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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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...?

[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...?

[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...?

[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.

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

[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.

'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'?

[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.

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: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...

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.

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..

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?

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.

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 :)

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.

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

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.

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: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"?

[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: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: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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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?

As someone who's been charged with a felony...

[dnahelix]

...that was later dismissed, I find this particularly disturbing.

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".