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.

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.

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?)

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" :-)

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..

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.

[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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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: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