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

[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.

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?)

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: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: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: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