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?"

Comments

Nothing to Fear

[ackthpt]

DA Nola Foulston said, 'I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.'

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.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[pizzaman100]

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.

Ok, I'll bite. States rights are non existent, and have been for some. Just last week the SC ruled that it's illegal for any state in the union to put to death a 17 year old who commits multiple premeditated murders. Try to have your state lower the drinking age to 19, or opt out of Social Security, or pass a law against abortion or (insert idea here). This cuts both ways politically. But unfortunately the different party wings only howl when it comes to an issue that they care about. The rest of the time they have no problem with the Feds imposing their will.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[BWJones]

You should also know that every individual that serves in the armed forces is required to submit a blood sample for DNA isolation and data warehousing. Of course these databases are supposed to be used principally for identification of remains, there are other more insidious plans that some individuals have proposed and acted upon with these data. i.e. using the data to test database systems and index them to criminal records. The problem of course like I have said before is that once these databases are created, it is very difficult to put the djinni back in the bottle. People will access them and include them in other projects.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[ReverendLoki]

I agree that in this instance, you should indeed come forward - however, I believe that as a matter of ethical principle, which I hold myself alone up to, noone else. I also feel that a person has his own right to privacy, and to protect him/herself against possible false accusation, and if that person in that situation doesn't want to volunteer info or DNA, that's his choice - though I feel it makes him a crap excuse for a human. And unfortunately, i can understand why one might - fear that they will then become the immediate suspect and taken to court on whatever circumstantial evidence available with the eyewitness testimony of a little old lady with glaucoma in her one good eye who just knows that you were the one that did it.

Of course, don't be surprised if the police find enough reason to get a warrant for your DNA and it happens anyways.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally vote Democrat but in this case I agree with you. The husband has a clear conflict of interest in this case. Furthermore, Terri has nothing in writing stating her wishes.

The *default* should be to take care of such a person unless proof is shown that she wanted to die.

I've seen interviews with Michael Schiavo and the guy is, for lack of a better word, slimy. He seems to have no sympathy whatsoever for Terri, and I find it hard to believe that someone would work so hard to end another's life. Once her parents started the legal battle, any sane person would've said: "fine, I'm outta here". Divorce her and let her parents handle her care.

But he'd rather spend millions on lawyer fees to make sure her life ends. There's something very wrong about that.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[Zemran]

The problem has already arisen in that these databases are already becoming global. I no longer have the link but a man was arrested in England a couple of years ago for a crime commited in Italy. He was arrested because his DNA matched the DNA found at a crime scene. He had never left England in his life and did not have a passport. He had a big fight on his hands because we have already got to the stage were we assume that DNA is infalable when it is not. Just like fingerprints, we match so many points (16 with fingerprints) and eventually if the database becomes large enough you get duplicates. It is folly to say that no 2 are the same just that the probablity is high that we will not get 2 the same. The problem is caused by human error in that we match on a limited number of points and have such a large database.

If you were on a jury, would you convict on DNA evidence alone? I think most people would because of the media hype about how perfect the system is and we will get a lot of innocent people in prison with these databases.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[tha_mink]

I view DNA as evidence just as I do finger prints. It's not a privacy deal when you leave DNA everywhere you go. No too different from a photograph...it's not as private as you may think...

Re:Nothing to Fear

[jadavis]

I think that was his point...

The feds take a large amount of taxes from everyone already, so there's no hope of the states supporting their own road system.

Reduce it to the following situation and then recosider your statement:

The feds take the states' citizens' money.
The feds offer to give it back if they say "how high" when the feds say jump.

It's not like the state can say "OK, we'll pay you that much less in taxes then.". If Cali opts out, all the other states are basically just confiscating Californians' money.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[mankey wanker]

Listen, Scott Peterson could be guilty. All I was saying is that there is no hard evidence of that fact, none that I heard. Could he have done it? Sure. Did he do it? I don't know.

I wouldn't kill a man thinking there was any doubt as to his guilt.

BTW, I actually did not follow the case that closely. I don't care about stuff like that - it's all bread and circuses to me. What I never heard though was that there was anything like clear, compelling evidence that he was almost certainly the killer.

Wrap your head around the possibility that it's morally wrong to put a man under the death penalty just because there is a very strong suspicion that he is the killer. That's not enough - the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is Scott Peterson the murderer in question? I have reasonable doubts that make it impossible to arrive at that conclusion. YMMV.

The 12 people that matter found him guilty. But then they found all of those people that are now exonerated by DNA evidence guilty too.

I think it raises a lot of questions about our degree of certainty within our system of justice - don't you? I don't know if it still holds, but Illinois suspended carrying out death penalties until DNA evidence could make more headway into the legal system. What was happening was that we were putting to death mainly men of color with little to no evidence - and we now know that we were sometimes doing it wrongly, that we had the wrong men.

I would think that all people that care about TRUTH would be offended at that fact.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[mankey wanker]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chroni cle/archive/2004/11/13/EDG5Q9QOI61.DTL

"The verdict, let it be said, was well within reason. Circumstantial evidence plus motive justified the finding of guilt. The defense failed to knock down the charges against Peterson with fresh evidence."

See, that's what happened right there. The expectation - mainly because of the media frenzy - was that Peterson had to overcome a fundamental presumption of guilt. The exact opposite is supposed to happen, a presumption of innocence is supposed to be a substantial hurdle for the prosecution but in reality it operates as more of a mere dip in the road. Juries want to rubber stamp what the government claims; and more importantly they will follow the non verbal cues given to them by the judge. This is all pretty well documented.

People locally really wanted that Peterson guy to "Frey" - and that joke is all over the internet. Google it up and you will have a deeper understanding of what went down. I would even argue that there was an issue for the jurors to NOT find Peterson innocent. A lot of negative attention would have been heaped on any juror that wanted to find Peterson "not guilty." The social demands and pressure are overwhelming.

Re:Nothing to Fear

[tbannist]

Innocent isn't a part of the court system, the jury doesn't find him innocent of the crime, they find him "not guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)".

They are there to judge the quality of the state's case.

This will never fly

[John Seminal]

'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.

There is something called the 5th amendment, protection against self incrimination.

Here it is, in case people forgot:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:This will never fly

[xlr8ed]

Under your reasoning, fingerprints would be allowed either and they have been doing that for, what 50+ years

Re:This will never fly

[winkydink]

This obviously doesn't apply to having one'spicture taken and being fingerprinted as that happens to everybody who get arrested, felon or not.

How is DNA any different?

Re:This will never fly

[Mr. Slippery]

How is DNA any different?

When you take my photo or my fingerprints, you are not taking part of my flesh.

The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. It's that simple. You can pick up my dead skin flake or hair or whatever when it falls off me, but I will resist if you try to stick a swab or needle in me to take your milligram of flesh.

Re:This will never fly

[Tsiangkun]

I'll take a wild guess and say, In a word, contamination.

If I roll your hand in ink and blot it, I know whose ink I am looking at.

If I snap a photo, I know it's your photo.

If I don't clean my pipetteman and mix your DNA and someone elses . . .

you can't deny that your sample is glowing on the chip when probed with DNA recovered from the scene. It's not your DNA glowing, it's the contamination.

Who cares, this case is closed. Don't drop the soap.

Been doing it for awhile

[lecithin]

Usually just being arrested means that you will be fingerprinted and your picture taken.

Isn't this pretty much the same thing?

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[John Seminal]

Usually just being arrested means that you will be fingerprinted and your picture taken. Isn't this pretty much the same thing?

Here is the difference. If someone steals a database of fingerprints, what can they do with that? But if someone steals a database of DNA, and for example an insurance company gets it, can you gaurentee they won't have different rates just based on the genes you are born with. And what if they discover that gene X, Y, and Z found together cause a 25% increased chance the person with those genes will be a murderer. Do we want a society, where just being born with certain genes is enough to warrent government keeping tabs on that person? I know, I know, if it is for public saftey, it must be okay. Just like major cities are installing 1000's of camera's on streets to keep track of what is going on. And California banned the .50 caliber rifle, which has never been used in a crime that I can think of (although getting a handgun is easier and used in more crimes). It seems to me, that in an attempt to make society more "safe", we are making society more ripe for some dictator to take control. I know, I must be wearing a tin foil hat, because coup's have never happened. I for one completely trust people with power not to get corrupted, ever.

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[Florian Weimer]

Usually just being arrested means that you will be fingerprinted and your picture taken. Isn't this pretty much the same thing?

It depends. A regular DNA fingerprint doesn't really reveal anything about your genetic disposition, so it's not such a big problem. However, it's not clear if DNA fingerprinting is as resistant to collisions as it is generally perceived to be. It's fine if you match one sample against a few hundred suspects connected with the case; it's very unlikely that there is a false positive. But if you match thousands of samples a day against a database of millions of completely unrelated DNA fingerprinters, the odds of a false positive increase significantly.

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[Anonymous Coward]

In certain parts of North America, for instance, those of us with dark skin or certain "looks" are more readily suspected of crimes than others.

That's probably because there is a higher probability that you have actually commited the crime. Go figure, huh?

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the DNA they are taking can be used for that. Sequencing DNA is a long, expensive process. The standard samples are more like a fingerprint of the DNA, and work like a fingerprint in that they can tell one person from the next, and maybe male from female, but that's about it.

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[AK Marc]

I defy you to name one legitimate reason for a citizen to own a 0.50 caliber weapon.

Target practice. I defy you to name a single crime committed by a civilian with a legally owned .50 BMG rifle. Better yet, name any crime committed in the US with a .50 BMG rifle. If they are so dangerous, then someone must have used them.

Why don't we ban Ferraris? They are more car than you need. They are obviously designed only to break the law. You should have to prove legitimate uses of any products before you are allowed to buy them. Formula 409 is a little too toxic. It should be banned because a little scrubbing and lemon juce works just as well. Ban tartar control toothpaste because it doesn't do anything you can't accomplish with a little more brushing, and you obviously don't need all that power.

Oh, I am not now, nor ever will be a member of the NRA and I do not own a gun. I just think that both sides of the issue are populated with people that are nuts.

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't have an alibi then you'd be screwed.

Didn't appear to have happened that way in OJ's case.

fingerprints?

[Anonymous Coward]

what do they do about fingerprints right now? Fingerprints and DNA at least to the police seems very related.

Re:Fingerprints?

[idlake]

What exactly are people afraid of, that they can't commit a crime anymore and get away with it?

No, what they are afraid of is that they will show up as a false positive and then face charges based on "incontrovertible" DNA evidence.

In fact, what has come out in many legal cases so far is that handling and processing DNA by forensic labs often leaves a lot to be desired.

Why not one-way hash for DNA DB?

[DoctoRoR]

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...

Re:Why not one-way hash for DNA DB?

[Kiryat Malachi]

Some thoughts on this:

Good hashes are designed to exhibit an avalanche effect. Since most human's DNA is 99+% similar to each other's, the minor human-human changes should produce major hash-hash changes.

I am not a cryptographer; I have read Schneier's "Applied Crypto", and do have a lot of math background. That out of the way, my understanding of such things leads me to believe that it is easy enough to design a non-colliding one-way function. Since we're not really interested in the data-compressing property of hashing for this, but simply in the "verification without knowledge" that hashed values allow us, a 1:1 one-way function would suffice. Given a 1:1 one-way function, false positives don't exist.

Now, the problem with a 1:1 function is that you can create a reversal table that will provide provably correct outputs. Ways to get around this: salt, pseudorandom pads (essentially equivalent to salt, really), obscurity methods, etc. Also, the need to worry about this varies with how much DNA information you're storing - considering the estimated valuable lifetime of such information (lifespan of the owner plus a bit) we need to account for the likely improvement of computing in that timeframe. Which is likely to be significant. If we were hashing the *entire* DNA sequence from an individual, that might be enough information to be non-trivial even 200 years from now (an optimistic value-lifetime estimate). Or not. That'd remain a problem in such a setup.

But false positives aren't that big a deal, if you're thinking ahead.

Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

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?

Sadly, an appropriate quote

[Stiletto]

"To imagine the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face -- forever."

-George Orwell

Re:Sadly, an appropriate quote

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the past, too, at least back to the invention of the first organized religion and/or government.

Nothing, really.

[simetra]

If you're innocent, no problem.

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!

Re:Nothing, really.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I HATE people with this mentality. ...

This is what America has become. My Aunt is a professor in criminology and you would not beleive the mentality of her students. She is in shock over the mentality of our youth. The way our youth seems to have this nazi mentality of "If you didnt to anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

LIFE is not that simple. LIFE is complex. Put a camera on a street corner... catch someone running a red light. He must be guilty! What the camera did not pick up, is that the driver was blinded by the evening sunset and could not make out the light.

Things are not simple. Thats why we remind each other the Salem Witch trials. An individuals rights are to be protected because the MOB mentality of "if you didnt do anything, you're ok" is complete bullshit.

NO ONE EVER SAID being found guilty is a state of reality. An individual should have every tool to protect themselves and presumption of innocence. EVEN at the risk of allowing a criminal to slip through the cracks of justice. I would rather have a criminal get away with a crime than sent an innocent man to jail.

Re:Nothing, really.

[jimi the hippie]

It is a marker that, more than any other evidence, can correctly pick out the guilty from the innocent.
That is not true. Perhaps you were there before the perpetrator. You took off your hat and lost some hairs and dandruff then went about your business. The crimal comes along, does the crime keeping his hat on.
The only DNA there is yours and the victims. Guess who's getting their door knocked down by the cops....

DNA instead of passwords.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The DNA isn't the question here...

[the_skywise]

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.

Problem is matches aren't always exact

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

It's going to be a long time...

[Jack Johnson]

"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.

Re:It's going to be a long time...

[noidentity]

"If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about."

I'm not worried about possible crime I will commit against myself, it's crime that someone else will commit against me by misusing data the government has about me.

Re:It's going to be a long time...

[Kirth]

1943, a hare came to the swiss-german borders. The swiss customs-officer asked "well, why do you want the seek asylum in switzerland?" "Well, you see, Hitler started going after cangaroos", the hare replied. "Well, you're not a cangaroo, so you have nothing to worry about", the officer said. The hare: "Well, prove that to Hitler!"

Its a bit a stretch, but the bottom line is of course that you may have something to worry about even if you're innocent. Because your governement or your police officers might not be innocent..

Re:Mod me to hell and back...

[John Seminal]

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.

The police have pleanty of tools to solve crimes. They don't need any more. It comes down to one thing. Either we are a free and open society, or we become a police state. If we make the police so powerful, that the People can no longer fight back if the cause ever comes that they need to, what will we be? Will we be no more able to fight for our own freedom than Iraqi people could fight for theirs under a dictator? The reason we limit the power police have is the same reason we limit the power politicians have. It is to protect against the over ambitious, the Joseph McCarthy's of the world. The easier it is for a group to take control of a society, the more likely they will do so. All the police camera's in larger cities, put in place to fight "the war on terror" do nothing but track citizens, not terrorists. DNA is one more way of keeping tabs on people.

I have one question. How would history be different if DNA technology was avilable in the 1950's, and if all black people were forced to submit DNA. Then government decided to do more than just bug telephones and listen in. The possibilities for abuse are too great.

Innocent...UNTIL

[Ars-Fartsica]

The DNA of innocent people will almost certainly end up in the same database as the felons...maybe with a flag that this individual has not YET been charged with a crime...but being in the database itself will be something of a "lite" suspicious attribute.

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.

Re:Tin foil hat time...

[simetra]

They Are Us.

There's no big evil conspiracy. The people at the DMV who take your finger prints aren't snickering to themselves saying "Heh, heh, I have that bastard's prints! We own him now! We can frame him for the murder of OJ's wife!" They're thinking "Christ, is it Five yet?". They go to Home Depot on the weekend, they step in dog crap on occasion, they get paper cuts and hug their kids goodnight.

Paranoia mistakenly assumes a great deal of competence, cunning, and motive in the average worker.

No different from fingerprint info etc

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Why is it that people think that new technologies always mean new risks to rights? The issues dealing with keeping DNA records are surely no different to those for figerprints etc.

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.

Re:No different from fingerprint info etc

[ackthpt]

Why is it that people think that new technologies always mean new risks to rights? The issues dealing with keeping DNA records are surely no different to those for figerprints etc.

Oh, probably because of the devious ways government can try to accumulate such things, "for the common good". Also worth noting is the amount of energy with which they pursue such things. If there's a lot of power behind something you probably should be paying a lot more attention than usual.

Re:No different from fingerprint info etc

[ChrisMaple]

How's this?:

State accumulates DNA on all residents. Insurance company files FOI request and gets all the data, then refuses to issue health insurance for anyone they think might have a genetic predisposition for certain diseases. Since many now think that homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals are more likely to get AIDS, they might refuse to insure all persons whose DNA might imply homosexuality.

Re:No different from fingerprint info etc

[n.wegner]

>Likewise, files relating to another person regarding a
>matter the disclosure of which would invade that person's
>privacy ordinarily will not be disclosed ...
>Also due to the fees involved making such a wide request
>would be hideously expensive

What stops the insurance company from raising their signup fee to include the check, and raising the fees of people who do not submit to having the check made? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:No different from fingerprint info etc

[rastos1]

Why is it that people think that new technologies always mean new risks to rights?

I don't know. But ask Alfred Nobel.

Re:Too Many Worries To Be Effective

[John Seminal]

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

I don't want to be eliminated as a suspect. I want to be presumed innocent until a court convicts me.

Have you ever thought about the abuses in the system? Can you GAURENTEE there will never be abuses? What if our politicians pass laws making certain websites illegal, and people try and access them in an internet cafe. All the police would have to do is go through the internet cafe with a small vacum cleaner. What if abortion is overturned in the courts. Do we want the police swabbing the DNA off coat hangers? And what if I happen to have a combination of genes that is highly concentrated in prisions populations, and some politician decided that gene is a gene all criminals have. How far could they legislate. What could they do?

The point is I don't trust the police or government. It is the healthiest attitude to have. Force the police and governemt to work within the rules that exsists. Police catch people all the time, DNA won't make us any more safe. But the potential for abuse is too great.

And for those who want a DNA database, what about all the "criminals" in prision, on death row who are adamant about their innocence and are begging for DNA testing, and the prosecutors who refuse their requests saying they had their day in court.

Re:The solution is easy

[Tribbin]

Not that the following denies your statement or has any worth at all, but:

If you clone a guilty person, at birth the clone will be innocent.

I'm in California

[Evets]

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.

Re:all too true

[t_allardyce]

You can bet your ass that almost no police/medical records system has even been designed to allow guaranteed deletion, for any record there are probably at least a dozen copies in backup tapes, duplicate lab samples and slides, photocopies and files lost behind furniture, at the very least they could design the system so that after a record wasn't needed you could be assured that there would only be one copy in existence and it would be in a safe place.

but yeah you have absolutely got to think of the children!

There are no innocents

[cybscryb]

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.

Not to be pedantic, but

[OneIsNotPrime]

... technically there is no 'Innocent' status under, at least, U.S. law. There is only 'Not Guilty', which is quite different.

You Keep Using This Word "Innocent"

[lorelorn]

I think you mean "not yet proven guilty"

Re:Too Many Worries To Be Effective

[plague3106]

We WANT our law enforcement officials to be as efficient and work as well as possible (within the law) in enforcing the laws - REGARDLESS of whether we approve of those laws!

Speak for yourself. I for one would rather police not enforce stupid laws that people disapprove of. Just as civilians can exersise civil disobediance, so should law enforcement be able to.

'I was only following orders' does not excuse police (or army for that matter).

There are no innocent people?

[argent]

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.

Gun control and DNA

[edbarbar]

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?

Government Databases

[carcajou]

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!