Slashdot Mirror
What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?
NevDull writes "As creepy as it may be to deal with identity theft from corporate databases, imagine being swabbed for DNA samples as a suspect in a crime, being vindicated by that sample, and never even being told why you were suspected. This article discusses a man, Roger Valadez, who's fighting both to have his DNA sample and its profile purged from government records, and to find out why he and his DNA were searched in the BTK case. DA Nola Foulston said, 'I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.' -- convenient as she wasn't the one probed without explanation. The article then mentions that 'In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.' What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?"
In a country where the federal government has been concentrating power in the capital, I can't see where she gets such bizarre ideas.
We're heading for a country where everyone is a potential suspect, eventually. And when the congress pulls and late nighter and the president flies back to the capital to quickly sign a bill allowing the government to barge past states rights and personal descisions it's discomforting. It would probably be a small matter to bury into a large bill some little thing that allows the transportation of all DNA evidence to be conveniently sent to the Foggy Bottom and squirreled away somewhere, where it could be called upon the next time someone needs a roundup of the usual suspects and a filing error could easily send anyone off to Gitmo.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do some analyses to enable you to categorize from an unlabeled sample.
<cyn> Imagine how useful that could be!</cyn>
I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.
Yes, I am.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
With the "laws" nowadays, if someone wants her DNA samples removed from the record, just respect her rights and remove it, but not before passing a DNA Remover ACT 2005 which allows DNA Security Centre to keep a copy of the samples and flag that person.
It's like everybody's allowed to wear bulletproof vest, just don't be the only survivor in a drive by shooting.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Clone the innocent people. Eventually the ratio of innocent to guilty people will be through the roof, OMG.
We keep their DNA sample, and then plant some at the crime scene the next time we kill someone. Wow that was the easiest ask slashdot ever.
You'd better worry, someonw might clone your friend. Let the damn record be, that way if he commits a sexual offense in the future he might be caught.
A Grand Army Of the Republic!
No bad can come of that...right?
I don't think it's really about samples - the man hardly needs his skinflakes or his hair bits back and he sheds it all around anyway. As for the data it represents? Why, "we" keep it forever, of course. He is just the first in line, I'm willing to bet that within 20 years "we" will have a database of DNA samples from all "our" citizens - or whoever accepts my bet wins my slightly weathered tinfoil hat.
There is something called the 5th amendment, protection against self incrimination.
Here it is, in case people forgot:
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
If we can predict diseases, we could cancel people from the national health care system before it costs the system too much.
purges self from gene pool before making stupid joke &&&[NO CARRIER]
Usually just being arrested means that you will be fingerprinted and your picture taken.
Isn't this pretty much the same thing?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
DNA from innocent people should be kept on file incase the person ever commits a crime. Then DNA from the crime scene can be matched.
In fact, all newborns should have their DNA put on record.
That way investigating crimes in the future will be a piece of cake.
What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?
Just basing this on everything our government has done both in the past and quite recently, the DNA will probably always be kept on record. I can't help being a pessimist about this...it's just too easy.
Seems like what Kalifornia is proposing is unconstitutional. Althought there is no 'right to privacy', there is a right to protection from government searchs. I aggree that people are often overreacting to privacy concerns, I also think we need to push back at government intrusion into our private affairs. Unfortunately, the current political environment is one of intrusion, invasion, interference. The eventual solution to the issue will be political, not lega.
Best regards.
Everyone on the planet is judged almost every day on their DNA. Are you goodlooking? Are you smart? Are you crafty? Are you tall?
Knowing the actual sequence is irrelevent.
The sequnce of your genes and the resulting expression of these genes has already defined you.
what do they do about fingerprints right now? Fingerprints and DNA at least to the police seems very related.
It seems like much of the angst over a national DNA database is the potential misuse of the sequences, e.g. raising insurance rates or selecting against carriers of X. If the goal of criminal DNA databases is to match samples from crime scenes, why not use a one-way hash of each DNA fragment? That way, the actual DNA sequence wouldn't be kept. The hash could be constructed after removing common sequences, but I'm probably missing something aside from sequencing issues (which should be more automated in future). And this doesn't address larger issues on DNA matches...
1. Innocent's DNA captured and catalogued.
2. Hacker / Businessman breaks in and takes samples.
3. DNA analysis gives great blackmail material.
4. PROFIT!!!!!
And what about our right against self-incrimination, protected by the 5th Amendment? Why is only our cerebellum protected? Why can we be compelled to give involutnary testimony by divulting DNA, possibly our most private info, short of our thoughts? If they can get our DNA, can't they get a MRI scan, while they ask us questions? Will they stop when they learn to read them?
--
make install -not war
"To imagine the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face -- forever."
-George Orwell
"What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?"
Wait, let me guess. Same as the disposition of the photographs and fingerprints of the innocent?
I don't get it. How is the potential for abuse any higher just because the sample is DNA? To me, the benefits of being able to solve a years old case based on DNA samples outweighs the risks of abuse within the system. Lets give the cops the tools they need to put the crooks away. Just make sure there are no loopholes in the law that would allow the government, as well as insurance companies and the like to access and use the results to discriminate against people.
We can use this DNA to create a super-race of people who aren't guilty of crimes!
You leave your fingerprints everywhere. You don't cry like a baby about people having access to your fingerprints. You likewise leave bits of DNA all over the place (ala Gattica).
Please show me where we are guaranteed the right to total annonymity (sp?) all the time everywhere. Better yet, retroactive guaranteed annonymity always everywhere all the stinking time!!! It doesn't exist. It's a paranoid pre-conception!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I'm more concerned about the potential for abuse by outsiders than by the law enforcement authorities. You can't tell my predisposition to an illness or disorder from my fingerprints, but you certainly can from my DNA. How long will it be before health/life insurers and employers bribe the right politicians and get access to this stuff -- probably under the guise of "background checks" or some similar nonsense?
Loading...
How about using it to log on and withdraw money from ATM machines. Hold your finger up to the needle at the ATM machine nto withdraw your money. Sounds like the ultimate biometric authentication system.
We could merge lots of innocent people, and create a super-innocent embryo. I assume that the baby would grow up to be a complete do-gooder, something like Clark Kent.
Get your own free personal location tracker
dont you watch the news?, guantanamo bay, patriot act , illegal wars the list of abuses just goes on and on
the constitution aint worth the paper its printed on anymore, you can of course challenge that but you better have deep pockets
if the people have given the state the right to spy on them, tag them, track, divide and thus conquer them, then the people have lost their innocence. it will be difficult to find it again because corruption doesn't kill innocence, it defaces it and leaves it the subject of mockery. in this way, the mean spirited ride the tides of entropy over their and in fact all unborn children.
can corruption be eased-off, or must it be broken?
How exactly is this any different than fingerprints except being a heck of a lot more accurate? A lot of our fingerprints are already in databases and they're scanned by AFIS every day. They're a heck of a lot less accurate than a DNA sample would be at ruling you out as a suspect. What exactly are people afraid of, that they can't commit a crime anymore and get away with it?
"No one is innocent!" --Agent Rogersz, Repo Man
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
....I think they ought to just keep the DNA data. I simply don't see the perceived threat here. Besides, if I were to go 'splat' somewhere or die in a horrible way, I'd want to be identified so that my family would have closure and piece of mind.
The violation is that the guy had his door busted down, had his house searched and DNA taken and the police never told him WHY he was a suspect.
That the DNA didn't "solve" the case was inconsequential because the DNA did helpe the police confirm who the guy was.
The question that should be asked here is not "Should the police be able to take samples of your DNA when you're arrested?" No brainer, you can already take fingerprints.
The bigger question here is: Can the police KEEP your DNA on profile *AND* can they keep the results of what they found while searching your house?
What if they found illegally downloaded music in his house? Could he be tried for that? Should those records be kept from the first search?
DNA aside (and IANAL) the current law is yes and yes.
"If you let us keep your DNA on file, we can use it to prove you are innocent, further if you ever go missing we can us it to trace you if you leave a trail. So it's a good thing, you see?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
With a lot of DNA samples in vulnerable databases, I guess the most probable outcome will be better demographic targeting of genital enhancement spam.
Haven't these people seen GATTACA?
"For the Greater Good", by Cat Stevens, 1936:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for my DNA,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me because
they were all too busy pontificating
on Slashdot.
I realize your comment was toungue-in-cheek, but on a serious note: if only it were that simple. Data extraceted from DNA only represents potential outcomes in many instances. The genome is often called a blueprint but as any architecht knows, there's a huge potential for the finished product to have alterations. It's the same way with DNA. The emerging fields (maybe it's already emerged?) of proteomics seems more likely to predict actual outcomes, like in this study. Sorry, but I think most you will have to pay to read the entire article.
Obvious Use:
Use DNA to artificially grow clones to replace rabel-rousers with, thus ending any civil disobedience.
DUH!!!
What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?
No problem, you're all guilty of something. We've been passing laws left and right to be assured of that. Now shut up, stand in line, work hard, take your beatings when ordered. Don't ask questions. Don't organize yourselves. Continue to hate each other over trivial things, and by all means let us continue to profit from your misery.
Maybe the sample from the crime scene is degraded so you can say it was "probably" this person (like 1 in 10,000) but not certianly. Also you can match within families. You run DNA and discover it isn't person X's DNA, but a female relitive, etc.
So a hash would only be useful for dead on matches. Now maybe we decide that's all that the police should have, but you can see why they'd argue for more the orignals, as they are more useful.
Here is a big difference. While your kids are going to have totally different fingerprints and even pictures, their DNA to you will be largely similar. So by taking your DNA, you are putting your kids and your relatives in the database as well. If there is a partial match with someone in the database, they will just go after all his relatives and eventually find the right one. They just got a recent mass murder case solved when a daughter of a suspect volunteered to give a DNA sample, when he refused.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Paranoia must take over! We must all abandon common sense, because the government is clearly trying to frame us. If someone commits a murder or rape, or other major crime, why should we not be able to find them quickly? Seriously, what is the government going to do with your DNA that's so troublesome? If a loved one were killed, kidnapped, or raped, wouldn't you like to know that the responsible person can be identified with great haste?
For those that aren't disturbed by this. Consider the president of the Ukraine, Yushenko. What if instead of using Dioxin, they created a virus tailor made to attack his DNA?
What if they made all World Bank protestors sick?
If the government has access and control over our DNA they can use that data against us.
What makes you think they're innocent?:-)
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
While I was in the US Navy, they started a DNA cataloging program, which they claimed was only intended to help identify people in the case of death. They claimed that the information would never be shared and would be discarded after discharge.
It has been 8 years since I was discharged. Want to bet that my information is available to law enforcement, even though I have never been convicted or accused of a crime?
"If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about." That line has become thouroughly entrenched in our society. Any and everything can be justified to the average american with that phrase.
Everyone convicted of a felony has to give a DNA sample before sentencing.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Once cloned, you'd have to figure out how to get your brain in your newly cloned body. That would be cool if you broke a bone, or dislocated your knee.
We should do as the vulcan, sample DNA on birth and be done with it! Like, then someone in the future could hack the central DNADB and clone 10,000 J. Michael Straczynski and we could finally get some quality television! A vote for mandatory DNA sampling IS a vote for the future!
I'm as concerned about protecting civil liberties as anyone, but sometimes it seems like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, arguing too many angles. I understand the whole "if I'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to hide" fallacy, but folks, let's let the authorities have the DNA, anyway. As long as we are VIGILANT about the court system and the way they use the DNA, who cares that they have it - other than that it may make their jobs easier.
No system of law enforcement is EVER perfect. The idea is to make it operate as well as POSSIBLE. And if they have my DNA on file, that's just as likely to mean they can eliminate me as a suspect as it is to mean they declare me one....
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
Blair is also trying to compulsorily fingerprint everyone and tie together ALL the computerised data held on people through a unique National Identity Number.
Oh, he's also going to track our daily movements through automatic CCTV facial recognition & the ID Card audit trail.
This law has been passed by House of Commons and is currently being debated in the House of Lords. Unless the Lords block it, I'm emigrating somewhere less Orwellian. Anyone want to swap citizenship? I'm serious...
All of this means that any law or policy that increases data collection is not only dangerous, but the data usually gets used for other things beyond the original purpose - information *does* want to be free. Anything that hangs an unique identifier on data, such as a National ID Card Number (or SSN, or SIN, or driver's license number), makes it easy for data to be imported into other systems and aggregated together. Anything that hangs a non-unique ID onto something, like a firstname+lastname, increases the chances that data will be imported into other systems incorrectly, combining your data with known criminal SameFirstInitial+DifferentMiddleInitial+SimilarLas tname who lives in a different city. In both cases, you'll never get the data expunged.
On the other hand, Moore's Law also means that applications that used to be unthinkable are now routine. When mainframes costs tens of millions of dollars and needed to be fed punchcards and stored stuff on magtape, writing database applications took a couple of years and a large budget, so only critical applications that could be used by lots of people got written. These days, a cheap desktop computer can hold lots more data, and any random civil servant can run a Spreadsheet query or simple fill-out-the-form database application for anything they feel like, such as tracking their ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend's phone bills. And most of that data could really fit in a pocket-computer as well, so next year that same civil servant or telemarketer can take a picture of your face or license plate using their camera-phone and look it up for some arbitrary reason (currently it takes a laptop for the license-plate lookup, and it's being done to nail parking ticket non-payers.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you don't want to use an M80 just get a spritzer bottle full of some DNA containing fluid and spray it everywhere all over a crime scene. I wonder if you could extract DNA sequences from barber shop cuttings and do this?
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
We are moving towards a police state, and society has overwhelmingly chosen "safety" over privacy, liberty, and freedom. It is only a matter of time before the govt requires all residents and citizens to be in such databases.
What about my evil twin?
If someone gets tested for fingerprints or DNA the same basic procedures apply. Some countries allow the data to be gathered for a single investigation only. Others allow the collected info to be cross matched against the "open cases" database.
Personally, I think this something that is far less likely to be abused. I'd rather a few more crims get pulled out of society.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No one is innocent.
Everyone is a suspect.
The computer is your friend.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
The Supremes have become a mirror of the cultural tolerance of the nation...which of course is choosing security over freedom. Lawmakers will simply craft something that will be palatable enough to the Supreme Court and then the law will be in deed as well as fact.
If I'm not completely mistaken Estonia has or will soon implement a national DNA database with the DNA of every single citizen - and people don't seem to protest too much. IMHO it doesn't seem like a bad idea since it can save quite a lot of police resources in many cases and I don't really see how it could be abused - if you wanted to track someone you'd have to have both the skills to get a DNA sample of some object and be able to break into the database - and other than that possibility I don't see any problems, framing someone doesn't become easier and identity theft might become harder if reliance on DNA increases.
It will be trivial for lawmakers and judges to route this around the 5th. They will likely start by saying that DNA alone is simply a "fact" and not a statement of action, therefore you are not incriminating yourself until you act. I am not in favor of this but if you think the Constitution will stop this, you're wrong.
I say: resequence them; there are too few innocent people these days.
All for this sort of thing!
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
Exactly. Did they give him his fingerprints back? I'm sure they took those about the same time that they took the DNA.
I know that anything that expands government power is bad and all, but so far this is only for people arrested for felonies. That means they are going to take your fingerprints and your photo before they get to your DNA. It's just another form of ID, guys, not a RFID chip planted in your brain. They don't sequence it, so ID is all it's good for. Do they destroy fingerprint and photo records of all suspects if they are cleared of charges?
Worst case I can see is that they can scan trace DNA at a crime scene, and use a computer to match against any known DNA, like they do with fingerprints already. So what's the problem?
" No one is innocent.
Everyone is a suspect.
The computer is your friend."
http://www.vpenis.info/
When properly used, this is not a problem. "Properly used" means that you find your suspects using traditional methods, and afterwards run a DNA test on them. Get a match there, and you've got your criminal. It's a Bayesian thing, basically.
What is not proper is to start with DNA, and test the criminal's against all the people you happen to have DNA on file for, looking for a match.
Using DNA to find suspects is only good when you either have a comprehensive database that has DNA from everyone, or your tests are so accurate that they really do uniquely identify people. Like I said, I don't know if they are accurate enough for that. A few years ago, they were not.
Its illegal for banks etc to require it yet they ask for it on a daily basis. What you discuss is interesting, but it won't stop the Feds from creating a police state around irrefutable data identification. The DNA police state is coming...because people have been cowed into a paranoid fear since 9/11 even though at this point their own govt may be more of a threat to their liberty than some Mullah or other nutjob.
Summary
Background
New technologies for the detection of early-stage ovarian cancer are urgently needed. Pathological changes within an organ might be reflected in proteomic patterns in serum. We developed a bioinformatics tool and used it to identify proteomic patterns in serum that distinguish neoplastic from non-neoplastic disease within the ovary.
Methods
Proteomic spectra were generated by mass spectroscopy (surface-enhanced laser desorption and ionisation). A preliminary "training" set of spectra derived from analysis of serum from 50 unaffected women and 50 patients with ovarian cancer were analysed by an iterative searching algorithm that identified a proteomic pattern that completely discriminated cancer from non-cancer. The discovered pattern was then used to classify an independent set of 116 masked serum samples: 50 from women with ovarian cancer, and 66 from unaffected women or those with non-malignant disorders.
Findings
The algorithm identified a cluster pattern that, in the training set, completely segregated cancer from non-cancer. The discriminatory pattern correctly identified all 50 ovarian cancer cases in the masked set, including all 18 stage I cases. Of the 66 cases of non-malignant disease, 63 were recognised as not cancer. This result yielded a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 93-100), specificity of 95% (87-99), and positive predictive value of 94% (84-99).
Interpretation
These findings justify a prospective population-based assessment of proteomic pattern technology as a screening tool for all stages of ovarian cancer in high-risk and general populations.
Article Outline
Introduction
Participants and methods
Study population
Proteomic analysis
Analytical procedure
Statistical analysis
Role of the funding source
Results
Reproducibility and precision
Detection of ovarian cancer
Discussion
Acknowledgements
Glossary
Referenc es
Introduction
Application of new technologies for detection of ovarian cancer could have an important effect on public health,1 but to achieve this goal, specific and sensitive molecular markers are essential.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 This need is especially urgent in women who have a high risk of ovarian cancer due to family or personal history of cancer, and for women with a genetic predisposition to cancer due to abnormalities in predisposition genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2. There are no effective screening options for this population.
Ovarian cancer presents at a late clinical stage in more than 80% of patients,1 and is associated with a 5-year survival of 35% in this population. By contrast, the 5-year survival for patients with stage I ovarian cancer exceeds 90%, and most patients are cured of their disease by surgery alone.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Therefore, increasing the number of women diagnosed with stage I disease should have a direct effect on the mortality and economics of this cancer without the need to change surgical or chemotherapeutic approaches.
Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is the most widely used biomarker for ovarian cancer.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Although concentrations of CA125 are abnormal in about 80% of patients with advanced-stage disease, they are increased in only 50-60% of patients with stage I ovarian cancer.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 CA125 has a positive predictive value of less than 10% as a single marker, but the addition of ultrasound screening to CA125 measurement has improved the positive predictive value to about 20%.6
Low-molecular-weight serum protein profiling might reflect the pathological state of organs and aid in the early detection of cancer. Matrix-assisted laser desorption and ionisation time-of-flight (maldi-tof) and surface-enhanced laser desorption and ionisation time-of-flight (seldi-tof) mass spectroscopy can profile proteins in this range.6, 7, 8 and 9 These profiles can contain thousands of data points, necessitating sophisticated analytical tools. Bioinformatics has been used t
The plan would be brilliant -- how could anyone sense the pattern of killing off agitators, before they're even agitators? Eventually, the population would be reduced to sheep content to follow our infallible rulers.
(just kidding -- wanted to see what it was like to wear the foil hat for a few minutes)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
nobody's innocent!
. . . do NOT want to be carrying around CowboyNeal's "DNA Sample" because used kleenex are most definitely NOT zesty.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
since DNA is considered very reliable in pinpointing the culprit, it could also be used to prime innocent people with great accuracy.
just imagine being framed for a crime which you were no where close of, using DNA from ur hair. that kind will thing will surely cause major trouble as it is implemented in a more widespread fashion.
also checking for DNA is not so easy.... atleast not as easy as fingerprint matching or blood report.
~~bada bing, bada bang, bada bong and voila~~
In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.
I'm a resident of California, and I voted against this measure for exactly that reason: they provide no way to remove innocent people's DNA from their database.
of course, the way the supporters described it in their propaganda pamphlet was "if you vote against this, we'll have murderers and child molesters running the streets! if you love your children, you'll vote YES!!"
I consider this a case of the general public not being educated enough of the facts to make an informed decision. it's all well and good, until it happens to you..
Not to mention the fact in this country we at least put dogs to sleep when they are lame which is more than can be said for this poor woman.
But if you starved your dog to death, you'd be put in jail (animal cruelty).
And then it will be used by the republicans to determine who should vote, get Medicare/Social Security, fly on airlines and hold certain jobs.
How about fingerprints? I had to give mine when I applied for a California drivers license, and had to submit them again when applying for a bus driving job. Obviously neither led to a criminal case, but frankly, neither are needed UNLESS I committed a criminal act. So why isn't there a massive cry to remove such records?
Mind you, the California fingerprint rule has been in effect since I originally applied for a DL in 1992, so essentially it's been around for 15 years now.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Sell it on eBay ?
I see no reason that an arrested, and booked (that's important), person's DNA should not stay on file. There is no outcry that they keep a person's fingerprints on file. How is DNA all that different?
that would make you evil too, and hence an evil twin to the other; however, if you're both evil, then neither is evil relative to the other and so you don't have an "evil twin" in the first place; paradox caused by killing your evil twin
GrimRC
"What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?"
The government has decided to dispense with the concept of 'innocent'. It's just too inconvenient. Therefore everyone who is not rich, a campaign contributor, or a congressman will heretofore be considered guilty.
'In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.
This bugs me for a different reason. Will they be able to do this whether there was any DNA evidence at the scene of the crime or not. Seems like profiling rather than detection.
If you are innocent, then what is there to fear? Just another sample of data that they have collected. It's DNA instead of all your other information, so what is the big problem?
TW
Television is dead. Long live That Weasel Television
In the US whats the law on criminal records - do you have access to everything the police have on you? can they give it to other people? This is gonna be a very important issue especially if finger-print scanners make it big - which i think is a very bad idea, using biometrics means a) if someone gets a copy theres no way to 'change your biometric pin number' and b) stealing your biometrics can mean cutting off your finger.
You need to at least have the right to know exactly what personal data any organisation has on you (a right enjoyed by the EU)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
When this thing came around for a vote last year, I talked to a lot of people about it. To me, it was absurd that the government would be able to take your DNA, profile it, maintain it in a "sexual offenders" database, and never have to remove it - even if you are proven innocent.
It's scary. All they have to do is arrest you for a crime - without any real evidence - and then you are labeled a sex offender for life.
To my surprise, nobody I know - other than my wife - was with me on this one. Most people here equate it to fingerprinting. If you get fingerprinted, then they keep it forever. This is vastly different though. They are not only keeping identifying information, they are labelling it "sex offender", making it a matter of public record, and maintaining that record regardless of conviction.
This has potential for abuse written all over it.
Dick Cheney's running the country, and he wasn't elected to do so. :)
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
(a)A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or her DNA specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program pusuant to the procedures set forth in subdivision (b) if the person has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person [for inclusion] and there is otherwise no legal bases for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile.
(b)Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense, and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:
(c)(1)The person requesting the data bank entry to be expunged must send a copy of his or her request to the trial court of the county where the arrest occured, or that entered the conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the [lab], and to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition or writ.
Emphasis mine. So even if you jump through the damn complicated hoops, a judge can just say "No" and you are done--it's there for good. That's some great law, California! As for the earlier poster that thinks this is OK because we leave DNA everywhere anyway, like Gattaca--that movie did not represent this situation as a GOOD THING. It was a dystopian vision, not something to begrudgingly accept.
blarg.
Once you surrender a DNA sample to the state, it becomes property of the state. End of story.
The only solution is not to surrender your DNA.
(one day GATTACA will be considered a documentary)
and if your dog was in a pemanent vegatative state you could have it put to sleep animal comparisons dont work
As we have all seen information is a commodity that is traded and sold and in some cases stolen to be used in the financial system. This information could be your credit report or medical history. Most of us know about how certain diseases can be detected in DNA. Imagine if your DNA was sampled in a investigation today and 10 years from now you applied for life insurance but was denied due to evidence that you are succeptable to parkinsons or some other genetic disease.
Kinda reminds me of that one movie where the guy could not go into space or something becuase he was not genetically perfect.
If they have genes that indicate a likely aggressive personality, we can convict them even before they're perform the evil act.
Smithers: Uh, Sir? Phrenology was dismissed as quackery 160 years ago.
Burns: Of course you'd say that...you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!
Because the Wichita police department were collectively shitting their pants at not being able to catch BTK. If you lived within a 10 block radius of any site where there was a BTK murder or information drop, you pretty much got swabbed.
Of course that's hyperbole, but it was almost that bad. They swabbed something like over 1000 people. It was ridiculous.
In a country where the federal government has been concentrating power in the capital, I can't see where she gets such bizarre ideas.
I picture innocent's DNA filed next to Arlo Gutherie's fingerprints.
(Those who don't get the reference, search for "we don't like your kind" here.)
Just as our elected "public servants" have come to look at us as their subjects, so has our police community come to view anyone not in their group as a "perp". I can't say this is the fault of those who join the LE career community but would rather aver that is comes from our country adopting a "culture of fear" beginning at the end of WWII and continuing to this day.
In this world, if you are not a member of the ruling elite, you are guilty if the thugs in blue accuse you of a crime. You have no right to a trial, no right to bail, and no right to even hear the charges against you. Yes, that's right. Bush has imprisoned thousands of citizens, and according to the Patriot Act, he does not have to tell them why he had them arrested. You are not allowed to defend yourself.
Never forget how much Bush hates you.
90 % of dust is from human skin. You only need the contents of an office vacuum cleaner. Shake it with water and spray it over the scene. Voila.
A couple PDFs that some will find useful...
h tm
The FBI's DNA & Databasing Initiatives
CODIS Brochure
Source page...http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/brochures.
What I see as the problem here is that rather jives well with how insurance companies function. I'm sure they'd love nothing more than to gain access to your DNA to test whether you had a higher probability of heart disease.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
why do people choose safety over life, liberty and freedom?
How can you truly live your life when you are constantly concerned with physical safety and fear of death?
What a silly question.
While the implications of having DNA on file could allow for some bad things (though I can't think of anything that don't have a similar fingerprint scenario,) I would have to say they should keep it.
Two main reasons:
1) Though this guy didn't do anything now, what's the guarentee that he won't do anything later? I'm not saying he will, but you never know.
2) If he dies some horrible death and other methods of identification (teeth, fingerprints, wallet) are useless, having his DNA on file for comparison will make sure that the family has closure.
Yes, yes, if the government has your DNA on file all sorts of horrible things could happen, people could find out medical conditions, futuristic companies could get their hands on it and clone you if they believe you died, but it was really your friend who said he was you so that you could do shopping for your little girl, creating two of you and a plot device at the same time, etc.
However, unless I'm missing some things (and I am running on a lack of sleep,) the need for tinfoil is mostly misplaced.
And if you had a doctor who would put consenting adults to rest, your government servants would put him in prison to protect you from him.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What happens if mass testing becomes "routine" throughout the US? The fair and proper terms for the disposal of DNA samples of vindicated people is going to become a big, big thing. And please, don't give me "if you're innocent you have nothing to fear". DNA evidence can easily be altered or corrupted within the first few hours of collection. Especially if you have a sample already in hand. A very uncommon thing today but who can say about tomorrow.
We all know the answer to these questions:
Will the DNA sample of a vindicated person be disposed of after the trial, after all appeals or never? Never
Will the refusal to voluntarily give a DNA sample subject you to further scrutiny than a similar person who willingly submits? Yes
Will employers someday within the next ten years require a DNA sample for employment, similar to how most major retail chains require a test for legel and illegal drug use (Like Wal-Mart or Home Depot)? Yes
Will the US Congress do anything to protect the rights of the individual into this intrusion into one's privacy? No
Welcome to the New Amerika. Please leave your quaint notions of personal freedom at the border.
Here and Now : Truro DNA Case - 1/12/2005
Boston.com / News / Local / DNA testing troubles some in Truro
CBS News ACLU Slams Mass DNA Collection
USATODAY.com - ACLU seeks end to Mass. DNA collections
Cape Cod Times article: "New England town abuzz over DNA dragnet"
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Hiding your identity is not a legal way to protect from self incrimination.
Otherwise we could all cover our faces in drivers license photos too.
The protection against self incrimination means if you are asked something and cannot answer it without harming yourself, you are not obligated to lie. You can simply take the 5th.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
If we can predict suceptability to disease, we can advise people to make lifestyle changes before the disease advances to a non-treatable stage.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
People can scream about the threat of a police state all they want, but the police state is already here. Where was the tinfoil hat crowd when they were collecting fingerprints, taking my picture, installing cameras everywhere, giving me a number, and assigning to me a color coded threat level? It's going to take a lot more than just sitting on our asses and bitching amongst ourselves if we want to effect a positive change in our government. However, I'm not going to hold my breath, either as the public these days are sheep, eager to be spoonfed the right wing neocon bullshit from our 'Great Leader'. (sarcasm) And don't even get me started with Congress and how they stuck their business where it doesn't belong in the Terri Schivo matter, either.
Rant done.
You're leaving your DNA all over the place all the time, so unless you have taken extraordinary measures to prevent, for example, shedding your skin cells, then you don't have a reasonable expectation of this information really remaining private. (Just as you don't have a reasonable expectation of images of you walking around in a public place, to remain private.)
If you make it so that DNA evidence must "time out" and get purged, then make it apply to all forms of evidence (fingerprints, photos of your house, testimony, etc). The real issue here isn't DNA; it's that we don't want a police state, and we don't want to live with the weird feeling that we're always being watched by a Big Brother with a Big Memory. That is not conducive with happiness, and if we don't get to be happy, then we might as well not have any law enforcement or government at all. So if you decide to eliminate no-longer-relevant evidence from records, then don't do it half-assed -- solve the general case.
(Or, likewise, if you decide that long-term evidence collections are just too valuable for protecting us from crime, then don't be half-assed about that, either. Having different rules for different types of evidence, will just give criminals a way to game the system.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
... technically there is no 'Innocent' status under, at least, U.S. law. There is only 'Not Guilty', which is quite different.
---
WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.
I live in California, and the law actually contains a provision whereby persons accused of a felony but aquitted can have their DNA samples removed from the database.
You have to make the request in writing, though. It doesn't happen automatically if you are aquitted.
The article submission posits a lot of negativity over the police having your DNA on file but utterly fails to mention why this is a bad thing. It's like the submitter takes it as a given that it is pure evil without even thinking about it at all.
Unless you believe that police are going to start planting evidece in every unsolved case, having our DNA on file with them would more than likely have the benefit of being EXCLUDED from suspiciion without even having to go though the ugliness of becoming a suspect in the first place.
In Ca they already have every single licensed driver's finger print on file. Where's the outrage with that? They could easily fake up evidence based on that as well.
The only real thing that is likely to come out of this is that the ratio of criminals to innocents that will sit in future jail cells may improve a bit from what we have today.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Gattaca
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
if the CA law doesn't get shot down by the supreme court as unreasonable search and seizure, i'm out of the USA. Fuckkit, enough of honesty and morals, if it's within the realm of 'can't make a case' and there's money in it, it's gonna be OK. I'm tired of trying to make an honest living an getting repeatedly FUCKED on technicalities. It'll be time to use the letter of the law and $ rather than the spirit to FUCK ALL Y'ALL if I can get away with it. FUCKING ASSHOLES.
You know aI never liked CA anyway. Fucking CA people will smile and nod hello and when your back is turned carve your heart out from behind. California people SUCK THE BIG DICK. Fucking CA ASSHOLES. If you're from CA and reading this, BITE ME you fucking motherfucking father dick sucking sister raping smiling all the while pretending to be a Southerner ASSHOLEs. BURN IN HELL!
have killed people with them. No one else has.
I think you mean "not yet proven guilty"
create Jurassic Park.
I just don't get the concerns about this issue. Personally I think DNA samples should be collected from every baby born and entered into a national database. This would have an incredible benefit for law enforcement. I'd volunteer my DNA for it, for I don't plan on doing anything illegal.
Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
"What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?" Some corporation will copyright it. You won't own yourself anymore.
in the Baton Rouge Serial Killer case. Out of more than ten thousand tips, about 14 were about me. This is because I'm a usenet troll and death metal drummer/lyricist.
I just hope they don't use it against me in the future...
BeDoper - We're not just about BeOS anymore.
Allowing medical marijuana in California, legalizing assisted suicide in Oregon, or voting not to enforce the Patriot Act in Utah would be good examples that fall on the other side of the political fence (though that last one was decided by a Republican state body, IIRC).
Interesting thing to note, though -- every one of those was under legal contention, last I heard, and it's not clear at least for the last two which way it will go. States rights is still a contender.
As far as how the parties support it, I think what it really comes down to is a consolation prize for the party that isn't in power in the legislative branch -- that's why it was a Republican issue for a long time and has recently tilted more towards the Democrats. That's probably also what has kept it significant long after most of us felt much more loyalty towards our country than our state -- there's always *someone* who has an interest in keeping states rights around.
I'd like to state some facts based on some... missleading things I've read here.
1st Just so everyone is clear, the national DNA database contains only CONVICTED criminal's DNA. States decide on their own to keep a suspect's DNA list and this is not provided on a national level.
2nd The only GENETIC information kept in the database is a simple identity test (for comparison). This is no different than having your finger-print on file. All other Genetic information is discarded from the database.
If they wanted to discover any other information on a person on file those tests would have to be uncovered in subsequent testing; which assumes the genetic sample is still kept in the vault and is still good (this is unlikely).
3rd All eye witness testimonys are suspect, not just little old ladies. Years of research has proven it. Meanwhile, DNA has helped the wrongly convicted go free. Would you rather convict someone of murder based on what some faulty human remmembers or on proof (through DNA) that they were at the scene.
4th Just being at the scene through DNA does not convict you. It's still circumstantial. However any DNA expert will be happy to complain about how the police are getting lazy and expecting the DNA experts to do all the work. This is a dangerous road, but the person must still be convicted in a court of law.
Shick's Law: There is no problem a good miracle can't solve.
This would make a great Sci-Fi plot. The human race is wiped out and needs to be replaced, but the only DNA on record is that in criminal databases. The story could go many places from there.
greetings earthlings
What's the worst thing that would happen?
They'll freeze it until they need to frame the person for something else, go wipe it on the crime scene, find it, and bang.
I really don't see what the problem here is. I might just send the FBI my DNA just so that if they need it later they wouldn't need to bother me for it. My DNA is not some secret I have to keep from people, especially not the government. It's just a molecule, one that's just happens to be unique to me.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Since I am not planning on commiting a crime why should I care if they have my DNA? The argument that lab mistakes could result in a false arrest seems silly to me. How could this happen? They computerize the DNA analysis once and them compare the numbers with the new sample. Unless I don't understand the process it seems there is no way for contamination to occur. The only other valid reason if you are planning on commiting a crime. Anything else is just being hysterical.
All you need is someone doing data entry for eight hours a day getting your DNA profile on the Friday before their vacation to end your life courtesy of the government.
Worse, information systems can have problems that are crippling. All it takes is one small flaw in the database or the server or client software to disappear someone.
A project of this scale can never be error free and when it comes to my DNA, my privacy, and my freedom, an error is too many.
It should be law that everyone has their DNA recorded into a database, criminally convicted or not. Along with fingerprints and footprints.
And it should be guaranteed by law that one owns ones DNA and that ownership cannot be forfeited, rented, sold, or turned over to another person or entity, no matter what the circumstances are.
I live in Wichita, and I have an uncle that was actually a better match to BTK than Dennis Raider. He graduated from the same university 2 years earlier, lived closer to the railroad tracks, and goes by the name Buk. Buk is only one letter off from btk, btw.
The police came to his house. His wife opened the door. The police asked if they could have a swab of his DNA. He didn't resist, and the police were very polite through the whole ordeal.
Now, in this case there was no police brutality, no coersion, no force, etc. Just a simple "may we get a swab of your DNA". My uncle had the right to say no, but obviously the police would have held him under the microscope.
There are really two separate issues in play here.
First, do the police have a right to request DNA evidense from a potentical suspect. I believe they do have the right to ask. I also believe the fifth ammendment gives the right to not incriminate yourself, so you do have the right to say no. The police will still consider you a suspect, but that's the way the law works.
Second, (and more importantly) once the police have cleared your name, does the DNA evidense get thrown away or warehoused? Everything said in the local papers and news has been that the evidense will get thrown away, but it would be nice to have some confirmation of that fact. I'll tell you that if the evidense doesn't get thrown away, the DA is going to get an ear-full from some 1300 of our swabbed citizens.
Side note, I actually have a family member that works at the prision where Dennis is being held. He said that Dennis didn't like the food. <g>
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
I have to admit I winced a little when I had to give my fingerprints to get a certain license.
I wonder how many of these concerns were raised when photography became reasonably common - i.e. the "average joe" could afford a camera and processing.
The only adverse use I've seen of this kind of data was an innocent guy that was identified, in a front-page photograph (snapped by an ATM) as a murder suspect.
Turned out the tech had mis-counted frames by one, and the guy on the front page of the paper was a cabbie who stopped to take out a few bucks. It was cleared up quickly and the police apologized profusely and publicly - though I'm sure he lost a few nights of sleep over it. (there was also some financial settlement from either the bank or the PD, but I don't recall the details on it)
everyone will be guilty of breaking one inane law or another. It is just a matter of time. They need that DNA sample in order to know who to convict later. It's for your own good.
look it up, its not an entire genome. it's a set of markers for tetrameric repeating sequences (aka short tandem repeats or STR). look it up (try the one of the NIH sites or a human genetics text).
Why not just advise all people to make lifestyle changes to reduce suceptability to disease.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
what purpose does a .50 cal have in civilian life? it would tear any game animal to shreds, leaving very little left for food or trophy. It is to cumbersome to use for home defense. about the only thing it is good for is military use. which i suppose is the only purpose. hmm. same with fully automatic rifles. i never understood why civilians would be allowed to purchase those.
DNA shows high strength, agility, good swimmer. . .
Good Swimmer? My DNA swims like a champ! It also whitens teeth, is low in calories and tastes like chocolate ladies.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
And apologies for the multitude of atrocious spelling errors. I even previewed. I guess I picked a bad week to quit taking amphetamines.
To a certain part of the criminal justice system, there are no innocent people... merely people for whom it has not yet been established what they are guilty of.
I wish I was joking.
It's going to be a close race between the UK and the US as to which becomes the full police state earlier!
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
I'm just wondering, how many of the people that find the government's keeping DNA is "ominous" also feel that gun control is a good thing?
I also wonder how many people who have a gun feel that the government keeping DNA is ominous?
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
You can't presume that since any a few trials may or may not have relied on DNA evidence that all cases in the future will use DNA evidence solely to convict someone. Think about this...fingerprinting is currently used as a way to positively identify someone's presence at a (crime) scene. I haven't seen one post in this thread decrying the use of fingerprinting as an investigation method. Fingerprint analysis has led to the solution of thousands of crimes, yet nobody here has objected to the FBI database of fingerprints nor has anyone called for its destruction. DNA analysis (as presented here) is being used as an identification method. Make up your minds people, if you are against a DNA database for possible identification of criminals, then you should be against fingerprinting as well. Conversely, if you can accept fingerprinting, then why do you object to DNA?
Finger-prints were ok, as your average Joe could see for himself that one set matched another, and that no special equipment was really needed (except perhaps a eye-glass). We assume that the prediction about "no two people have the same fingerprint" as being correct, as it seems to make sense.
But there is no way a Jury of average people would be able to 'understand or produce the information from a sample of DNA required to match it with another' by their loansome. I feel a little worried about this, as the information is given on trust of the reporter of the information. Evidence doesn't lie but people do.
Unwillingness to provide a DNA can actually increase the suspicions against you.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Isn't it annoying when people start a comment in
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
...read my sig. Turn the RIAA away from the dark side.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
the court hearing is said to be held in 1st april?
Your analysis is great! It reminded me of The Shawshank Redemption, although it's fictional.
***BEGIN SPOILER SPACE***
Andy Dufresne was convicted for murder because they found a motive and many other evidence that points out the fact that he had a similar gun and was near the location during the murder. However, for those that have watched the movie, he had a valid reason for everything, but it just wasn't as believable as him killing his own wife. After years in jail, the real truth comes out, but it's too late now.
***END SPOILER SPACE***
I really like your analysis on the fact that the law and order is merely a way for the government to give us a sense of security. of course, we hope that the people convicted are truly guilty for what they're convicted for, but with many people claiming not guilty, it becomes really hard to tell. Then there's the cases where we know the defendant is definitely guilty, but we just don't have enough evidence and have to let him walk.
But I'm curious. how do you suppose the justice system can improve. Judge by peers I learnt was an Scandinavian idea where the peers (well, only men back then) were the ones who decided if you were guilty or not and you had a chance to defend in front of everyone once a year. and during this time, all the cases collected year long will be decided. However, if the person doesn't like the decision, he's able to choose to fight and all his friends/relatives will fight the plantiff's friends/relatives and the winner of course gets to decide on the decisoin. The coolest part about their laws was the "eye for an eye". if you killed someone in family X, the people from X are legally allowed to kill someone from your family.
I sidetracked there for a moment, but jury system is good, but how does one make it better without impeding on the people's freedom and anonymity.
HD Trailers
We did. They didn't.
A while back I saw an article in a reputable German science magazine where they calculated the probablity of false positives. I cannot remember the actual numbers, but there was something like 6 predicted matches in a city of 1 million. Maybe someone has the real numbers, but it was suprisingly high. I see this is a huge potential for misuse if used to find suspects. Especially in light of how they would turn the probablilies around saying stuff like there's only a 1 in 50,000 chance this isn't the guy when it is really more like 5 out of 6.
Some similar bullshit happened to me once. Two police officers came to my place of work because someone had called "CrimeWatch" (UK show about crimes) to say I looked like the photo-fit for a particular case (Rape, nice). So after a few preliminary questions they insisted I undertake a DNA swabbing, either there at my workplace or back at the station. I chose the easy route and had it done there.
So, first of all its quite annoying to think someone who knows me that well to report me to the cops as a suspect, but then having them turn up at the workplace, swabs in-hand, takes the biscuit!
8 MONTHS LATER, I finally get a letter from the police saying "Thanks for helping us with our enquiries, you have been removed as a suspect". No mention about destroying my DNA evidence, nothing. I bet its still on computer somewhere. Corrupt.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
The same arguments for and against storing fingerprints were put forth when the state and federal governments began to store them. Now it is accepted as part of life. The technology certainly exists to fake someone's fingerprints from a file copy and present it as evidence, yet this does not happen, at least not that we know of...
The question boils down to "Is the storing of DNA a further reduction of my personal freedom?" I feel the answer is yes, but not in a substantial way.
When you consider the info that is tracked on you, then you realize that there is nothing that is not available now. Tax forms, credit applications, credit/debit card purchases, payroll/hr info, auto tags, drivers license, concealed weapons permits, passport, insurance questionaires, etc., you soon realize that if the government wants to know all about you they will.
There is no privacy. You eat government approved food, drink approved water, drive approved cars, live in approved houses, brush your teeth with approved toothpaste, work in approved environments, wear approved clothes (fire retardence, etc.), see rated movies, go to licensed professionals, and on and on and on...
If they chose to they could tell you what you eat, where you go, who you are with, how often you have sex, what your preferences are in paint colors, clothing, autos, and just about everything else.
This is called "Your Tax Dollars At Work".
Adding your DNA to the list of things that they know about you will just give them a common identifier for all these other things...rather than using your name on the file, it will have your DNA imprint.
When you really see how you are controlled, very like a rat in a cage, you will see that this is just the next step.
Someone once said that the illusion of freedom is more important than freedom itself. So you are told you can vote, and move from one state to another, and all of these things...but is that freedom, or the illusion of freedom in a controlled society...sorry if I am a little off topic...one of my pet peeves!
In the spirit of software patents, can't we just copyright our DNA, thereby preventing unauthorized copying (such as is needed to provide enough of the stuff for a match).
Or are enforcers above the law in your country, too?
In the UK, police can already take a DNA sample if you're arrested for any crime (even if you're not charged, let alone convicted). Samples are kept indefinitely and added to the national DNA database, which could be sold to private companies or cross-referenced with the National Identity Register to find out the subject's current name and address.
This happened to me. During the Baton Rouge serial killer investigations, when they thought the killer was a white guiy, I was targeted and tested to eliminate me as a possible suspect. The cops were really very nice about it and so far as I know, I haven't been cloned, so what's the big deal?
My DNA is already on record. My father works for the State Dept., and they have my DNA on file for posthumous identification in case of a terrorist attack, although I'm sure they could do whatever they want to with it.
Out of Cheese Error:
Please reboot universe
It was my evil twin, I tell you!
All DNA samples are retained indefinitely. Even if you willingly provide a DNA sample and are found innocent you do not have the right to ask for your DNA to be deleted. The police are also authorised to take samples without your permission.
Airstrip One - over and out.
Mike.
Okay, so the police will have a new kind of "fingerprint" to keep track of. What of it? They already routinely fingerprint suspects, as well as gathering suspect fingerprints (and bodily fluids) from unpriveledged sources ("Oh, let me take care of that empty soda can for you.", "We found it in the trash which was out at the curb.").
The kind of detailed data which will show, say, a predisposition to cancer or heart disease might be useful to an unscrupulous insurance company, but the P.D. won't have that -- just the results of electrophoresis. They can prove that it's HIS/HER DNA, but whether or not he/she carries Tay-Sachs disease, well . . . you'll need another DNA sample and a vastly more detailed (and more specific and more expensive) test for that.
Putting my tinfoil hat back on now . . .
Oh, my God, what have I said?
Make use of the draconian copyright protections you guys have over there. His parents should sue the state for copyright infringement ;-)
;-)
Hell, you might even use several provisions of the DMCA, because DNA is digital information after all.
What? you're reverse-engineering our 'leet basepair encoding? Off to jail with you! (well, it worked for Sklyrarov, right?)
Of course, if his parents died a long time ago, his DNA might be out of copyright and in the public domain, but of course, thanks to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act there's no way such a thing can happen anymore.
Sometime in the past year in Toronto, a young girl went missing on her way home from school.
Toronto police responded by going door-to-door at every house along her usual route, and demanding DNA swabs from every male over the age of puberty.
Note that this took place before there was any confirmation that a crime had been committed, let alone any DNA evidence to compare these swabs to.
Those who refused were told that because they apparently have something to hide, they would be taken down to the station and detained for further questioning.
You cna be sure that those DNA records remain in the police database, despite the fact that none has been linked to any criminal activity
What most people don't grasp is that the police aren't compelled to act in your best interest. It's not up to them to protect your rights (that's the courts' responsibility), and often, doing so would be the complete opposite of their intent.
(1) As someone who, many years ago, regularly cheated on his girlfriends, I can say that using death is a great way to get out of a sticky situation. No one is going to fuck with "I have to be at a funeral so I can't go to your best friend's birthday party" or "I'm sorry I haven't had any time for you lately but my $relative is in the hospital and only has a month or so left to live and I am spending a lot of time visiting," etc.
It's also a great excuse for his refusal to commit to this other woman. My cousin's fiancee died in a plane crash 15 years ago. She hasn't had a stable relationship since then and has only flown a few times since then (and doing that required some serious drugs).
You get the idea. Death is a great cover for getting someone to back off. I feel guilty as hell now for using an actual dying and now dead family member as an excuse to keep together an impossible web of lies, but that is another story.
(2) Renting a car for long trips is not a strange thing to do. My wife (no, I have never cheated on my wife, btw) used to have to make a weekly drive to a city that is 100mi from our house and she regularly rented a car for the trip so she didn't put so many miles on her car. Many people rent sports cars for the weekend for fun. There are 100 reasons to rent a car when you already own one. Maybe he lent his truck to someone. Maybe he was trying to sell it. Maybe he just had it cleaned. Maybe he finds his truck to be uncomfortable to sit in for long stretches of time and prefers a car.
All I know for certain is that renting a car when you already own one most certainly does not make a person a murderer.
(3) If my wife were to suddenly disappear, to say that I would experience grief would be a monumentous understatement. You can't fault a man for grieving over his wife's disappearance.
I have not heard anything to make me certain beyond a reasonable doubt Scott killed Laci. If I were on that jury and this was all the evidence that I was given, I would have hung that jury from here to Kalamazoo.
I mean, really, motive plus circumstantial evidence is now proof beyond resonable doubt? I think not. That is way too easy. Are you trying to tell me that if my wife was murdered, all that would be needed to convict me would be motive (we have a $150,000 life insurance policy on each of us) plus a lack of an airtight alibi? I would not want to live in such a society.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Wrong! It is illegal for a non-government agency to ask for your SSN. There is no legal ambiguity here, it is clearly spelled out in law, you are 100% wrong.
If they were innocent, they wouldn't have DNA.
That's what original sin is all about! Sheesh!
Besides, if you were innocent, you would want
the government to know everything about you, to
help stop the evil warmong...terrorists.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
"State officials insist, however, that even with the questions surrounding Gilchrist, there is no chance anyone was wrongfully put to death."
Funny how they know the answers before they've asked the questions. "Trust us, we're with the government, we can do no wrong."
Welcome to Amazon.Com! According to your DNA sample on file, the following list of items should meet your approval:
Knight37 - Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer
All the 'billions to one chance' likelihoods of there being a DNA match which you read about assume a random distribution, but that's never really been proven, and (to put it delicately) in some closed groups (small communities, racial enclaves) the variety is likely to be significantly less than that.
Now, as long as the DNA is used as an additional proof on top of other evidence, it doesn't matter so much, but when the police work backwards from the DNA database to the suspect - as they will if they can - there will be ample scope for wrongful conviction.
Imagine a car park containing 210 million white cars (representing the population) and three red cars (representing DNA matches to a sample). If you pick up a car because you have evidence that it might be the one you want, and it turns out actually to be a red car, the probability's 70M:1 it's the one you're after.
But if you already know about one of the red cars, and you just select it with no other evidence, the probability's 1:3 that you've got the right one.
The problem we don't know how many red cars there might be. The only way to find out would be to DNA finger print the whole population.
And for all you know, you might have an identical twin out there committing all sorts of unpleasantries; how would you get out of that?
Banks are being increasingly required to "know your customer", including getting photo id and collecting SSNs. Just about any business that pays you money needs to collect an SSN - it used to be possible to get a non-interest-bearing checking account without one, but I don't think you can do that any more in the US, at least not at a regular bank.
And yes, it's police-state stuff, quite deliberately.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Hey, if you don't like it, fight it and if you don't want to fight it, leave it. Maybe there is some utopian society out there that conforms to your pipe-dream of the way a governed society should live.
Here is a good plan: live a good life, help your fellow man, don't commit a felony, keep your nose clean and never give up a DNA sample without a fight. And just in case you haven't seen an episode of CSI or watched the movie GATTACA, your DNA is everywhere, if someone wants it, they can get it.
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
eh thats all just the subject...
.....
oh no wait
The jail is full of innocent people, just ask them.
and
Everyones guilty, we just have to figure out for what.
"He's a real midnight golfer"
In the most general case, the PCR amp technique is used with a handful of standard probes, and run through several iterations. This creates duplicates of some whatever sections of your DNA are located between those probes. So, the lab has a beaker full of chunks of DNA, split at known sequences, but not representing specific genes. They then run this on a gel,(along with a standard set of control fragments), and print the result.
Generally, only about 50-100 bands are produced on the gel, which is nothing like a complete map of your genetic makeup. This is exactly like a one-way hash in computers. There's no way to take the handful of bands on a gel, and reconstruct the original DNA, any more than you can use and RSA hash to reconstruct the original file. Also, DNA fingerprints are succeptable to collisions, just like hashes, and (again like hashes), increasing the size of the fingerprint (or adjusting it to probe areas of high genetic variability) decreases the probability of collisions, but increases the cost and time required for analysis (as well as the amount of starting material required). As a result, most DNA libraries are pretty low-resolution.
Most "standard" DNA-fingerprint methods give a probability of one in a couple million, which is hardly diagnostic (in most large cities, there are probably two or three other individuals who would produce the same genetic fingerprint as you, using a simple test).
I'm not saying there isn't potential for misuse/abuse of DNA fingerprints, but it's not the same as if they were extracting a full DNA sequence.
I think we're going to have to change the national anthem. The "Land of the free and home of the brave" line is obsolete now and getting worse. The "home of the brave" part still applies but the "land of the free" has been a misnomer for a long time.
The military has always, since the introduction of the technology to search data either manually or electronically, taken and stored fingerprints that have since ended up in the NCIC (National Crime Information Center). DNA is identification and won't be any different.
This debate seems pretty simple to me. If your genitic coding isn't private, nothing is. If your government has access to your very basic cellular composition you have no "expectation of privacy" in anything.
If you're arrested for ANYTHING it goes in a database. If you're exonerated for ANY reason, that database may or may not show the fact. Even if it does reflect the fact that you were exonerated, pardoned, etc. the presence of that data is sufficient to heighten suspicion and justify further prying into your life. After all, you were arrested by people that don't make mistakes and you were probably guilty and "beat the system".
This isn't a partisan political problem. The left wants your DNA, fingerprints, credit history, etc to "help" you and the right wants the same to "catch" you. The reasons can be juxtaposed arbitrarily depending on who wants to do what to you.
We in America have become a society of fear. There is virtually no one that doesn't have some kind of record. Those without any negative record at all fear any mistake that will remove that status and precipitate a fall from grace. Identity theft means that is in no way under their control. Those with a negative record of any kind know that they'll never again have full status (they "might" be a suspect at any time) no matter what the disposition of their situation. Those who have done something truly wrong know that redemption is impossible under any circumstances. In ALL cases everyone has to fear errors and omissions in the system. George Orwell got it all wrong, Big Brother isn't watching you, he doesn't need to. All Big Brother needs to do is lodge a request with ChoicePoint or similar and you're stuck with the results. ChoicePoint and similar probably won't have direct access to DNA samples, that would make them responsible for their data. They'll just have the results and speculations, erroneous or not.
If your DNA isn't in that particular database, hey look! Your neighbor of 30 years ago IS even though you never lived within 500 miles of that address, so now you're "suspicious". You might have conspired with that non-neighbor and just didn't turn up in the investigation.
It's not just the DNA issue, it's the whole system of prying into, warehousing, and data-mining our lives. The DNA issue is just another brick in the wall, granted that it's a BIG brick. Unfortunately it's going to take the equivalent of a September 11th to wake people up to this problem.
How many people even knew of ChoicePoint and similar before they got scammed and were forced by law to take action? How many people follow current events enough now to know anything about ChoicePoint et.al.? How many people will know if that kind of organization is referencing DNA records? How many times are you in databases that you don't have any awareness of? How accurate are those databases?
Further down in this post some folks mention that the vast tendency is to go after the easiest suspect to convict, disregarding the truth for convience. Keeping DNA records from innocent people will make that even more likely. "We found the suspect's DNA on a cigarette butt {chewing gum, envelope, booger, etc.} near the crime scene, this proves guilt". If everyone has a DNA record there is ALWAYS going to be SOMEONES DNA near a crime scene, depending on how "near" is defined. Your DNA falls off of you constantly in skin exfoliation, hair, etc.
DA Nola Foulston and ilk are part of the pro
What will we do with innocent people's DNA?
CREATE A RACE OF INHUMAN MONSTERS TO CONQUER THE UNIVERSE!
Stupid lameness filter: Oh, I wanna be an oscar meyer weiner, that is what I really wanna be, cause if I were a genetically-modified weiner, the biker chicks would compete to deep-throat me. Is that enough lower case now? Ah, good.
The guy could always sue them for copyright infringement. I would think it would be pretty obvious that he was the first one to produce his genetic code. For once RIAA's lobbying might actually be a good thing. Then again, the government could just start putting our DNA on to P2P networks. You could never stop it then....
It seems that in recent times California is becoming less free than most redneck utopias.
It's not supposed to be that way.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I think it's the future. Any scifi program, like star trek, has everyone's dna on file when they investigated crimes. It also helped with identifying the deceased when no one comes to claim the body. Also there are numerous crimes where they collect dna evidence but they don't have a match to the current database at hand because the person that likely did it, never had a criminal record nor was a suspect in another crime where their dna sample was collected to clear them as a suspect. People's dna can be added if they were a suspect in a previous crime, even if they were cleared of it, the dna is still kept. Now the only thing we gotta worry about is if a dna sample gets messed up and wrongly identifies someone in a crime. My opinion, it is a good thing to have everyone's dna on file. Same thing with thumb prints. Just make sure measures are put in check to make sure nothing can get messed up. Having multiple databases would help.
My Gawd WTF...