developed over time.

DNA Evidence Is Ripe For Abuse

[Long-EZ]

With prosecutors telling juries that there is at most a one in ten billion chance of error, juries are convicting largely on the basis of DNA evidence. Even if the one in ten billion number is accurate for DNA matching, it does not address evidence tampering or human error.

I think there will be a notable case in the next couple of years where someone intentionally plants some subtle but very incriminating DNA evidence to incriminate someone else. Unfortunately, I think the police and the forensic investigators are buying the "infallible DNA" story as much as the juries. I think they would really like to find surprising DNA evidence to convict a judge, captain of industry, member of the clergy, etc.

Disclaimer: I've never watched the CSI television show.

whoah, hold on there, partner

[Anonymous Coward]

they aren't suggesting dna samples from everybody. just convicted felons. hey, i figure they ought to. label me a coward if you wish, but here's how i see it:

a felony is a big deal. you commit one, you deserve to be tracked. dna evidence in future crimes will either show you did it or that you did not. deal with it.

recidivism in the usa is extraordinarily high.
this will not deter the rate, but will instead hold repeat offenders accountable. remember, you must first commit a felony to be put in this database.

now consider this scenario: there's a convicted paedophile living next door. would not you want your child to be protected from him?

yeah. i thought so.

why label this YRO? should we have some right to not be tracked *after* (note: not before) committing a felony? i think not.

Petition for Privacy

[alset_tech]

After reading many of the concerns of fellow /.ers, I emailed Bruce E. Harrington (whose contact info can be found on the PDF) and posted a petition for California residents. May be of interest. The email reads as follows:

As a registered voter in the state of California (Oakland), I wish to express my concern regarding your DNA initiative. As such a policy will likely be emulated by other states in the future, I must request a strong system of checks and balances be implemented to protect citizens from potential abuse, as amending them after-the-fact will be difficult. It is important that such measures look far into the future when determining regulation.

I am aware that your proposed policy is, in part, to aid in the capture of criminals by scanning suspects in advance of a trial. I agree that this would be of great benefit in many cases. However, I must suggest that it is a violation to persons wrongfully arrested, as they will then have their DNA committed to file without cause. Even with provisions requiring that DNA samples for persons acquitted of wrong doing be destroyed, such a system has too great a potential for abuse.

My requests are simple and do not inhibit the usefulness of such a system:

1. DNA should only be taken from CONVICTED felons, rather than on arrest. This protects innocent citizens who are wrongfully arrested.

2. DNA samples must be expressly limited to criminal identification, without the possibility of use by other organizations (employers, insurance companies, etc). Also, future technologies and methods of identifying potentially violent or aggressive predisposition in suspects may also one day be abused in profiling, creating an unfair bias.

3. All DNA matches must be proven in a double-blind test by an independent party, to prevent corruption of evidence.

4. DNA samples should only be taken in relation to violent crime and other extraordinary circumstances. Felony charges for fraud, wire tampering, and other white collar crimes do not warrant DNA samples at present, regardless of their nature.

Thank you for your consideration,
Signature


***
I would encourage other Californians to send similar concerns to Mr. Harrington (please don't flame him).

the "DNA database" is already pretty large ...

[constantnormal]

... considering that the military maintains (and has for some time now) a database of DNA data for military personnel -- for purposes of postmortem identification.

That's a pretty large database, and while I'm sure there's some sort of policy controls imposed upon it, policies change.

So it's well past time for some actual legal debate and federal legislation governing access to stored DNA data, preferably as part of a larger privacy initiative.

my experience with america's police state

[Anonymous Coward]

well i live in california and had the unfortunate luck to walk around the corner just after a felony had been committed, and wouldn't you know it i matched the perp's description. although i was never arrested, it was close. it was only my age and clean record that kept the law at bay. the detective kept calling me at work and home, laughing at me on the phone, threatening to have me dragged from my workplace or home in handcuffs if i would not cop to a lesser charge. he assured me he could convict me, and that my guilt or innocence meant no difference to him. after awhile (about three calls) i said "charge me, so i can turn myself in, but stop calling me at work or home. let's get this overwith". he stopped calling and i never heard of it again. needless to say, i am pretty much left-of-center now and have little or no trust of the police or the government of my state (california) or my country (the USA). to me, the people running the government of this state and country are incompetents that deserve, well, to be homeless at a minimum, something far worse (say jail) at a maximum. have a nice day everyone, i hope it doesn't happen to you!

In California

[Jordy]

We require a full set of fingerprints in California for anyone who wants a driver's license as well as a picture. If you think this picture is just taken and then tossed away, think again. It goes right into a biometric database with your fingerprints.

It is only a small step before they require iris scans and a DNS sample as well. Once this sort of thing becomes "acceptable", it becomes easier and easier to move the line.

With this sort of information you could build one hell of a massive identification system. Start collecting images from all public webcams and government cameras and with the simple facial recognition technology alone you could start categorizing every citizen's movements, friends, activities, etc.

What really worries me is how easy it seems to be to frame someone for a crime. I mean, if you can be convicted on just a little bit of DNA then it is stupidly easy to set someone up for murder, rape, etc.

Ok, this may be going overboard, but I mean technically a private company can do this right now with just webcams. How fun would that be? Sure it'll be hard to tie the unique "person" you identify to a name, but slowly and with enough pictures collected on the internet you could probably make a fairly decent guess of a significant portion of the US.

Re:In California

[Anonymous Coward]

California requires a full set of fingerprints now? I was there almost five years ago (for one year) and I had to give a thumb print to get a state identification card. Not a driver's license, mind you... jus a state ID card... so that I could then get a bank account, go to R movies, get into a bar, buy cigerettes...

Ironically, while they take your thumbprint, all they require as evidence to get your card is a piece of mail and a SS card. All you need to get an SS card is two pieces of mail. So take some envelopes out of someone's mailbox and you can assume their identity, use your fingerprint to get a license or state ID and then commit crimes and they're going to come looking for the guy who's identity you've assumed!

And worse, they require you to sign your license or state ID so that there is an example of what your signature looks like, but it's done with a crappy digital stylus and you aren't allowed to have a flashy signature or use any back-crossing (which many people employ in their signatuers) so everyone's signatures end up looking very much alike and nothing at all like their own real signature (I've compared many of them myself). Other states do this now to... so basically it's totally unreliable.

*sigh*

Re:In California

[Anonymous Coward]

We require a full set of fingerprints in California for anyone who wants a driver's license as well as a picture.

Wow, you need to provide fingerprints if you want a picture? Or do you mean that you don't need to provide fingerprints if all you want is a drivers license, without a picture? Please clarify. I are confus0red.

MOD PARENT UP

[mikeswi]

"If only the guilty have anything to fear, then why do you have the right to remain silent after an arrent? Why aren't you required to testify against yourself in court? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear, so you might as well be forced to speak, right?"

Damn good point.

No argument is more naive or simpleminded than "I have nothing to hide".

Irrelevant. Who cares? People have rights which are to be respected regardless of the situation.

If "I have nothing to hide" is the grandparent poster's attitude, then he should walk into a police station today, give full blood and fingerprint samples, submit to a full psychoanalysis to look for criminal tendencies and then give an account of his whereabouts from birth to the present while strapped to a polygraph machine and voice/stress analyzer.

If the grandparent is not willing to do that, then either he is naively spouting "I have nothing to hide" without really considering the consequences or he is one of those hypocrites who likes to think up draconian laws "for the good of all" but wants to exempt himself from being held to them.

IAACF (I am a convicted Felon)

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a convicted felon, and the state of Ohio already does this. Once you're "processed" after your felony, one of the steps you do get is where they take some tubes of blood from you. They say it's for medical testing (make sure you don't need to be treated for HIV or whathaveyou), but, then again, do you really trust the state?

For the record, my record will be cleared after this year (they still do expunge felonies in Ohio), and I've not rescinded or gone back to nefarious ways since my release.

It's very true that America is becoming a "Guilty until proved innocent" system. Check those applications carefully...it says "have you ever been arrested or convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic offense." Arrested.

Now, here's a thought....

[Calibax]

1. Go to a bar.
2. Gather stray hairs, saliva from glasses, or whatever other organic bits you can find and place in bag. Yes, gross, I know.
3. Commit a felony and scatter the contents of said bag.
4. Watch police arrest innocents.

Alternatively, replace items 1 and 2 above with:
1/2 Obtain samples from someone you have a grudge against... some blood would be really nice.

It's not easy to plant fingerprints at the scene of a crime. What are the chances that if this becomes standard crooks will be scattering DNA at crime scenes like confetti at a wedding.

Just remember what happened recently to the Oregon lawyer who was unlucky enough to have a fingerprint fairly close to that of terrorist suspect. A false positive match put him in prison for some weeks as a "material witness" and he was only released when Spanish police made a match to another person. There was no evidence against the guy, apart from the fingerprint.

I suspect it will be much worse with a false positive (or planted) DNA.

Re:Now, here's a thought....

[SuiteSisterMary]

I'm sorry, but how is this interesting? This reminds me of Dilbert's boss; 'anything I don't understand must be simple.'

Why do you assume that the police are such mindless automatons? "Duh...there's DNA here from over fifty people...must have been a hell of a murder. Send out the paddy wagons." Come on.

DNA evidence will never convict somebody by itself, any more than a fingerprint or an eye witness account will. Eye witness accounts, as any cop or DA will tell you, are unreliable as hell; this is why forensic science is so important.

The DNA found matches ten people in the database? Fine. That gives them some leads. You were found in the area, you have powder marks on your hands, and you were known to not like the deader? There you go.

It's not easy to plant fingerprints at the scene of a crime. What are the chances that if this becomes standard crooks will be scattering DNA at crime scenes like confetti at a wedding.

Yeah, the cops will never be able to do things like determine DNA planting by dispersal patterns, sample ages, and so on.

Just remember what happened recently to the Oregon lawyer who was unlucky enough to have a fingerprint fairly close to that of terrorist suspect. A false positive match put him in prison for some weeks as a "material witness" and he was only released when Spanish police made a match to another person. There was no evidence against the guy, apart from the fingerprint.

And if it wasn't a fingerprint, it would be a description. Or a similar SSN. Or something.

Sometimes I wonder, if /. were around during other 'great' inventions, what people would say about them.

What? Mr. Bell is CLEARLY hoping to plant a listening device in EVERY HOUSE IN THE UNION! This 'telephone' is obviously nothing less than a gross breach of our private affairs!

Re:He who commits the crime...

[Jim McCoy]

How about UTFT: understand the f*cking technology

He who is merely arrested forfeits personal biometric identification (DNA) which is not at all like fingerprints, but carries very personal and private data about his genetic makeup, health, probability of disease and much else.


No, it is just like a fingerprint, except that it is compared by a computer and is not subject to the same fuzzy matching and "guesses" that happen with conventional fingerprints. Your DNA fingerprint is not a sequence of your genome. It does not reveal any private data about you except your gender (which would have been noted on your arrest form anyway.) It does not reveal anything about your health, it reveals nothing about what diseases you might get in the future, etc.

Here is a quick reality check for you: if it was so easy and cost effective to get your genetic testing done at the police crime lab, why is it that it costs the medical system thousands of dollars to do a test to see if you are suceptible to a single disease?

Find the crime-gene

[Slinky Saves the Wor]

Another use might be to analyze the DNA data and try to locate some abnormal gene patterns common with the criminals. Something like a gene which modifies a hormone xyz in the brain, where excessive modified xyz causes "criminal behaviour".

Previe is your friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Previe is your friend.

Re:Previe is your friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, that should be "preview".

Well to argue the other side

[Sycraft-fu]

Just because abuses do happen, doesn't mean that the government/police should have no power or access to information. The police are a very necessary agency in the world.

So, I reject all arguments where people just start screaming about potential abuses. Yes, there is a potential for abuse, however there is basically no power which the police have that there is NOT a potential for abuse. That's just life, all power can be misused.

So what we really need to ask in determining if something is a power they should have:

1) What are the potential benefits? Is there a big benefit for crime solving, or only a small one.

2) What are the risks for abuse? If someone were to abuse it, and that will happen, would it be a major or minor infringment on someone's liberty?

3) What are the controls and safeguards on abuse? How hard is it to abuse? Is it something any cop can abuse with more or less no fear of being punished, or is it soemthing that is controlled?

4) What are the costs? Money is also a factor, if something helps, but costs a ton, not worth it.

THAT'S what needs to be discussed with something like this. Not screaming about it being abused, all powers cops have get abused. Unfortunately, cops are not perfect. What we need to talk about is how beneficial will it be, and what is the potential for abuse.

Given the gross misunderstanding I've seen of what DNA evidence is and how it's used here on /., I'm not sure many people here are ready to have a rational discussion about it.

Genetic testing can be dangerous

[scaryfish]

Ok, first of all, those worrying about insurance companies using the database for screening for genetic diseases, or screening for people of a certain disposition, you can relax. The way this type of genetic identification works is by microsatellites - these are short nucleotide repeats that vary between individuals by the number of repeats. They are in no way related to any physical trait of the person.

You do have to be careful though. The more microsatellites they add (per person) the stronger any match will be. However, you have to balance this against the number of people in the database. I think that most jurys, if told that because the DNA matched, it is 1 million times more likely that this match is real than just a random match, they would convict. But if the database has 1 million people in it, then you'd expect one match by chance.

The end result is DNA evidence is a powerful tool, but it has to be used in conjunction with the other evidence. DNA evidence alone is not enough.

DNA fingerprints ~ hashes

[sita]

DNA fingerprints are akin to hashes on subsegments of your DNA. You can't use it to extract information on your genes.

Re:DNA fingerprints ~ hashes

[phoenix.bam!]

You can't extract that information, yet . But what happens when a better method for dna sequencing is devloped that can sequence the entire genome? (Got to love the slippery slope argument!) Are they just going to put it into effect? How will you know that they are only running one test on your DNA. At least with fingerprints you KNOW all they can do is match them to other fingerprints.

Re:DNA fingerprints ~ hashes

[sita]

"You can't extract that information, yet . But what happens when a better method for dna sequencing is devloped that can sequence the entire genome?"

That's not the point. The DNA sample as such can probably be used to extract the information, but the samples are (usually not, maybe California will do it differently than e.g. Sweden) not kept, just a "fingerprint" of the DNA, and THAT can't be used other than to match another DNA sample.

At least with fingerprints you KNOW all they can do is match them to other fingerprints.

That's what you think. However, physical fingerprints contain minute traces of your DNA... ;)-

search for DNA on the page

[sita]

None found! Seems DNA doesn't stick on web pages...

Can you say "over-reaction"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's Law was invented for a good reason.

Sure, Hitler instituted gun control. He also built roads and increased military spending. So I presume you're against all of those things?

The time to introduce Nazi comparisons is when someone starts spouting Nazi ideas and philosophy. When someone says "Let's impound all the Muslims", you can mention Hitler. But until that point, you're just devaluing the debating point by using it on every new subject that comes along.

Please quit using the ammo. It's not infinite. Save it for the *right* fight.

The Bottom Line

[File Tree]

How much money will this cost?

In my day ...

[cfuse]

A California attorney is personally bankrolling, to the sum of $1.3m, an initiative to require law enforcement to take DNA samples of every person they arrest for a felony.

What ever happened to the good old days, when they just used to check if you were nigger, a fag or a commie?

Just in case you're American, the above is a joke. This, just like every other technology, will be abused by someone, somewhere.

As someone who's been charged with a felony...

[dnahelix]

...that was later dismissed, I find this particularly disturbing.

Barber Shops

[Anonymous Coward]

barber shops, hairdressers, hospitals and labs, sperm banks, spitoons.

gyms

Let me get this straight:

[asackett]

A *lawyer* wants to give *cops* more "tools" with which they can achieve a higher arrest rate, and give prosecutors a higher conviction rate?

Back up the boat, boys, the anchor's fallen off.

The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 701 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. The Russian Federation is a distant second place, with 584 per 100k. (Source: International Centre for Prison Studies.) We're standing silently by, watching as our civil rights and protections are being stripped away at an alarming rate. The Fourth Amendment is being all but repealed... and some bozo lawyer in The People's Republic of California wants to make it still easier to put more of us behind bars?

There seems to be some flawed notion that law enforcement is failing in this country -- the fact is that the violent crime rate has been falling for several years. It's not because we have incarcerated so many, but simple demographics: The number of males in the more crime-prone age group has decreased.

I see a lot of paranoia here.

[El Camino SS]

The truth is though, that as of recently, the cops have only been using DNA for some really nasty cases that they felt there was an absolute need to take care of. The kind where they say, "well, if we don't get this guy there are going to be a lot of dead grannies floating around."

Also, it might be noted that DNA has been used to get a LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT OF PRISON. Also, if you have a defense attorney worth his salt, he would research DNA testing and beat the hell out of the state's examiner if necessary.

Well, yes I do think that, actually.

[Calibax]

I'm an ex-policeman, and not really by choice. When our first child was born, my wife insisted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H strongly suggested that I give up the job because of her fears that I would come home dead one day, or (based on previous work patterns) not give sufficient attention to our children.

DNA evidence will never convict somebody by itself, any more than a fingerprint or an eye witness account will.

I am honestly shocked by your naive response. There have been a huge number of convictions based solely on eye witness identification with no additional evidence.

If a partial match on a fingerprint can land you in jail, then a full DNA match will likely do the same. Policemen can be mistaken, so can DAs. Their job is to get convictions to improve their "clear-up" rate and that aim has little to making certain the convicted person is guilty. The most usual test is "can I get a conviction?" not "is this guy guilty?".

Sadly, the justice system is not to be trusted in the matter of guilt or innocence. Prosecutors tend to look at everything the worst possible light, and there is an increasing tendency towards "guilty until proven innocent" justice.



Well, whoever wrote that certainly got it right. Yes, the telephone is incredibly useful, but it has most certainly resulted in many incursions into my private time.

Re:Well, yes I do think that, actually.

[SuiteSisterMary]

It suddenly occurs to me to mention that I'm Canadian; might have something to do with my outlook on such things. :-)

Re:Slightly different opinion - bullseye

[Grrr]

No government organization will willingly give up saved data.

Having worked for law enforcement, I couldn't agree more.

Databases never (provably) die.

<grrr>

Good!

[lorcha]

I hope they do this and get 100 false positives. Or 1000 false positives. In fact, the more false positives the better.

The problem with DNA testing is that people think if the DNA report says you're guilty, then you're guilty. No one will realize just how falliable DNA testing is when used incorrectly until they try it out and see for themselves that when they try to match someone's "unique" DNA against their database they get 100 "exact matches".