Convicted Hacker Adrian Lamo Refuses to Give Blood

CaliforniaCCW writes "Hopefully everyone here remembers the case of Adrian Lamo, a so-called 'gray hat' hacker who plead guilty to one count of computer crimes against Microsoft, Nexis-Lexis and the New York Times in 2004. He got a felony conviction, six months detention in his parents' home, and two years of probation. Today, as a condition of his probation, he must provide a sample of his DNA in the form of a blood sample, something which he has refused to do. Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

Comments

If CSI has taught me anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't use blood for DNA? I belive this is actually only true for red blood cells, so do they seperate white/plasma for the analysis?

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

So obviously, CSI hasn't taught you anything.

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[v1]

You can't use the red blood cell component of blood for DNA, because red blood cells do not have a nucleus. When they undergo their final divisions they cast off their DNA to make more room for oxygen and nutrients. Just before this they "bulk up" by making a lot of the proteins they will need when serving as a red blood cell. Later in their life, when the protein supply is exhaused, there is no DNA available to template to make more, and the cell is useless and dies.

There's a lot more in blood than just red blood cells though. The white blood cells have DNA for example, so you can get DNA from blood very easily.

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[RespekMyAthorati]

It's that the most common method of obtaining a suspect's DNA is via a cheek swab. Why do they need his blood?

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[baadger]

Hell, why not just say "Ok you win" and then offer him drink on the way out? Swab it off the glass. Or steal it in his sleep, collect it from hair or nail clippings...

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

CSI has also taught me you can zoom on on a reflection in a window that's a reflection off somebody's eye, that's a reflection off somebody's glasses, that's a reflection off the UFO outside his window, that's a reflection off a knife that's a reflection off a mirror with picture-perfect accuracy.

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[Squalish]

CSI's actually been remarkably good in this regard, the episodes that I've seen at least.

No "Zoom in... now enhance.... now zoom in some more" to the reflection of the brand of cigarette your killer was smoking off of the window of the ISS.

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

While your sarcasm amuses me, this sort of technique has actually been used in the past before. I'm talking about the parent to your post, not yours. I remember hearing about a high profile criminal who refused to provide his DNA for testing. After many months, the prosecution just started to follow him around. They snagged a cigar butt he threw out of his limo, grabbed the DNA of it and were somehow able to use this as evidence (probably only to get him to actually do a proper DNA test).

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[Terminal Saint]

They can get pretty bad about it. I recall one episode where they used a security camera still and were able to recognize a face in the reflection of someone's eye.

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

[HTH NE1]

Probably because it is a statutory requirement. In TFA it reports he'd offered to provide hair and nail samples, but they insisted it must be blood. Possibly not because it must be fresh to feed the government's grove of Audrey IIs but rather that it is considered impossible to provide a false blood sample when the government acquires it directly. Hair samples can be faked using extremely realistic wigs. Nail samples can be faked by removing your own and supergluing someone else's. But it's damn hard to determine which vein the government will tap to extract the sample to provide a subdermal false vein.

Blood also greatly reduces the possibility that a chimeric individual (having multiple sets of DNA due to two or more non-identical fertilized ova fusing into one individual in early cell division) can avoid DNA identification; because it gets circulated all over the body, all genetic strings could be obtained from white blood cells. (CSI also covered this situation.)

BTW, I don't like the supposition in the summary that "everyone should provide [their fingerprints] to their government". Though I wouldn't put it past this administration to lift fingerprints from every tax return and DNA from the saliva used to wet the envelope's glue strip.

if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[way2trivial]

all they have to do is supply the blonde!

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[Paladine97]

You have a fatal error. You are assuming the Slash crowd would know what to do with the blonde! I mean, it's hard to get DNA when you ask her to play WoW with you.

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[JPriest]

OK fine, but only as long as he is tall too.

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[plumby]

You take photos of her and stick them on a web page. I'm sure he could then "take the DNA extraction into his own hands" (sorry).

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[SavvyPlayer]

Unless of course you are thinking of some kind of blonde femme fatale, they are looking for DNA, not RNA. :)

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[I Like Pudding]

all they have to do is supply the blonde!

But then they'd be getting only half of what they want

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

[nwbvt]

Jokes aside, they want his blood, not just his DNA. If you RTFA, he was willing to provide DNA, only using methods that don't require him to bleed.

Patented?

[Ohreally_factor]

Quite possibly his DNA has been patented by one of the big bio tech firms, and he is just trying to avoid costly litigation.

Re:Patented?

[kimvette]

Ah, yes, but don't forget that the government is largely immune to patent litigation, and so are government contractors if it suits the politicians' pet projects well to do so. Check out the fibre optic flexible waterproof splice incident reported in recent months. The owner of the design would have been due several million from the contractor who raided his patent were the government and its contractors were actually required to obey the law as the Constitution demands. I know your post was meant to be a "funny" but the whole patent and government immunity thing rubs me the wrong way.

Re:Patented?

[Ohreally_factor]

That wouldn't shield Lamo from patent litigation for improper, unlicensed use of his own DNA.

The logic escapes me

[Mostly a lurker]

He was convicted of a computer crime. How likely is it that, if he does something similar in the future, it will be of any help to the authorities that they have his DNA on file? I suppose, though, the same goes for fingerprints. If the law is not specific on the subject, I think he has a right to refuse.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Ohreally_factor]

Actually, the law is specific on the subject. If you are convicted of a felony, they have a right to keep your DNA on file. I don't think there are any exceptions made for white collar crime.

Re:The logic escapes me

[KiloByte]

Perhaps it's just those bloodsuckers in the government wanting to satisfy their craving for blood? And not just from convicts, but from everyone.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Ohreally_factor]

Well, F me for not Ring TFA. He is refusing to give a blood sample, not refusing to give a DNA sample. His reasons for not giving a blood sample are religious. He offered instead to give hair and nail clippings, both of which he brought in, both of which were refused. So long as he is willing to comply with the law, even if not with the the particular collection method, I think he'll win this.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Hollyfeld]

Even if the DNA is useful in some way that other evidence would not be - I fail to see how this would be the case, since there are a myriad of other ways to tie a suspect to a computer used for hacking - This seems pretty invasive - could a DNA sequence not also be generated from a hair sample or skin cells from the inside of the mouth, which are comparitively less invasive? While the law specifies that a blood sample must be provided, it would seem to be grounds for constitutional challenge if it does not provide for other means of testing in the case of contrary religios convictions, especially given that the "perp" is willing to provide the DNA by whatever other means they choose...

Re:The logic escapes me

[Scrameustache]

He was convicted of a computer crime. How likely is it that, if he does something similar in the future, it will be of any help to the authorities that they have his DNA on file?

Not likely at all.

This isn't about his crime and prevention/ease of conviction. This is about gathering DNA of everyone they can. Pictures, fingerprints, blood samples, they want it all, from everyone. They start with convicted criminals, because no one cares about their rights. Then they added people flying in (only pics and fingerprints for now, baby steps, baby steps).

The phone calls of everone, add a lil' voice recognition software, cameras all over the place, GPS transponders in every car, RFID in every compulsory ID cards.

They're creating a perfect police state, and we're letting them.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, the government will ask internet cafes to wipe the keyboards and monthly mail the tissues to the NSA...

Re:The logic escapes me

[rhendershot]

A core precept in investigative psycology is 'once a criminal, always a criminal'. DNA records on any convicted person can be seen as a hedge against the *next* crime that person *will* commit.

IMO it abrogates the precept of innocence until proven otherwise and violates the Bill Of Rights guarantee against search without probable cause.

Re:The logic escapes me

[general_re]

This is about gathering DNA of everyone they can.

Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies. Me, I don't much care for the idea of spending a couple of years in a 9x12 cage, so I don't do things that would tend to lead to that outcome either.

Re:The logic escapes me

[TherealDreck]

If they are tracing evidence at a scene, such as his house, from his keyboard, the might be able to use the dna to match hair or sweat samples.

Re:The logic escapes me

[The Living Fractal]

I can't help but wonder..

But who the hell are 'they'?

Seems to me like this is still a democracy. And if the majority of people *aren't* fighting what you call a 'perfect police state' from being created, then the majority might as well be supporting it.

So are 'they' the majority?

Also, do you really think there's a way to stop ubiquitous surveillance? The way I see it, in the future, with the technologies becoming available, you can either give the 'good guys' the 'right' to watch everything, or just leave that ability for the 'bad guys' who will do with it anything they want.

So, we can shoot ourselves in the right foot with a .22, or we can blow our left foot and most of the leg off with a grenade.. You choose.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ArsenneLupin]

I don't think there are any exceptions made for white collar crime.

Would you find it logical if a convicted burglar, rapist, etc. would need to supply, for example, the MAC addresses of all his computers?

It's not about white or blue collar crime, but about whether the type of "identification" supplied would actually be useful for the type of crime.

What will DNA help if the crime does not involve physical presence?

Re:The logic escapes me

[vought]

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA?

Convicted felons have constraints placed on their rights. In many states, they can't ever vote. When you are convicted of a felony, even upon your release from incarceration you have fewer rights by law than people who aren't felons.

This is a non-story. A punk who got charged and convicted wants to stand on principle now. Too bad.

Re:The logic escapes me

[iminplaya]

:-) Very funny. To paraphrase somebody else, If you don't go to the felony, the felony will come to you. In other words, we'll find a way to make whatever you're doing a criminal offense.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Descalzo]

"His reasons for not giving a blood sample are religious."

I wonder what his religion has to say about breaking the law.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Scrameustache]

But who the hell are 'they'?

The "intelligence community": The people who decide what is secret and what isn't.

you can either give the 'good guys' the 'right' to watch everything, or just leave that ability for the 'bad guys' who will do with it anything they want.

The "good guys"? But who the hell are "the good guys"?

Re:The logic escapes me

[general_re]

Slippery-slope arguments are grade-A bullshit. Sorry. Nothing personal. This is not exactly a novel concept, that unauthorized intrusions into someone else's computer are a criminal offense.

Re:The logic escapes me

[buck_wild]

Hahaha! That made m laugh, because it's true. I'd expect at least a "thou shalt not screw thy fellow man" type of thing.

Re:The logic escapes me

[drsquare]

If the law is not specific on the subject, I think he has a right to refuse.

And the authorities also have the right to refuse probation.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Mostly a lurker]

If they are tracing evidence at a scene, such as his house, from his keyboard, the might be able to use the dna to match hair or sweat samples.

So, they can prove he was in his house ... so what? I guess if he chose to break into someone else's house in order to commit a crime using the computer there, then DNA evidence might prove relevant. Rather remote I would say.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Firethorn]

both of which he brought in, both of which were refused

I don't know about you, but I'd refuse any sample the convict brought in himself. How do you know it's his hair and clippings?

Then, they also probably lacked the materials and equipement for taking & preserving anything other than a blood sample.

Re:The logic escapes me

[v1]

He is probably well-aware that hair (minus a follicle) and fingernail clippings are both just keratin (chitin?) and contain no biological material or DNA of any sort. (those are the only main two substances he could give a sample of without giving away his DNA, and he knows it) A hair with a follicle however, contains DNA. That's why he brought them in instead of offering them on the spot, to make sure he didn't lose a hair with a follicle etc. He knows what he is doing, and it's highly unlikely that religion is his main concern. (unless it's against his religious beliefs to get caught a second time...)

Puting that aside for the moment, I am very much against the manditory collection of DNA except in the event you are the suspect of a crime and DNA would prove your innocence/guilt. Pre-emptive DNA harvesting for the purpose of establishing a database should not be legal.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Lay off the bong hits, hippie. People who commit felonies tend to commit more in the future. DNA makes for open and shut convictions when they do, and dna is most useful for proving violent crime: when blood is left behind at the scene. This jackass just thinks he is better than the other felons because he went to college.

Re:The logic escapes me

[fyngyrz]

Seems to me like this is still a democracy.

You need to re-examine your assumptions. This is not a democracy in the sense that the citizens get to compose or vote on federal laws. What you can do is vote on one of generally two possible choices of people who were selected by their respective political parties for each of three positions (two senators and a congress-critter, usually) who, once actually elected, will then go do those tasks. Or not... you don't actually have to vote.

Once those people are in office, you can write or fax them, and if you're lucky, an aide will read your communication before it gets round-filed. The reason the aide will do this is to determine if you are going to contribute money, generally speaking. Because if you're not, they have more important opinions to consider, such as those coming down from the PACs and other special interest groups that support them financially. If you are, and it is more than a pittance, you'll get a nice reply, and your opinion will no doubt be considered in balance with the amount you contributed and the amount any contrary opinions contributed.

I leave it to you to determine if those people are in any way likely to do what it is you want to have done, when they make those choices. I know they never, ever do what I want done, in fact, they seem to spend 100% of their time doing what I don't want done, but hey, that's just me.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Elemenope]

It should almost go without saying (but it really, really doesn't these days) that just because a thing is so does not make it right for it to be so. Yaeh, more than half of US states treat ex-cons as less than human beings with rights...does this mean this is the way it should be? I find most of the arguments in favor of curtailing voting rights and liberties to be spurious, contrary to the principles of the law (though obviously not to the law itself) and at best a childishly simplistic way to interpret the concept of social contract. This is my opinion of course, and there are arguments on the other side, but my point is simply the fact that it is so does not mean it is right. I wish people would stop relying on that to supoport their arguments.

Re:The logic escapes me

[The Living Fractal]

The good guys are the ones risking their own asses to protect you/their country.

You could be one of them.. I don't know. And this is not to say they're the only good guys. They're just.. some of them.

Re:The logic escapes me

[smallfries]

If it's derived from any of the Abrahamic religions then it probably says that moral (ie religious) law is above the law of man. And unless it's a *really* new offshoot I doubt they have a specific policy on computer crime....

Re:The logic escapes me

[Millenniumman]

The USA is not a democracy. It is a republic.

Re:The logic escapes me

[zakezuke]

I wonder what his religion has to say about breaking the law.

If we are talking God's law in conflict with man's law... you might become a martyr, get a spiffy statue. The Christian bible is mighty clear on the no killig bit, it's rather vague about thy neighbors server.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Millenniumman]

They aren't treated as less than human beings. They are treated as less than citizens. Voting is not an intrinsic right.

Re:The logic escapes me

[vought]

I didn't say I agreed with the additional curtailing of felon's rights. In nonviolent/nonsexual cases, I think it might be appropriate to restore full pre-conviction rights to a felon.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are convicted felons. In our system of justice (which works pretty well most of time, regardless of what you read), these people have been convicted of the most serious and egregious class of crimes. To restore full rights upon conditional release is not appropriate in most felony cases, and I do believe the state should have the right to collect biometric information about convicted felons in order to more easily solve recidivist crimes. Most felony criminals are pretty stupid, and few of them are in jail for computer crimes. It makes sense to collect information that reduces the time, money and effort involved in prosecuting recidivism.

Finally, in many states where felons have curtailed rights upon release, there is a clemency process that can restore some rights. Florida, Louisiana, and others will restore voting rights through clemency - a process that includes proving to a clemency board that you have been fully rehabilitated by your incarceration and that it would benefit society to restore some of your rights.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ppanon]

Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

Particularly when you have a President who believes he can override any law including proscriptions against torture. If someone is tortured long enough, be it months or years, chances are good they'll eventually break down and confess even to crimes they didn't commit to make it stop. It's one way to get a 100% confession rate but it's got nothing to do with justice. Which is why confessions under torture aren't accepted in USA criminal courts. For now.

Re:The logic escapes me

[modecx]

Convicted felons have constraints placed on their rights. In many states, they can't ever vote. When you are convicted of a felony, even upon your release from incarceration you have fewer rights by law than people who aren't felons.

And that's bullshit. If they're fit enough to be released back to the public, they're fit enough to vote. Lord knows their views could hardly be any more twisted than most non-convicted people. Obviously, it stands to reason that felons should be watched more closely, especially those with a past of sexually abusing other people, and even more especially abusing kids... And it makes sense to keep convicted hackers away from computers for a certian amount of time... But not letting released convicts vote seems particularly screwed up to me. For one, it assumes that any law isn't flawed, and it dosen't give those convicted of man-made laws the least opportunity to change them. For example, it's possible to be convicted as a felon for criminal copyright infringement, and many would argue that some laws around that issue just aren't good laws.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Foxman98]

Guess those guys in "brokeback mountain" never read that line in the bible then....

Re:The logic escapes me

[ultranova]

Pre-emptive DNA harvesting for the purpose of establishing a database should not be legal.

Even if it was, it would not stop it from being built. It's amazing what you can get away with when you claim it's for "national security".

Re:The logic escapes me

[Ohreally_factor]

Are you aware of the nature of the crimes he committed? They were on the order of pranks, he didn't swindle anyone out of anything, and at worst he caused some companies and their IT departments some embarrassment.

Re:The logic escapes me

[swv3752]

If you are a convicted felon, you have no rights.

Re:The logic escapes me

[MonkeyOfRage]

The USA is not a democracy. It is a republic.

Neither excludes the other. We vote for our leaders and we don't have a monarch. We're a representative democracy structured as a federal republic.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm not sure, but are you really putting forth the proposition that if one commits a "white collar" crime, one is somehow either barred from or incapable of committing any other type of crime?

Re:The logic escapes me

[Adeptus_Luminati]

The law of man from time immemorial is ever changing which suggests it was, is and shall continue to be imperfect. This is why the law of God is above the law of man. That said, when imperfect men try to interpret the law of God, the interpretation is never perfect ... until of course, the man himself is perfected (i.e. enlightenned).

For the most part , and under most circumstances, average humans have an inner voice which *if* listened to will always provide a moral resolve. The problem is that we rarely listen and even when we do, we often go against the inner advice. What gets in the way is Ego and confusion. Confusion that seeking after temporary pleasures will yield the happiness we are subconciously looking for.

The law of men too is created & re-invented by such Ego-confused men; as such it will never be perfect and will continue to be challenged.

Lamo sounds to me like a brilliant young man, but he was not listening to his inner voice (moral). A bit of time in isolation has given him the opportunity to listen to is inner voice and realize that he "no longer wants any part in his previous actions".

Adeptus

Re:The logic escapes me

[Ohreally_factor]

They could also do a cheek swab, no?

In regards to the propriety of a Felon DNA database, I think there have already been a few crimes solved where there was DNA evidence but no suspect, until a Felon's DNA was added to the database. This is a good and proper thing that must be balanced against your concerns. Further (I'm not totally sure of this), I believe that a few people have been cleared of crimes for which they were convicted, because of new evidence being added to the database, which in turn pointed to the real culprit.

Re:The logic escapes me

[dgatwood]

I think that people convicted of violent crimes should have to give DNA, as this is the primary way of tracking down people who commit such crimes, and people convicted of that sort of thing are likely to do it again after release (statistically).

By contrast, people who commit computer crimes (or any other white collar crimes) are not likely to ever commit violent crimes, and computer crimes are almost never solvable through DNA evidence. Since the DNA sample can never realistically be used for its claimed purpose, obtaining those samples constitutes unreasonable search and seizure, IMHO.

IANALBIPOOSD.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ultranova]

Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies. Me, I don't much care for the idea of spending a couple of years in a 9x12 cage, so I don't do things that would tend to lead to that outcome either.

You have all the laws memorized ?-o I'm impressed. After all, if you don't have them memorized, then how do you know you aren't crossing one of them ?

It is convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal, especially if someone being a criminal is sufficient justification to strip the protection of laws from them. But hey, at-will incarceration fits well a country with at-will employment, especially if the subhuman pound-me-in-the-ass sex toys^H^H^H prisoners are required to work for the benefit of their captors.

Anything you do can be a felony, and you won't know it beforehand if you don't keep up with every last law that gets passed.

Re:The logic escapes me

[LordOfTheNoobs]

...

XXXIV : And thou shalt not, AND I MEAN THOU SHALT NOT, link to goatse.cx. EVER.

...

Re:The logic escapes me

[mOdQuArK!]

But that doesn't change the fact that they are convicted felons. In our system of justice (which works pretty well most of time, regardless of what you read), these people have been convicted of the most serious and egregious class of crimes.

Considering that in some states _copyright infringement_ is considered a felony and can potentially get you more time than actually physically hurting someone, I am greatly unimpressed at the "serious and egregious" attribute of many crimes.

I've always felt that it should actually be a Constitutional Right that even criminals, no matter what the "classification", should be given the opportunity to vote. It gives a much-needed source of negative feedback to out-of-control legislators - if you put too many of your constituents in jail, you will face a dedicated voting bloc who hates your guts and won't be swayed much by how much money you spend on propaganda. Right now, it is pretty simple for a fascist-leaning legislator to make sure that classes of people that they don't like can be disenfranchised and become a non-factor in political calculations.

For those alarmists who would whine about serial murderers & rapists getting to vote, I'd point out that there aren't enough of those to make a significant percentage of the voting public, so it's a baseless worry.

Re:The logic escapes me

[mOdQuArK!]

"Slippery slope" arguments are mentally seductive, albeit logically flawed, since they usually make so much damn common sense.

In situations where "leaders" can amass power with no feedback to enforce accountability, history tells us that (probability-wise) it is almost inevitable they will push the envelope until something happens (usually something very painful for everyone concerned) to stop them.

It makes "common sense" to people because most of them would do the SAME thing if they were in those leaders' shoes.

Re:The logic escapes me

[mdfst13]

"if the crime does not involve physical presence?"

Is he corporeal? Then I think that he will have a physical presence *somewhere*. Perhaps not at the same place as the recipient of the crime, but somewhere. His DNA could be used to link him to that location and then the MAC/IP/whatever could link that location to the crime.

It's also worth noting that there are any number of cracks that are helped greatly by physical access to the actual hardware. E.g. the old Windows NT "reboot the server with a Linux boot disk and change the Administrator password" crack. Not to mention the possibility that he might commit a physical crime (e.g. murder) to try to cover up his participation in crimes like computer cracking.

"Would you find it logical if a convicted burglar, rapist, etc. would need to supply, for example, the MAC addresses of all his computers?"

I would mostly think it was silly, when you can buy a $50 router that will hide the MAC address from the outside world. Not to mention the ability to buy a new network card with a different MAC address.

Re:The logic escapes me

[anotherzeb]

Here in the UK, the standard way for the police to get a person's DNA is to wipe the inside of their mouth with a cotton wool swab. Nice and simple, I doubt it conflicts with anyone's religious belief, but any decent lawyer will still try to prevent it happening because of the intrusiveness of the state holding copies of an individual's (possibly innocent, possibly not even charged with a crime) DNA. If this method is standard in the UK, I'm wondering why a blood sample needs to be taken in the states when this might conflict with a person's religious beliefs. I don't know what religion this person subscribes to, but I do know that Jehova's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and donated organs because they believe their god tells them to, so it seems reasonable (to me) that giving blood under any circumstances would be an equally good path away from the love of their lord. I'm sometimes ashamed to be British, but with the current state of affairs in America, it seems a better option than to be American, even though I'm under the impression that most Americans dislike what their 'elected representatives' are doing as much as I do

Re:The logic escapes me

[general_re]

You have all the laws memorized ?

I bet even Adrian knew about laws against breaking into computers that don't belong to you.

Yes, being an informed citizen is not always an effortless affair - nevertheless, it is your own responsibility, and not someone else's to spoon-feed you. Besides, I really tend to doubt that this is a common occurrence, that people are regularly shocked - shocked, I tell you! - to find out that some activity or behavior they've been innocently engaging in is, in fact, a felony offense, and that as a result they're going away to the Graybar Hotel for a couple of years. I particularly doubt that this happened in specific the case at hand.

Re:The logic escapes me

[AmigaAvenger]

and you call yourself a slashdotter? every major OS, windows included, makes changing your MAC trivially easy. besides, you aren't exposing it to the outside world, only the device it is connected to and nothing beyond that.

Re:The logic escapes me

[SanityInAnarchy]

Mod parent up.

When you commit a felony, you give up your rights. Period.

After you're convicted, you can either appeal till you win, or you can realize that any rights you get from now on are not rights. They are privelages.

Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But after proven guilty, you're guilty.

Re:The logic escapes me

[general_re]

The trouble with slippery-slope arguments is that you can deploy them to argue against virtually anything. All you have to do is take the thing you don't like, attach it to some horribly unthinkable proposition, and then claim - just claim, mind you - that A inevitably leads to B. Today we're criminalizing the act of blowing up schools; tomorrow we'll be burning books and putting puppies on spikes. How can we criminalize blowing up schools? You like books and puppies, don't you? And an argument that is universally applicable is universally worthless.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ArsenneLupin]

are you really putting forth the proposition that if one commits a "white collar" crime, one is somehow either barred from or incapable of committing any other type of crime?

No.

But there is no higher probability of committing any such crimes either. However, there is a higher probability of same-type crimes (experience, "the itch", etc. )

Re:The logic escapes me

[Zeio]

It is wrong to take his DNA. Compelling someone to give DNA should be used only as a tool, such as in the Duke case, to show that the prime suspects are either very likely to have committed the crime or not so likely. Rape, murder scene, robbery scene, etc.

The DNA should be take for the scope of that case and destroyed.

DNA banking is disgusting and should be stopped. The government will eventually look at your DNA, say you have sociopathic tendencies based on it and put you away pre-crime style.

Also, in the face of our brave new world, hoard guns, because a political shift will augment the fascist executive crap and then the other totalitarians/authoritarians will take away all our gun rights and take our guns away, leaving the population totally powerless.

Re:The logic escapes me

[The Living Fractal]

Well, it's the chicken and the egg. If the guards of the guardians themselves are corrupt, then do we add another layer of guards? When does it stop?

Regarding torture... I agree that it is wrong and shouldn't be used in the pursuit of justice. I was under the impression that torture was only useful in extreme circumstances involving the dissemination of knowledge. I.E. if a terrorist knows specific things, such as locations of their hideouts or details of specific attacks, then torture may be a viable way to gain the knowledge from them.

Obviously there are serious problems with this, i.e. what if the person isn't a terrorist, or if they are, what if they don't really know anything? In the end torture has no real moral high ground.

Offtopic, but somewhat related: Perhaps in the not-so-distant future we'll be having these debates over another technology. One that can effectively read memories from the brain. You wouldn't need to torture someone (assuming it doesn't hurt to perform the reading procedure) to get anything they ever knew from them. It could be a good thing, torture would be seen as a barbaric and inefficient tactic and no longer used. Would that be more humane and moral, to simply read the memories directly from someone's brain, rather than inflict pain and suffering upon them?

Re:The logic escapes me

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

They're actors. And that's not real ketchup

Re:The logic escapes me

[Catbeller]

And this is said while the FBI is raiding the home of the former number 3 at the CIA; the Vice President is about to be indicted for outing a CIA operation monitoring Iranian nuclear bombmaking; the entire administration has created a nationwide spy operation they didn't feel Justice lawyers needed to be consulted about; the Admin has been running covert special forces ops in Iran for over a year - an act of war, illegally done in secret; the Pres has been outed for secretly delaring war on Iraq on false pretext, killing over 30 thousand civilians...

What does religion have to say about all that? And why does the "law" care more about a teenager pulling pranks than about slaughtering 30 thousand people for no reason at all?

I should respect the law, why? The President has adopted Nixon's notion that the President IS the law, and therefore cannot ever break the law. I guess I just suppose this kid is the law, and cannot break it either. Either statement is equally constitutionally correct.

When the law is obviously manipulated to smash the relatively innocent and pardon the murderous, who cares about it anymore? The law enforcement agencies obviously don't. Powerful people make a call, a kid goes to prison, make another call, and 30 thousand people dead don't count, even as a news story.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd change your mind pretty quick if it were your kid who was raped and murdered. If the guy is not planning on breaking the law in the future, then he should have NO problem supplying the DNA. That he wont only tells us that he intends to continue breaking the law and should be incarcerated in a PMITA prison indefinitely.

Re:The logic escapes me

[zakezuke]

Hahaha! That made m laugh, because it's true. I'd expect at least a "thou shalt not screw thy fellow man" type of thing.

We are talking Adrian Lamo here, the guy who spent his time hacking into networks and exposing the exploits. Illegal... sure... but such actions are often taken by people with a strong moral conscience and deep religious convections. For example, if someone picks a lock to steal something that's tresspass and burglary... something a common criminal would do. But someone who picks a lock and leaves a note that the lock sucks, that's tresspass and hardly common. I would describe the person as a pain in the ass... and rather stupid since the world needs locksmiths, and security consultants.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

"and people convicted of that sort of thing are likely to do it again after release (statistically)."

Sort of. First, they are statistically more likely to be put under scrutiny again and caught because of the system. (Thus, the indirect argument is that everyone should be put into the system, which some states have started to do.) Second, those with a record are less likely to land jobs, which is not considered a right. When your options are limited, you tend to get into more trouble.

iow, there is a lack of secondary comparison or controls in your social experiment to back your claim, unless you analyze all crimes and all guilty people regardless of their criminal background.

What you are saying is similar to the saying "statistically, loners are more likely to commit crimes." Not really. They are just likely to have alibis (that alone thing) or witnesses (again, lack of family members or friends to "back you up") in a witness/evidentiary based judicial system, so if one party says "that was you" then you have no one to say "no, it wasn't". You are thus on the lower social ladder and hence subject to scrutiny because of more questions regarding your actions and whereabouts.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Gorobei]

ffs. Hair and nails are not pure keratin and are both rich in DNA. A simple Google search shows you are 100% wrong.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ceoyoyo]

Precisely. You obviously give up your right to "privacy" when you're imprisoned -- see those toilets in the the cells? No door! The guards don't like it much if you put up draperies either.

In this case it sounds like he doesn't even have to submit his DNA once he's imprisoned -- it's a condition of his probation. He has the right to refuse, and stay in prison. Or give a sample and get out.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Siffy]

Several others have replied to this with "God's law > man's law" type comments, but the article hinted he may be a Jehovah's Witness. They respect the Bible and in it is plenty of crap about respecting the law's of Rome. So bunk to those God's law > man's law sayers, it's only when the 2 directly conflict does that come up in most religions.

Re:The logic escapes me

[anotherzeb]

Is 'representative democracy' another term for hegemony? If so, I agree, although if not I ask you to ask yourself how many referenda you have been aware of in the USA over recent years. I ask because in a democracy, the people vote for the laws but in a hegemony the people vote for the people who vote for the laws. Another way to look at this is the people voting for their dictators - those who will rule them for the rulers' own good.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you are a convicted felon, you have no rights."

And thus began the continued downfall of sane thought with this stupidity. Utter bullshit. I'm not sure if you believe this to be a fact or if this is a desire for your statement to be true. In either case, it's wrong and sick.

Codified or in black letter law, you have the right to vote, right to ask for reinstatement, right to appeal, right to access legal materials in jail, right to speak privately with your lawyer, right to visitation, right to no cruel or unusual punishment, right to remain silent, etc.

By natural rights, you have the right to live, right to be treated humanely, and the right to survive.

Re:The logic escapes me

[canajin56]

You're knowledge is out of date. In 2005, a US citizen was charged with a plot to assassinate George W. Bush. The SOLE piece of evidence against him other than the fact that he has brown skin, is the fact that he signed a confession that the government had written up for him after they tortured him for a while. In October of 2005, that confession was ruled admissable by a federal judge. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was sentanced to 30 years in prison for admitting that he had fantasized about shooting George W. Bush. He never discussed it with anybody, he never put his "plan" into motion. But while being tortured, he admitted that he wanted to.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ceoyoyo]

Seems to me the problem is with the "situation where 'leaders' can amass power with no feedback to enforce accountability.'"

If that's the situation you guys have in the US I guess it's time for the rest of the world to get together and fix it. We really can't have the sole world superpower being an aggressive dictatorship. Or even an oligarchy.

Re:The logic escapes me

[westlake]

It's not about white or blue collar crime, but about whether the type of "identification" supplied would actually be useful for the type of crime.

It's about being convicted of a felony, which has very large and long term consequences.

You have no "right" to parole. Your conduct will be monitored for years to come. You do not want a felony conviction on your record if you are ever arrested again on any charge.

Re:The logic escapes me

[v1]

ok, google. first hit.

Organic extraction of aged human nail material yielded a sufficient quantity of DNA for successful mtDNA sequencing; however, STR analysis was unsuccessful.

Translation: we could find traces of DNA, but not enough to identify the person. To use something for identification in a criminal case requires that it be very reliable and very unique. In a test group of 15 they could not identify the owner in all cases. How are you going to pull that off when you are searching a 10,000 person database?

DNA is most reliably harvested from living cells. (try your google on that) There are no living cells in fingernails or hair strands. Only hair follicles and maybe some toejam.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ceoyoyo]

Jehova's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and organ transplants, but I don't think its against their religion to give blood samples. They bleed just as often as the rest of us. It's possible you could argue that giving blood to be transfused wouldn't be cool just like some Christian sects won't go out on Sunday because it might result in someone else having to work on the day of rest, but there's no danger of this blood being transfused into someone else.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he'd say that, but I'd go so far as to say that if I gave the government blood and then got out of their charges, I'd most certainly expect to be arrested for raping someone. And be assigned a government doctor to "find out" just why I ejaculate blood.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, the US president is above the law, which I think is crazy. You can impeach a president, but you can't arrest him. People holding public office should be held to higher standards, not lower.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

It would most likely be found unconstitutional to segregate violent/non-violent criminals DNA collection practices. The whole equal protection under the law thing.

Re:The logic escapes me

[zopf]

I'm not surprised that they refused samples he brought in. What if he was getting drug-tested and he brought in a urine sample? Of course they'd refuse it. There's no way to know that the sample is a actually from him. I do think that it would be just as easy for them to take a cheek swab though... I can't imagine he'd be religiously opposed to brushing his teeth.

Re:The logic escapes me

[croddy]

When you commit a felony, you give up your rights. Period.

There must be clear limits to the specific rights that the state can infringe, even for felons. To state categorically that the removal of rights is acceptable because the person in question has committed some crime is extremely shallow and reactionary.

Infringement of felons' rights should be limited to the scope of the crimes committed. No one would say that someone who speeds on the freeway or litters in a public park should be required to provide DNA samples. Likewise, no one would recommend execution for someone convicted of drug possession.

Requiring a blood sample for DNA analysis is a highly unusual and bizarre response to someone whose offenses to date have not shown any probability of leaving DNA evidence. A law which requires this response is one which must be rescinded or rewritten.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Machitis]

I met Adrian a couple times while he was intimately "involved" with a homosexual friend of mine. I'm wondering if there isn't something about his blood he'd rather not have known.

Re:The logic escapes me

[MonkeyOfRage]

Is 'representative democracy' another term for hegemony? If so, I agree, although if not I ask you to ask yourself how many referenda you have been aware of in the USA over recent years. I ask because in a democracy, the people vote for the laws but in a hegemony the people vote for the people who vote for the laws.

Hegemony isn't a form of government. Representative democracy is where the people's power is invested in representatives which they elect. Our federal government works like this, but the states differ. Some states have lots of ballot initiatives, and some have none at all unless they're county or municipal.

Another way to look at this is the people voting for their dictators - those who will rule them for the rulers' own good.

It isn't anything like voting for dictators; dictators either put themselves in power or arrived there by happy accident of birth, and the election is meaningless (e.g., "yes or no" on the only candidate, the dictator). The people have no power to invest anywhere, either directly or through a representative. The election is merely an opinion poll, and the dictator will continue to serve themself regardless of the outcome.

We select senators and house reps at the federal level, most officials at the state, county, and municipal levels, and direct our states in presidential elections. With the exception of officials who get practically embedded due to party politics, we can toss most of these just as easily as we select them. In addition, although some occasionally get other notions, their offices exist in the service of their constituencies and there are penalties up to and including prison for using that office to serve themself.

Re:The logic escapes me

[mrpeebles]

It is not just the convicted felon. You share a lot of DNA with your siblings, and parents. When the state has your brother's DNA, to a large degree it has yours as well.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd change your mind pretty quick if it were your kid who was raped and murdered.

You'd change your mind if your kid was falsely imprissoned by corrupt government forces, and raped and murdered in jail. And possibly tortured beforehand too.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Gorobei]

Organic extraction of aged human nail material yielded a sufficient quantity of DNA for successful mtDNA sequencing; however, STR analysis was unsuccessful.

Translation: we could find traces of DNA, but not enough to identify the person. To use something for identification in a criminal case requires that it be very reliable and very unique. In a test group of 15 they could not identify the owner in all cases. How are you going to pull that off when you are searching a 10,000 person database?

DNA is most reliably harvested from living cells. (try your google on that) There are no living cells in fingernails or hair strands. Only hair follicles and maybe some toejam.

Ok, fair enough, 8 year old fingernails aren't a good source source of DNA (d'oh - how much DNA do you expect to be left in an eight year old steak, for that matter.) Let's look at the authors' abstact of the paper that you quoted out of context:

In order to process nails as evidence, a validation study was performed to demonstrate that DNA could be successfully extracted from human nail material. Organic extractions of DNA were performed on fresh fingernails, fresh toenails, and aged (~eight years old) fingernails. The isolated DNA was quantified and analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based testing. This study demonstrated that the extraction of fresh, human nail material yielded sufficient quantities of DNA for successful short tandem repeat (STR) analysis and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing. A random sampling of fingernails from 22 different individuals (15 females, 6 males and 1 unknown) was tested. Successful STR profiles were obtained from all fingernail specimens collected from male individuals. Full or partial STR profiles were obtained from the fingernail specimens collected from 10 of the 15 female individuals. All nails amplified for mtDNA produced PCR product; all products sequenced produced the correct mtDNA type. Organic extraction of aged human nail material yielded a sufficient quantity of DNA for successful mtDNA sequencing; however, STR analysis was unsuccessful.


Wow! They could do mtDNA sequencing on decade old fingernails, but STR analysis was unsuccessful. Fresh nails yielded plenty of DNA. Color me stunned! Perhaps you could explain again how this has anything to do with your claims that fingernails don't have DNA in them?

Re:The logic escapes me

[danielsfca2]

> refuse blood transfusions and organ transplants, but I don't think its against their religion to give blood samples.

Being raised in that religion*, I can tell you authoritatively that among Jehovah's Witnesses, donating organs or blood (as opposed to being the recipient of said donations) is generally left up to the discretion of the individual. The leaders and the organization itself, has taken no stance one way or the other. Some wouldn't donate blood to a blood bank, etc. But others do and have no problem with it.

There is certainly no way a J.W. would feel uncomfortable giving blood for administrative reasons like this, or blood tests for disease, etc.
__
* I left that organization in 1998 or so...i guess i should say IANAJW ;)

Re:The logic escapes me

[ceoyoyo]

Thanks for the authoritative answer. I had a few Witness friends in undergrad and I think I remember some of them coming to blood drives.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out, you may be producing unlawful excesses of CO2.

If you keep offending my religion of lawfulness I may have to arrest you!

Re:The logic escapes me

[JDevers]

Um, wrong. The US president is just as fallible under our system of government as anyone else. Now, in practice, the arrest would probably come AFTER removal of office, but a president can be impeached->removed from office->arrested->convicted.

The only members of our goverment who are immune from arrest are members of Congress on the way to Congress. This is not blanket immunity though, this is really there to prevent people of a certain political persuasion from stopping those members of Congress with the opposite persuasion on their way to an important vote. It has rarely been used for anything other than to get out of traffic tickets though, and that is the modern interpretation of what it is designed to prevent. It doesn't mean that a Senator can kill three people and then get off without charges because he is always "on his way to vote."

All of the special powers our administration has other than this one are in practical use, not technical powers. It is cumbersome to arrest a sitting president, to say the least. Technically, a DC beat cop could legally arrest the president, but it would never happen. Hell, even just ordinary powerful people are given the opportunity to turn themselves in most situations.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Rob the Bold]

You can impeach a president, but you can't arrest him.

Why not? I don't see anything in the constitution about not arresting the president. I'm pretty much counting on that to restore my faith in this government. I'm not, however, counting on my faith being restored. In the meantime, I'll be voting for acquittal in any jury I serve on.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Firethorn]

Here in the UK, the standard way for the police to get a person's DNA is to wipe the inside of their mouth with a cotton wool swab

Not a bad method. But that goes back to whoever was supposed to be doing it not having the materials needed.

even though I'm under the impression that most Americans dislike what their 'elected representatives' are doing as much as I do

I hope that we get some viable candidates next election. Of course, my main objection to Bush is his spendthrift nature, though the ignoring of the constitution is rapidly getting there.

Re:The logic escapes me

[hesiod]

Wow, you might as well advocate having cameras in everyone's homes, since if they aren't gonna commit a crime, no reason to worry, right? geesh.

Re:The logic escapes me

[iminplaya]

It seems very common these days to deny that that's how things work. First it's voluntary. When that has no effect, it becomes mandatory. The national speed limit instituted in the US in the 70s is a prime example. The government power grab peresently going on in the states is another example. I'm going Godwin on you to remind you that's how the Nazis took over Germany. Slow and easy. This is a non-violent property crime. You don't put these people in prison with truly violent offenders. There are tons of alternatives. Even people like Ken Lay could be effectively dealt with without locking him up. Just take ALL of his property and let him shop at the Salvation Army or Goodwill stores for the rest of his life. Let him work at McDonalds AND garnish his wages. Little by little it is becoming more common to lock people up for even the most trivial offenses. The private prison industry needs more tenants if it is to show a profit. And each day, the public finds it more acceptable. No sir, slippery slope is a proven formula. But the revenge factor is making most people blind to that fact.

Re:The logic escapes me

[hesiod]

> I'd point out that there aren't enough of those to make a significant percentage of the voting public

And seriously, what is the problem with felons voning? Does anyone seriously think there are enough of them to get elected the politician whose platform is "I likes me some killin' and rapin'?"

Re:The logic escapes me

[ceoyoyo]

I remember hearing a story about a president (back in the days of horse drawn carriages) where he asked a cop to arrest him and the cop told him he couldn't. I couldn't find the story though, and it might not be true.

However, the president's pardon power is limited only by impeachment (he can't pardon himself if he's being impeached). It's never been tested in court, but on paper there's no reason why he can't pardon himself (or anybody else) for anything, so long as he's not impeached.

I'm sure the president WOULD be impeached if he walked into McDonalds and took out a few citizens though.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Ours]

It's the eleventh commandment as translated from ancient l33t arameic : "Thy shalt not p0wn thy neighbours box."
They didn't get it at the time and left it out.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Al Dimond]

Thou dost misquotest t3h 10rd!!!~1

The last word should be "b0x"!

And you say you know l33t arameic...

Re:The logic escapes me

[jrockway]

Citizens, sure. But what if he walked into McDonald's and took out a few suspected terrorists? Then would be be impeached? Probably not.

Makes you wonder why he wants everyone to be a suspected terrorist, doesn't it?

Re:The logic escapes me

[SMS_Design]

It's fucking offensive that you would so closely connect homosexuality and the implications of blood-borne disease. Get with it. Among my friends, about half are of alternative sexualities. I happen to know more HETEROSEXUAL people with STDs than homosexuals/bisexuals.

Re:The logic escapes me

[wwphx]

I can understand and appreciate the previously made point that his parole officer has no way of knowing if the hair and fingernail clippins are his. I don't have enough of a science background to say whether or not a good genetic fingerprint could be made from those. But why not a cheek swab?

Right now, our standard poodle has been diagnosed with an early form of Addison's Disease, it's a people disease but also affects purebreds like ours. UC Davis is doing a research project in partnership with AKC. They'll send you a free test kit so that you can sample your dog and send it back for them to do whatever with it. The sample collection instrument? Cheek swabs.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, he can refuse and forfeit probation.

Don't get me wrong, but he's a convicted felon, you lose a lot of rights. If he doesn't wish to provide DNA in the manner they want it then he should report to prison and make up the time he was out on parole. If he likes being free then I'd get over whatever hangups he has giving them a blood sample.

If you don't like those laws, then I'd recommend against becoming a convicted felon.

Re:The logic escapes me

[DeadChobi]

I wish I had mod points for this flamebait.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

The Christian religion is mighty big on ignoring that no killig bit.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Machitis]

It's offensive that you connected my implication with prejudice. Consider that I know the parties involved.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, v1 (hereafter referred to as 'he') didn't write that there was no DNA in fingernails; he wrote that DNA was most reliably extracted from living cells. The authors' extract that you quoted didn't say that there was plenty of DNA in fingernails. It said that in the sample they had, sufficient DNA was extracted. It doesn't say if they had .1 grams of toenails or 10 grams of toenails. How much sample do you think the authorities were planning on collecting?

And in 5(possibly 6) of the 22 cases, the fresh nail material was not sufficient.

Perhaps you should read more closely the citation that you are claiming was quoted out-of-context before you invoke it to imply that someone else has an inferior intellect or has not thought out their viewpoint.

Re:The logic escapes me

[zakezuke]

The Christian religion is mighty big on ignoring that no killig bit.

People are mighty big on ignoring facts. Religions are just a set of ideals one subscribes to that have no more power to ignore anything than lump of clay.

Re:The logic escapes me

[stuuf]

If he's not planning on breaking the law in the future, the government has no reason to demand his DNA.

Re:The logic escapes me

[mikiN]

"if the crime does not involve physical presence?"

[sneak-a-little-philosophical-conundrum-onto-slash dot]

Which of the below programs (in somewhat pseudo-code-C), when executed, makes: A: the programmer; B: the operator who started the program; C: someone else; (none, one or more may qualify) a criminal?

1.

    result = toss_a_coin();
    if (result == Heads)
    {
        hack_the_system();
    }

2.

while(number_of_cars_that_have_driven_down_the_str eet() 10)
{
    result = color(car_driving_down_the_street());
    if (result == Red)
    {
        hack_the_system();
    } else {
        twiddle_thumbs(Once);
    }
}

3.

while(number_of_cars_that_have_driven_down_the_str eet() 50)
{
    result1 = color(car_driving_down_the_street());
    result2 = color(previous_car_driving_down_the_street());
    if ((result1 == Red) && (result2 == Blue))
    {
        hack_the_system();
    } else {
        twiddle_thumbs(Once);
    }
}

Trick question: If the programs were started over a network link, where (location) did the crime(s), if any, take place?

Re:The logic escapes me

[mikiN]

ok, f*ed Slashcode, insert "<" before 10 and before 50 in the 'while'.

Re:The logic escapes me

[mrraven]

Yes it does appear that way, doesn't it? Makes you wonder in the tin foil hat crowd like http://infowars.com/ is so crazy after all?

Re:The logic escapes me

[WilliamSChips]

Just because a person has not been convicted of any crime, does that mean that he is incapable of any type of crime?

Re:The logic escapes me

[Gorobei]

Actually, v1 (hereafter referred to as 'he') didn't write that there was no DNA in fingernails; he wrote that DNA was most reliably extracted from living cells.

Let's look at his original post:

He is probably well-aware that hair (minus a follicle) and fingernail clippings are both just keratin (chitin?) and contain no biological material or DNA of any sort.

Looks like you are so wrong it's just embarassing.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Elemenope]

They aren't treated as less than human beings. They are treated as less than citizens. Voting is not an intrinsic right.

You imply an included middle that doesn't exist. I agree that according to prevailing legal theory the exercise of the franchise is a divestible right (i.e. a privilege), and not intrinsic, I have to extend the argument that just because that is so it doesn't follow that it should be so. The franchise is the fundamental quantum of political power, and divesting a person of the power to vote is tantamount to removing them from the decision making process of society. So, your assertion that there is any real difference between 'less than citizens' and 'less than human beings' is naive; people without political power can, and often are, stepped on with impunity. Treating them as incapable of exercising the franchise is tantamount to saying, in essence, 'this society has nothing for you, you are not afforded the dignity of any other human who happens by virtue of birth or naturalization to exist as part of this country'.

And, for the most part, this is in fact exactly how most ex-cons are treated. Most localities allow an employer to request that a person disclose their status as a felon, which I will concede makes some practical sense in narrowly construed circumstances, but certainly doesn't make any sense overall. This is a mechanism by which society creates permanent second-class citizens. The only justification for maintaining such second-class citizens is by someohow coming to the conclusion that they are not worth having a voice in how their lives (and everyone else's) is run.

Re:The logic escapes me

[bziman]

I wonder what his religion has to say about breaking the law.

Not sure what his religion is, but I was raised Christian, and there's nothing in my Bible about hacking or intellectual property. Just because the USA has a law on the books about something, it doesn't make it immoral.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Elemenope]

And, leaving aside for a moment the fact that I just completely mangled that last sentence all to hell, I think the commenters below covered very effectively the other reasons why its silly to deny the vote to felons.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Kanasta]

Clearly they need his DNA so that if one day the gov't needs an elite hacker for some James Bond type covert mission of utmost importance in our war on terrorism (or maybe space aliens), they could quickly make a clone of him.

Re:The logic escapes me

[galdosdi]

It might say, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Re:The logic escapes me

[buck_wild]

From Wiki: "At his sentencing, Lamo expressed remorse for harm he had caused through his intrusions, with the court record quoting him as adding "I want to answer for what I have done and do better with my life.""

Sounds like he knew what he was doing was wrong to me.

What I don't get is why this is news. He offered to give them hair and finger-nail clippings and they refused, so *I* would think he's off the hook. It's like the government said "We want a check for $100," and he says "How about cash?" And they refuse it.

Re:The logic escapes me

[ppanon]

Such a technology would be considered an extreme invasion of privacy but would probably be allowed if there was probable cause.

The problem with torture, which is well known within intelligence agencies, is that it doesn't provide you with any reliable information. All it provides you with is confessions, which may or may not be worth less than the paper they are written on.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Circlotron]

"The Christian religion is mighty big on ignoring that no killing bit."
That's one of the defining lines between an organization that simply calls itself "Christian" and one that really is. So-called christianity historically has had no qualms about supporting governments and their wars, especially if it also furthered their own aims. The fact that religion is so involved with politics and wars hardly needs to be said. What's more, two world wars were fought mostly among "christian" nations. In Nazi Germany there was only *one* religion that stood up to Hitler and refused to join his armies (or those of the other country for that matter) or give any other kind of support. Because of this about 10,000 of them were rounded up and put into various concentration camps. Some 2,500 of that group were executed there. All camp inmates wore a specific coloured triangle for identification - they wore the purple ones.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoca ust/markings.html/

Re:The logic escapes me

[Heipi]

I thought it is not Christian to break a law, but being good and do no evil. But actually, is he a Christian? draq

Re:The logic escapes me

[arron_nz]

[i]By natural rights, you have the right to live, right to be treated humanely, and the right to survive.[/i] Except in Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Delaware, California, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Utah, Maryland, Washington, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wyoming, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Dakota or under the juristiction of the Federal govt or military.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there a commandment about not coveting thy neighbor's Wifi?

Re:The logic escapes me

[sm62704]

Would you find it logical if a convicted burglar, rapist, etc. would need to supply, for example, the MAC addresses of all his computers?

What's logic got to do with the law?

Re:The logic escapes me

[RobertLTux]

the big problem is something called "chain of custody"
unless the "sample" is collected by a police officer (csi) and each step is logged in
the sample is not valid in court. so roughly the chain would go
1 the dude in question
2 police officer takes sample seals it in a bag (and signs the bag/fills out form printed on bag)
3 it is handed to the lab tech who does the id run and prints the results/adds the info to the db
any breaks and it would be thrown out of court

Re:The logic escapes me

[dgatwood]

Equal protection is a big stretch. Equal protection is intended to ensure that a law is applied equally without regard to race, gender, etc. Certainly on the surface, it would be, and I believe that even below the surface, it serves a sufficiently significant government and public interest to be considered acceptable by the courts.

The only thing you could really do as far as EP is concerned is to suggest that a greater percentage of the poor (a greater percentage of which, in turn, are minorities) commit violent crimes, and thus this is more likely to punish minorities. That might work if this were based upon sentencing (i.e. only do this for those who actually serve time in prison). However, if applied to anyone convicted, I think this is a stretch.

Basically, a successful invocation of the EP clause in this situation would require that all crimes be treated equally, which the courts would almost certainly reject. Death by electrocution for money laundering, anyone? No. I don't think so.

Re:The logic escapes me

[epee1221]

Similarly, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Re:The logic escapes me

[Circlotron]

The Bible doesn't say anything about hacking or intellectual property per se. What it does state is principles that cover these things, e.g. "You must love your neighbour as yourself". If you have that suitable regard for another you don't go hacking their stuff. Mind you, the Bible doesn't force anyone to do anything, but it does give them the scope to demonstrate what is in their hearts, which God notes and will use when his time comes to finally rid the earth of 1/ those who don't care about him, 2/ of politics, 3/ big business, and above all, 4/ religion.

Crossing a line?

[E-Rock]

I can't exactly say why, but taking an imprint of my finger doesn't seem like a big deal where taking my blood and analyzing my DNA seems a bit invasive.

Maybe they had the same debate back when the line was between taking down a physical description and taking an imprint of my finger. We all know how that one worked out.

Re:Crossing a line?

[Anonymous Coward]

and since when does the government expect everyone to give their fingerprints?

Re:Crossing a line?

[pla]

and since when does the government expect everyone to give their fingerprints?

Not "big brother" government, but have you ever heard of the "CHIPS" program?

Basically, the local PD come into a school (usually at the request of the PTA or some other group of well-intentioned but grossly misinformed parents) and fingerprint everybody.

They do this on the pretext of helping track down kidnapping victims.

Anyone care to guess how many (still-living) kidnapping victims this has recovered, out of the thousands that vanish yearly? If you raised your hand, you've come pretty damned close.


But such programs happen on a strictly voluntary basis, right? Now who wants to guess how many kids have experienced some form of punishment, up to and including suspension, for refusing to cooperate - If you only raised one hand, you've missed by a few orders of magnitude. Good luck finding hard numbers on this one, though - I myself count as an undocumented statistic, having refused to give my fingerprints in... third grade, I believe. As punishment, I didn't get to go on the field-trip to tour the police station (hey, sounds minor, but to an 8YO, suspension merely means a day off from school, while social exclusion and missing a field trip means the end of the world).

Re:Crossing a line?

[HairyCanary]

Easy. We're pretty sure we know the extent of information that can be determined about you by your fingerprints. Not true for DNA. Not only do we not know the complete extent of information that can be determined from your DNA, with what little we do know, it is already too much. More than mere identification, for sure.

Re:Crossing a line?

[syukton]

I think it's like the difference between writing down the title of a book and writing a summary of its contents.

Re:Crossing a line?

[The Living Fractal]

Invasive how? It doesn't take much to get a DNA sample from someone. And I'm sure that by simply performing a blood test (something everyone who is interested in their health should do) could yield plenty of extra blood to get the DNA sample. So let's say they offer this guy a blood test, just a regular cholesterol/blood sugar test for example, and while they're there would you mind if we take your "DNA fingerprint"? Oh, wait, you're a felon, we don't care if you mind because you have no rights in this matter, since, like we just said, you're a FELON.

This whole debate screams of paranoia and conspiracy theorist rhetoric. The people who protect you, you know, the ones who risk their lives daily to make sure you are safe, they want the DNA for the same reason they want a fingerprint. To identify the bad guy. To know if the bad guy committed a crime by having more indentifiable material to go by.

Why is it wrong to be able to really figure out who broke the law? Felons don't deserve to have the same rights as stand-up citizens. They *should* be tracked and tagged, but at least keep it humane and make the tracking/tagging invisible to the rest of us. Make it so only they know they're being watched.

Should all citizens be reqired to have DNA samples taken? Hell no. We're taking about criminals. They can whine all they want, but maybe they should've thought of the consequences when they broke the law.

Re:Crossing a line?

[asuffield]

What about people who have not been convicted of a crime, but who the police have decided are suspects? Should they be treated as innocents or criminals?

Note that this includes virtually everybody who is arrested.

Re:Crossing a line?

[timbck2]

Mod parent up. I think this is the best argument against DNA sampling, and the best illustration of the difference between fingerprinting and DNA sampling (supporting the arguments of all you "slippery slope" people).

Re:Crossing a line?

[mrpeebles]

Also, you have to get fingerprinted to get a drivers license in California, and I have to assume in some other states as well. So it's not manditory, exactly, but it sure doesn't feel voluntary either.

Re:Crossing a line?

[Anonymous Coward]

and since when does the government expect everyone to give their fingerprints?

Not "big brother" government, but have you ever heard of the "CHIPS" program?

Actually, count "big brother" in on it too. Georgia, for example, requires a digital fingerprint before you can get your driver's license or your state ID. You can't renew them, either, unless you have a digital fingerprint on file.

Re:Crossing a line?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's never been an authority figure/law enforcer/military member that turned out to be a prize winning felon themselves......... After all.. They "... risk their lives daily to make sure you are safe..." so they must all be immune to the temptations of abusing power.

Besides.. What's a little blackmail between convict and parole officer.... Suspect and Police officer.... Politician and inconvienient opponent..

Re:Crossing a line?

[Mr. Slippery]

I can't exactly say why, but taking an imprint of my finger doesn't seem like a big deal where taking my blood and analyzing my DNA seems a bit invasive.

The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin; what goes on inside of it - my thoughts, my blood, my neurochemistry - is my own damn business.

Re:Crossing a line?

[tyldis]

> I can't exactly say why, but taking an imprint
> of my finger doesn't seem like a big deal where
> taking my blood and analyzing my DNA seems a bit invasive.

I think it is a big deal giving my fingerprints. Which is one of the reasons I won't visit the US (I'm Norwegian, btw). I have a dream about driving across the US once, but getting my picture taken, fingerprints taken and registered is really a turnoff. Giving my DNA is an absolute no. Right now I trust my doctors not to abuse my blood samples, but I fear that one day I will not.

If you care about your privacy at all it's kinda hard to live today. I have pretty much given up flying as I'm subjected to security checks beyond my dignity.

Last time I flew they confiscated a paper clip I had in my pocket. I tried asking the security-guy if not my bare hands would pose a far bigger threat than a paper clip, but od course he just yelled at me for obstructing his work.

Call me paranoid, but to me freedom is also privacy. I value privacy over anything.

Re:Crossing a line?

[JimBobJoe]

Georgia, for example, requires a digital fingerprint before you can get your driver's license or your state ID.

Fortunately, the fingerprinting requirement in Georgia is eliminated as of July 1, 2006. On that date, the state is also required to delete the fingerprints on file.

Re:Crossing a line?

[JimBobJoe]

What state did that occur in?

Ohio actually has a law on the books saying that the fingerprints from children collected at schools (for this purpose) must be retained by the parents, and may not be retained by anyone else.

ORC 3313.96

Informational programs relative to missing children; fingerprinting program.
[snip]
If developed, the fingerprinting program shall be developed for the sole purpose of providing a means by which a missing child might be located or identified and shall be operated on the following basis:

(1) No student or minor shall be required to participate in the program

(4) All fingerprint cards shall be given to the parents, parent who is the residential parent and legal custodian, guardian, legal custodian, or other person responsible for a student or minor after the fingerprinting of the student or minor. No copy of a fingerprinting shall be retained by a law enforcement agency, school, school district, or any other person except the student or minor's parent, guardian, or legal custodian.

Re:Crossing a line?

[MarkCollette]

Such as a targetted virus. Maybe it kills you, or maybe you just get sick and use up your work sick days and get fired. Hell, maybe you're not even the target per se, but are just a testing guinea pig.

You think that's bad...

[Manip]

If you think that is bad (having to provide DNA after being *convicted*) you must not have been to jail in the United Kingdom...

Over here if you are arrested for things like littering, speeding, drunkenness and other minor infractions the police are legally entitled to take a DNA sample (and they DO from just about everyone).

You can refuse the order either... If they want a sample they are getting a sample...

Re:You think that's bad...

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yeah, well. The UK is hardly the place to use as an arbiter of personal privacy. I don't know of any western country where the government feels like it can piss in the face of the people as much as in old blighty. Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed.

I guess we can thank the tabloids for this. "Think of the Children" hysteria in England is like 10 times worse than in USia.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>Over here if you are arrested for things like littering,

no we aren't

>speeding,

boo hoo, you wanted to endanger other peoples' lives to show off how fast your car is. and you're only arrested if it's like 2x the speed limit or blatantly dangerous, otherwise points and a fine.

>drunkenness

wrong again, but you can be arrested for being drunk and disorderly. if you're going to get pissed and also act like a twat then who cares that you have to spend a night in a cell.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Tim C]

Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed.

Bullshit. I'm one of the first to rail against some of the crap that our New Labour masters are shoving down our throats*, but that's just crap.

Yes, most cities have CCTV cameras all over the place, especially Central London. However, it's disingenuous to suggest that "it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed" - I most certainly can do so, and I live in London.

Even if you count speed cameras, they only film transgressors; stick to the limit and they won't get you either.

That's not to say that there aren't far too many cameras around the place, just that it's nowhere near as bad as you paint it.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those CCD cams sure did a good job of stopping the train bombings, didn't they?

And don't get me started on the tapes we have of various MPs in 'interesting' positions that we are unable to do anything about. Guess some are above the law.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Manip]

If I had mod points I would give you -Troll, -Off Topic, -Redundant for that obvious troll Iraq reference.

Re:You think that's bad...

[linvir]

A trifecta? You can do that?

Re:You think that's bad...

[infolation]

>>Over here if you are arrested for things like littering,

>no we aren't

yes we are

(since 1st Jan 2006 UK Police have had the power to arrest you and take a sample of your DNA)

Re:You think that's bad...

[BallyHigh]

The lesson to heed? Wheen in Britain, don't be a drunk asshole.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any evidence that anyone has ever, in fact, been arrested and had a DNA sample taken for littering?

No?

I thought not.

Arsehole.

Re:You think that's bad...

[buck_wild]

I would take it from your argument that you assume the grandparent poster (who said that you can't leave your house without being filmed) is incorrect then.

Re:You think that's bad...

[buck_wild]

The grandparent is technically correct. You CAN be arrested for any offense.

That's not to say that anyone HAS been arrested for littering, but it is possible and perfectly legal.

Re:You think that's bad...

[bitbucketeer]

They can collect their sample from the loogie I hawk on their face. See? I'm cooperating fully!

Re:You think that's bad...

[Misagon]

Yeah, but the UK is already a police state.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Millenniumman]

Both the United States and the United Kingdom are bastions of freedom and civil liberties. You're comment about invading Iraq was completely irrelevant.

Re:You think that's bad...

[witchgirl]

Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed.

I saw a report a few years back of the way people lived in Iceland. There you truly do not have any chance of going outside your house without being filmed. You can easily acknowledge that fact by watching one of the tv channels which feeds off street cameras for anyone with spare time on their hands to watch. Some most 'respectable' people can call the police on a special number in case they see a crime being commited, however petty. I'm not sure this exists anymore, but it was tried and enforced for a while.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm
*All* offences are now arrestable in the UK.

Not to mention asbos which effectivly mean some people can be sent down for such non offences as feeding pigions or gardedning in a bikini.

Wake up and smell the tea dude. Its hapening to us HERE and now and all you can do is scratch your arse saying "I'm allright Jack"

Re:You think that's bad...

[Yartrebo]

No empire has ever had lasting freedoms in the homeland/fatherland/motherland. Rome didn't. Napoleonic France didn't. Nazi Germany didn't, and the United States doesn't. And in all cases there were fewer and fewer freedoms as time progressed. Nero was worse than Caesar who was worse than the Roman Senate. Germany 1939 was worse than 1932.

To claim that there is now an empire that has freedoms is a enormous claim, and one that requires enormous proof. You gave not a shred of evidence.

PS: Don't lie about the US not being an empire - The US has hundreds of bases and scores of puppet governments the world over. Rome at its height was puny compared what we've stolen from the former imperial powers after WWII.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Millenniumman]

Yes, the US has bases all over the world, but it does not control those other countries. Rome controlled it's conquered territories with its military. And the US is still one of the most free places in the world. Evidence? Citizens go on trial for crimes. They can and do criticize their government. They can and do assemble in opposition to government policies.

Re:You think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the UK police don't carry guns.

no

[CrayzyJ]

Instead of probation, perhaps he would prefer to do jail time instead? Probation is a nicety given to crimimals. If they don't like the terms, back to prison.

Felons don't have the same rights...

[LamerX]

I'm pretty sure that because he's a convicted felon, that he doesn't posess the same rights as a regular citizen. I don't think he can even vote. Bummer to get caught.

Re:Felons don't have the same rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to the UK. Jail is nice, TV, nice bed, gym, good food and you can vote. Fsck, I wish I were in prison right now, I'm really hungry and all I have is bread and tea. *sigh*

Re:Felons don't have the same rights...

[MonkeyOfRage]

Felon status does impact your rights, but to what extent depends somewhat on your state of residence. In some states, felons can vote.

Re:Felons don't have the same rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being convicted of a felony crime does not mean you have to give your government your blood. It is a ridiculous intrusion. Adrian Lamo has already offered to give a hair or finger nail sample to satisfy the government's stated need for a sample of his DNA. So, the government has no need for his blood.

The government does not need anybody's blood. DNA is in our hair and in our fingernails. It is even in the skin we slough off daily. This is an example of using a very intrusive method to search for something that can be found easily by a much less intrusive method.

Any why exactly is the search justified in the first place? He was not convicted of being a suspect in another crime was he?

Re:Felons don't have the same rights...

[Khyber]

bullshit, felons can (and I have) voted. BTW, we still generally have all the same constitutional rights (we're not allowed to possess HANDGUNS but we ARE allowed to possess hunting rifles and shotguns) because they're "God-given," as the judge explained to me upon my chance to ask any questions I may have had about my sentencing. I still enjoy almost ALL of my freedoms, they're just limited to a smaller extent concerning specific possessions. After my probation is up I can still join the military. Hell, this being my first felony conviction I can get this wiped off my record.

biometrics pre-fingerprints

[way2trivial]

before fingerprints were decided to be unique per person, law enforcement used to use all sorts of interesting methods of biometrics.

even measuring head bumps...

False Dichotomy

[ergo98]

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Nice transitions from convicted felons to "everyone" there.

Goverment's bio databank

[Gord]

> "Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

I'm still yet to be convinced that the government should, or needs to have, a record of everyones fingerprint, let alone DNA.

Re:Goverment's bio databank

[duke12aw]

your kidding, right? why dont you just give up your consititutional rights while your at it.

Re:Goverment's bio databank

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize he was saying that he thought the government definately does not need DNA samples, and probably even doesn't need fingerprints of everyone. That is DEFENDING his rights.

Re:Goverment's bio databank

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't need everyone's to be fully comprehensive. Consider 2 things: DNA is inherited, and how fast the tech of DNA analysis improves. (The statistical analysis has been mature for many years now.)

iow, they just need enough samples and a little better DNA analysis/sequencing than they have now. Technically, I think they have enough now but the forensic folks haven't gotten their act together and aren't using state of the art widespread across their system.

At which pont, they just need someone in your family line that's a criminal. Right now, under current tech, this is only feasible one or two generations away and mainly forward or backward traceable (parentchild).

But as tech gets more sensitive, databases bigger, the forensic acceptance of state of the art to criminal databasing, this all can be pushed to higher generational numbers meaning more generations and cross-analysis (cousin to find uncle), such that the current program doesn't need everyone's DNA. They just need to know your geneological tree (which is easily grabbed thanks to Aunt Sally's hobby or marriage licenses and IRS tax returns to your sister who answered the long census questionaire form that says she has 3 brothers).

imnso, we are maybe 15 years from this being commonplace. And another 15 before the US starts going of having master "familial" records on how criminal free/bloodline pure/genetically superior one's ancestory is.

Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[the_humeister]

For example, they can't vote

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Matthew_Martin11]

In Canada they can vote

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Its pretty funny that USA - the supposed greatest democracy in the world - takes away rights to vote from some people. Its really sick imo. In a democracy, all citizens above some age limit where we are considered adults, should have the right to vote no matter race, views, actions, gender, etc.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Yartrebo]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I find that denying felons the right to vote to be horrible. It's an awfully strong incentive to jail people whose beliefs are different from your own or oppose your party.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[thisissilly]

Acutally, that depends on the state. In some states, even felons currently in prison can still vote! See the Straigh Dope answer http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfelonvote.htm l

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

and thats really bad. Because the opposition loose a potential voter. I wonder if all of this is part of the same... hmmm

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who were against the current administration couldn't either.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[feldhaus]

: For example, they can't vote

I suspect that this guy wouldn't have any problems on that front...

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[wanna_be_a_developer]

voting is not a constitutional right http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[drsquare]

Yeah, the government might jail the hundreds of thousands of people necessary to win an election. Never mind the fact that the government don't choose juries or decide the sentence, and never mind that people accused in a trial don't have to give their political affiliation.

Since when did scaremongering become fashionable?

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Roofus]

Since when did scaremongering become fashionable?

By the Bush administration on 9/12/01.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Millenniumman]

First of all, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. Second of all, committing a crime is a choice and reflective of character. It is not something that is irrelevant to your competency in choosing who will represent you like race or gender. Would it be better to allow murderers to choose our leaders?

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Millenniumman]

So then how did the opposition almost win? Did the current administration have supporters vote for the opposition to prevent public notice of vote suppression or were aliens involved? Both?

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[General Wesc]

Firstly, if the US is a Republic, it's a Democracy. Dictionary time!

A Republic is a Representative Democracy.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Yartrebo]

News flash: Over two million people are in jail in the US. The last two presidential elections (2000 and 2004) were decided by far fewer votes than that.

Also, Democrats are far more likely to end up in jail because blacks are more likely to be Democrat, and blacks make up a hugely disproportionate share of prisoners (especially felons). Not that they commit any more crimes than whites and Republicans (marijuana use, the largest source of prisoners, is around 30% across all income levels and races).

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Millenniumman]

It may be a form of democracy, but it is not a democracy in the true sense of the word.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[mOdQuArK!]

It should be. Allowing "criminals" to vote provides a highly-desirable negative feedback against out-of-control legislators.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[ArsenneLupin]

For example, they can't vote

But they can manage a company that makes voting machines. Who needs the right to vote himself when he can just rig the tally? ;-)

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an awfully strong incentive to jail people whose beliefs are different from your own or oppose your party.

Please adjust your tin foil hat.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

You know there's a difference between saying that X is going on and saying that Y results in X making more sense.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments do choose juries. Judges do choose sentences, sometimes very different from what the jury recommends. These abuses really could happen.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway

[The New Stan Price]

You act as if these people were active voters before they were put in jail. The Democrats would like to be able to go into these jails and make sure they vote. This gives them higher turn-out from a group of people who would normally not vote. I would feel very offended if I were treated like such a puppet by the marxists.

WTF?!?!

[schon]

is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Why the fsck should *everyone* provide fingerprints to their government?

Re:WTF?!?!

[Sique]

It's called "biometric passport" and it is required for every non citizen to enter the U.S. So in reverse, it is required for every U.S. citizen if they want to go abroad. (They might be gun owners, so just a step till fully grown terrorists, you know?)

Re:WTF?!?!

[joe 155]

well if there was a national register of DNA and finger prints then it would be rather quite easy to find the person who committed any crime... it seems like it would cut the spending which is needed on poilce resources and because of the huge increase in probabilty of catching criminals it would certainly cut the crime rate (so long as at least some of the criminals are rational). I don't even see an arguement against it on grounds of civil liberties; if someone wanted to set you up then they could just as easily plant your DNA and make an anonymous report. It should even cut down on wrongful convictions; it's not perfect but would help

Re:WTF?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's what government taught him to believe.

Re:WTF?!?!

[BVis]

This is, of course, assuming that you WANT your government to treat everyone like a criminal.

I'd prefer that they didn't. If they want my DNA or my fingerprints, they can bloody well get a warrant signed by a judge. If they can't get that, then the Constitution protects my privacy. Bloody annoying, that Fourth Amendment. Requiring that "due process" and all. After all, law enforcement is entitled to be autocratic and lazy and just demand whatever they want on a pretext.

Pretty soon they'll want to put black boxes in your car.. oh wait, we already have those. Then they'll want to video tape you for the sole reason that you've driven down a street.. oh, we've got those too. Then they'll want to know about every phone call you make whether you've been accused of a crime or not.. oh, wait, we just found out about that one this week.

Amazingly enough, there are people who think a police state is a GOOD thing. I like to call those people "idiots" and would like to extend the police state to regulating their ability to breed, telling them it's to prevent terrorism. Fixes the problem neatly and ironically.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The international agreement requires one biometric to be digitally encoded on the passport, to make passports harder to forge. Digitally encoding the passport photograph (itself a biometric) is enough to satisfy the requirement. The claim that other biometrics are required is bullshit invented by the UK government to justify their ID card programme. You'll have noticed that no country apart from the UK has had to drastically overhaul their passport system to meet the new requirements.

Re:WTF?!?!

[joe 155]

hmm, what would the world be like if the police's power was so limited that they couldn't work effectively...

"In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture on Earth; no navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodius Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, bruitish, and short."

Seems to me that if it's a choice between having more state intervention or that; I'll take the state.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Because we need the Gattaca brave new world for our safety!!1!!eleven!!!

Re:WTF?!?!

[1u3hr]

well if there was a national register of DNA and finger prints then it would be rather quite easy to find the person who committed any crime

I think you've been watching too much CSI. It's quite easy to shoot or otherwise kill someone without leaving any of your own DNA at the scene. It's totally irrelevant to most computer crime, which is what Lamo was convicted of.

It should even cut down on wrongful convictions

If DNA evidence would exonerate an accused, their lawyer will insist on it.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, you are an idiot.
This in no particular way this helps with crime prevention. If anything it is a political tool to make the ignorant feel good. The most efective crime prevention technique is a good education system and opportunities for all. Fingerprints are not perfect system for identifying people. There have been cases were fingerprint evidence have matched to more than person. There have also been cases were finger prints have been planted by the authorities to frame some one. Similarly with DNA evidence. With current technology it is not perfect. A DNA sample could be used to frame some one. Oh never mind that we will let the real perp get away but lets frame this guy because we don't like their politics, oh he reads slashdot nad knows alot about computers and might be able to expose corruption. I can see the authorities going after a person because of their politics and thinking good we have their DNA, now we can frame them and put them away. These sorts of things will happen if you fall for this needless collection of biometrics. The only people who want this are autoritarians and totalitarians and people who can't think striaght.

Re:WTF?!?!

[joe 155]

well that seems like an arguement for getting rid of guns. Without guns it becomes a lot harder to kill people from such a distance. I've never understood why people in the USA so insist on keeping the right to bear arms; I'm pretty sure that the Queen (of England) won't take over your country again - why do you need guns. The NRA proves how guns are not needed; they get what they want through the political system using debate and influence... when was the last time the NRA ever decided that someone was infringing on the constitution so arranged all their members to use their arms to overthrow the goverment?.. seems like never. Get rid of guns. Get a register of DNA and finger prints. It might not stop all crime (it wouldn't), but it would cut down on crime.

Re:WTF?!?!

[SecurityGuy]

Ding ding ding ding ding!

Thanks for beating me to pointing that out. It is not true that everyone is compelled to hand over their fingerprints, nor should it be true.

I am NOT a criminal, and the fact that I am a private citizen doesn't entitle ANY government to treat me like a criminal, or a suspect in a crime without probable cause.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Cal Paterson]

There is certainly an arguement against it on civil liberties. Could you miss that forcing people to give their DNA is perhaps a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 12 and 17. Blood is personal property, and you are talking about taking it without consent.

Form a national database if you will, but rely on voluntary provision of DNA samples. Any other method is obviously a violation of human rights.

Re:WTF?!?!

[joe 155]

Interesting point although I'm not sure to what extent it applies here, the two articles you highlight seem to suggest that it is ok to do such a thing so long as it is not done "arbitrarily" (adv : in a random manner), to me this would fall under that definition; it is done with a purpose to all ctizens... i guess it depends on how you define things though

Re:WTF?!?!

[Varitek]

well if there was a national register of DNA and finger prints then it would be rather quite easy to find the person who committed any crime

Except that's not how it works. DNA testing isn't 100%. It'll narrow it down to a certain number of people. Now, if you arrest someone on suspicion of a crime, and it turns out that his DNA matches the crime scene, you've usually got your man. On the other hand, if you run the test against everyone, and narrow it down to, say, 10 people in the entire country - well, pity the poor sod who lives closest to the crime scene and had the misfortune to spend the day alone at home with no alibi.

Re:WTF?!?!

[AhtirTano]

What's the point? The GP says "I don't want to live in a Police State"; and you reply with "I don't want to live in an anarchy". How about the middle ground where most societies currently exist? Where the police or not too limited and not too powerful?

Also, you're quote from Hobbes is only relevant to the discussion if lack of effective police effort entails a chaotic free-for-all. That's an incrediblly pessimistic view of humanity, and not born out by careful observation. Culture, trade, public works, etc. all existed long before there was even a concept of a "police force". Just visit the archaeology and ethnography sections of your local library, and you can find books and books full of descriptions of relevant cultures.

Besides Hobbes wrote that from the perspective of someone who had witnessed a major upheaval in the basic precepts of English law and government. He wasn't talking about run-of-the-mill crime.

Re:WTF?!?!

[raoul666]

I don't even see an arguement against it on grounds of civil liberties

Let's say you don't like the current government, and you'd rather a different one be in power. You meet with a bunch of other people who feel the same, at one of their houses. You discuss upcoming election plans, talk about a mailing list, etc. etc. etc. The government doesn't take kindly to these kinds of meetings, and it finds this house, through a mole or whatever. Government sends in their enforcers, who arrest the owner of the house, but he won't tell them who all was at the meeting. No matter, they can just check the house for DNA and fingerprints, and then discredit/blackmail/arrest/eliminate everyone who was at the meeting.

Also, all it would do is require criminals to be much more careful. You build a better mousetrap, they build a better mouse.

Re:WTF?!?!

[buck_wild]

I agree with most of your sentiments, but this quote "The most efective crime prevention technique is a good education system and opportunities for all" concerned me.

Specifically, the 'opportunities for all' part. When I read that, I automatically think things like "Crap, too many people don't want to work for their cookies and are stealing them...so we'll make them free now."

My point is that (too many, you're always going to have some) people don't seem to want to WORK for things much anymore, and would much rather take the easy way out and lie, cheat, or steal to get it.

And no, I don't know what the answer is, except 'good parenting'. I know my two boys (aged 4 and 2) are not going to be freeloaders or thiefs. My oldest already does the dishes, pulls weeds, and is DESperate to mow the lawn. My family is in no way perfect, but the work ethic needs to start from a young age.

Gah! I'm all over the place on this comment. Ah well, it's not like anyone will read it...

Re:WTF?!?!

[bitbucketeer]

So that they can tell Microsoft that you've violated the warranty on your Xbox when they find your prints on the harddrive.

Re:WTF?!?!

[joe 155]

well if there was an authoritarian government who was hell bent on crushing people who think out of line then it wouldn't matter if they had any measure of DNA testing or not, see: Nazi regime, French Terror, (to a lesser extent because they could use it - though often don't for this purpose) China, (and similarly) North Korea... These have all relied on fear and informants more than anything else... the same method would work just as well

Re:WTF?!?!

[Firethorn]

Without guns it becomes a lot harder to kill people from such a distance
And alot easier for the dedicated criminals to do it close up. Besides, if I was of a criminal mind I could assemble guns fairly easily in my apartment. It's not like the technology isn't over 500 years old.

A gun allows a citizen to project just as much force as a criminal can project, despite differences in size, fitness, and physical skill. Police can't be everywhere, the citizen has to defend him or herself until they can arrive. There are various ways this can be done, but a gun is a powerful option. In countries that have managed to suppress gun availability, there are major issues with gangs wandering around with knives&clubs. Being in a group and younger/meaner than law abiding citizens, they're capable of enforcing their wishes unless/until the police arrive.

Get rid of guns.
You can't get rid of all guns. England has proven this. They remain in the hands of the government and criminals. Governments were the number one killer of their citizens in the 20th century. For that matter in the states, states and locations with the laxest gun control laws tend to have the lowest crime. Wierd, huh?

The NRA proves how guns are not needed; they get what they want through the political system using debate and influence...

Yeah, funny that, an association of gun owners not using violence to get their way.

Now, DNA samples aren't necessarily a bad thing(Uncle Sam has mine, required for my work). It's been used to pretty much eliminate the 'unknown soldier', where we have a body that's in our uniform, but we don't know who it is. It can also be a usefull tool for solving crime, but all it does is show that it was your blood/skin/hair/semen, and it was found in a incriminating location. Especially for acquaintance crime, it's not a slam-dunk solution. It's like fingerprints. If the guy lives there, you shouldn't be supprised to find his prints there.

But the question comes up, just how similar can DNA be? We already have a little problem when it comes to identical twins, who have the same genetic fingerprint, and we're at the point that a sophisticated lab could culture more cells in order to commit a frame job. We're reaching the point where we might even have to worry about clones commiting crimes in another 30 years.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Cal Paterson]

Taking everyones DNA would be arbitary. There's no need to take that data for any certain current or future need. It would simply be taken because there is a very slight chance it could be useful in the future.

You definition isn't particularly strong however; arbitary does not simply mean "in a random manner". To imagine that there is only one meaning of the word "arbitrarily" would be perhaps over simplifying. I'm sure you are aware that the word also has implications of despotism, as well as many other connotations.

Anyway, if you simply wanted to go down to the letter of the law; this behavior would be an obvious violation of the US Bill of Rights (the Fourth Amendment).

Re:WTF?!?!

[Millenniumman]

Most if not all criminals who stole or committed fraud for money could have earned an honest living. Some people are going to steal, and we need police. The police can't be allowed too much power, though.

Re:WTF?!?!

[joe 155]

well I would just mention that Hobbes though that run if the mill crime was an indication of what he was talking about... he said when we are far from the sovereign's police then we will end up in a similar possition to the out and out state of nature - not having effecive police does lead, to some extent to the free-for-all. As for the view being pessimistic I would say it is, but international relations have proven that this is the case (yes, I'm a clasical realist). "The strong do what they have the power to do, the weak accept what they have to accept"; I think this is why you need to have strong police because otherwise some citizens will become strong, and the weak will have to accept what they say

Re:WTF?!?!

[iminplaya]

Seems to me that if it's a choice between having more state intervention or that; I'll take the state.

You're making the false assumption that those are the only choices.

Re:WTF?!?!

[schon]

if there was an authoritarian government who was hell bent on crushing people who think out of line

IF?!?!?!

Re:WTF?!?!

[ppanon]

Foreign nationals entering the country aren't criminals either and yet they will soon be treated to invasive procedures like fingerprinting normally reserved for criminals. So it only hasn't happened to you yet.

Re:WTF?!?!

[ppanon]

Woops, I forgot to mention...

I am NOT a criminal, and the fact that I am a private citizen doesn't entitle ANY government to treat me like a criminal, or a suspect in a crime without probable cause.

But like a majority of US citizens, you think it's OK to track all the phone calls you make, right? That's not treating you like a criminal, no sir.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

Why the fsck should *everyone* provide fingerprints to their government?

Because the twat who wrote that wanted to build a straw man. We're talking about having a convict provide a DNA sample, and, rather than dispute the merits of that, said twat dishonestly attempts to turn it into "everyone" providing a DNA sample.

Re:WTF?!?!

[Rob the Bold]

Why the fsck should *everyone* provide fingerprints to their government?

We shouldn't. Mandatory submitting samples of anything is self-incrimination, and that's protected by the 5th Amendment. I don't care what the Supremes have to say about it. What right do I have to interpret the constitution? I just decided that I'm the decider. So I make those decisions.

Whenever the subject of obeying the law comes up, I just ask myself: "What would the president do?"

Re:WTF?!?!

[mce]

If the US want to have me fingerprinted just for visting them, they can wait forever. As long as this requirement applies to me (right now it does, because the US don't like the amount of biometrics on my passport), I will not visit them again, nor will I do any business with them.

I'm a European who has in the past co-developed some European IT technology that is currently being marketed worldwide by a US company, creating jobs for US workers. And what do I get in return? They want to treat me like a criminal! I'm sorry guys, but not with me!

Re:WTF?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"For that matter in the states, states and locations with the laxest gun control laws tend to have the lowest crime. Wierd, huh?"

If crime in that area was low to begin with, I can imagine no one would bother to get stricter gun control laws.

Re:WTF?!?!

[BVis]

"The strong do what they have the power to do, the weak accept what they have to accept"; I think this is why you need to have strong police because otherwise some citizens will become strong, and the weak will have to accept what they say

There's a problem with this in today's world, however. The strong control the police. That particular ship has long since sailed. The strong are attempting to increase the power of the police because that in turn increases their power.

You CAN have effective police and respect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Matter of fact, when it's put that way, it seems redundant. I don't know where you got the idea that privacy is expendable if it ensures our freedom; we've given up some freedom in the process. Kind of like a roots-type supercharger: it uses power to generate a greater amount of power. But in this case, it uses freedom and generates a smaller amount of freedom in return. In addition, this freedom is unreliable; we're relying on the government to be able to find its ass with both hands, a flashlight, a road map, and a giant blinking sign on their back that says "ASS BELOW."

Given those circumstances, I feel no guilt at telling the government to go get a fucking warrant if they want to invade my privacy. There's a process here; we can't just toss it out because of "terrists". Free clue folks, terrorism existed long before 2001 and it will exist for a long time to come. If we make ourselves less free, we're the terrorists, not them.

Re:WTF?!?!

[1u3hr]

In countries that have managed to suppress gun availability, there are major issues with gangs wandering around with knives&clubs

How about substantiating that? Whihc countries for a start?

Re:WTF?!?!

[Firethorn]

Mostly the Asian ones.

Oddly enough Japanese/Chinese spree killers often manage to kill more with knives than americans with guns.

Re:WTF?!?!

[1u3hr]

Mostly the Asian ones. Oddly enough Japanese/Chinese spree killers often manage to kill more with knives than americans with guns

Which Asian countries? Oddly enough, I live in China. Perhaps you can be more specific about these "spree killers". As in names, dates, number of victims. I can't recall any off hand. Certainly none on the scale of Columbine, or similar American cases, for example.

We'll just need about 10,000 copies...

[Professr3]

Well, the way I see it, a government could perform executions by requesting 10,000 copies of a DNA sample, if a person is required to give DNA to any government person that wants it. It's kind of hard to kill someone with 10,000 index finger print copies... It'd just waste a lot of time.

Re:We'll just need about 10,000 copies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the way I see it, a government could perform executions by requesting 10,000 copies of a DNA sample, if a person is required to give DNA to any government person that wants it.

There is a much easier way to execute someone, requiring only one DNA sample.

They simply make a clone of you from your DNA, train the clone as a government secret agent, then get it to kill you. The clone will then take over your identity.

Your dead body is broken down into raw materials, and used to make new clones. Your clone will live out the rest of your life for you, whilst acting as a government spy.

Re:We'll just need about 10,000 copies...

[Professr3]

ZOMG teh soylent green r teh peoples!!!1

from the article:

[seezer]

According to his attorney, Lamo's refusal is based on a religious objection to giving blood, and he's willing to provide his DNA in another form.
"He went in there with fingernail clippings and hair, and they refused to accept it, because they will only accept blood,"

Re:from the article:

[Oriumpor]

Jehovah's Witnesses carry cards, or wear wrist straps that say "No Blood" there have been court cases surrounding this.
Link here

Re:from the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Has he offered semen? According to my religion, that is the only way I can give DNA samples.

Re:from the article:

[MoronBob]

Maybe they told him the sample would be coded and fed into a mainframe by the name of "The Beast / Model 666"?

Re:from the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's against being given blood, not donating it...

Re:from the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

they will only accept blood

Sure they're not vampires?

Re:from the article:

[Scudsucker]

JW's have some pretty fucked up ideas. I know a girl who's parents were Witnesses, and they forced her to get an operation on her jaw before she was 18. The operation wasn't needed to stop any pain or keep her from being disfigured, but if something went wrong during the operation, and she needed a blood transfusion to keep her alive, they would have refused to allow it.

Some do. Some don't.

[leftie]

Did they take a DNA sample from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham when they put him in jail for taking bribes from defense contractors?

This guy didn't do close to anything as bad as Cunningham.

Re:Some do. Some don't.

[general_re]

Did they take a DNA sample from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham when they put him in jail for taking bribes from defense contractors?

The list of qualifying federal offenses for DNA collection was pretty dramatically expanded back in 2004 (google on H.R. 5107, the "Justice For All" Act, for details) to cover pretty much all federal felony convictions, so yeah, they almost certainly did collect DNA from Cunningham.

No! Hold the line!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some that want laws to mandate DNA samples for anyone held in federal custody for ANY reason, even those released and never charged with a crime. There have been attempts to have mass DNA testing in the case of some crimes. There is also a move to have family members of criminals tested as well. This big brother crap will never end unless we stand against this crap.

Re:No! Hold the line!

[homer_ca]

We had a ballot initiative to expand the DNA database of felony suspects to include anyone arrested. The previous law only required samples from the ones convicted. It passed with 62% voting yes. Voters are dumb. You can't lose if you sell something as tough on crime. BTW the California law requires a cheek swab, no blood sample.

Well

[Sv-Manowar]

I can see his line of thought, why would they need his DNA when his crime didn't involve anything that would require him to be traced via DNA. Seems like they need samples of his IP more ;). On a more serious note, it is worrying to see a trend in the creation of nation-wide databases of DNA, although it could be argued that they are very effective in tracing criminals, it also goes against some of the basic freedoms that we enjoy in living in such a country.

Re:Well

[humphrm]

As has already been mentioned several times, those "basic freedoms" you speak of apply to law-abiding citizens; there is no such protection for convicted felons. And, indeed, he plead guilty.

There is plenty of freedom at work here. His freedom to refuse. Note that they are not tying him down and forcing a needle into his arm. His freedom to choose more court proceedings and possibly a five year prison sentence over violating his religious beliefs.

The law is the law, but in this case the law is probably pretty weak, since he did offer up his DNA in another form. I am willing to bet that a judge might very well order the probation department to accept his alternate DNA, if he behaves himself.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

since he did offer up his DNA in another form.

No, he offered someone's DNA in other forms. Showing up with a little baggy with some hair and fingernail clippings and expecting them to accept it as "your" dna sample is just stupid. Show up with an offer to let them shave your head or pluck a fingernail from your hand with a pair of pliers and maybe you'd have a stance here. But saying "here you go" and handing them some random hair clippings is just stupid. He's already proven he lacks integrity, honesty and good judgement. He will not regain anyone's trust by playing games.

Re:Well

[mdfst13]

"Show up with an offer to let them shave your head or pluck a fingernail from your hand"

As others have pointed out, there's no DNA in hair or fingernails. The DNA would be in the hair follicle or the skin stuck to the fingernail. Shaving won't get it. You need to pluck the hair.

A blood sample is optimal, as it provides plenty of DNA with little possibility for confusion. Oral or anal (at least that's what the guy on CSI suggests) swabs are sufficient for most purposes.

Re:Well

[humphrm]

Showing up with a little baggy with some hair and fingernail clippings and expecting them to accept it as "your" dna sample is just stupid. Actually, showing up with a little baggy with some hair and fingernail clippings is just legal maneouvering, likely orchestrated by his attorney. It will be used by his attorney at the hearing to show his interest in adhering to the spirit of the requirement. The details, like pulling a hair follicle or swabbing his mouth, would still be done by an officer of the court after the judge makes his or her decision.

Let's not jump to conclusions here, he may be playing games but we won't know unless the Judge in the matter sides with him but orders him to submit to a hair follicle or oral swabbing.

Go Lomo! Don't give up your DNA!

[kkamrani]

I support Adrian Lamo's decision to not give his DNA. Not that I'm a government conspiracist, but DNA is yours, what does the government have to do with it? Why does the government need it? I think this sounds like people are looking for a genetic profile of a hacker/genius/criminal. Sounds wrong to me on so many levels.

I say so because about two months ago researchers published a research article on gene called MAOA. Trying to find a gene that expresses violence, deviance, or genius sounds a lot like the work of Cesare Lombroso and Enrico Ferri, who both researched the anatomy of 'criminal' brain in the early 1900s. They concluded the criminal brain is more primitive and less developed; even going as far as to say they are ape-like. With that conclusion, they stated that humans are born criminals, and there was no way to avoid criminal behavior. I am concerned about this because this sort of demand for Lomo to give up his DNA seems like research that will not factor in the socialization and enculturation process whatsoever.

Furthermore, just because you committed a crime and gave up a lot of your 'social and civil rights' like voting, doesn't mean you're dehumanized to the point that you do not have decisions over your own body. I know there are exceptions, in the United States, for my statement... specifically in relevance to capital punishment; but Adrian Lamo is not going down that route.

P.S. as you can tell, I thoroughly oppose solely looking at biological determinism to define and describe human behavior.

P.P.S. I know Lomo agreed to give his DNA in other forms, but I think he shouldn't!

Re:Go Lomo! Don't give up your DNA!

[turgid]

Not that I'm a government conspiracist, but DNA is yours, what does the government have to do with it?

Here in the UK, the reason given is that it, "Helps to eliminate you from the police's enquiries."

What reasonable, righteous, innocent and public-spirited person could possibly refuse?

Re:Go Lomo! Don't give up your DNA!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is code for we are lazy fuckers and we would rather be down the pub chatting up the bar maid than doing detective work or walking a beat.

Re:Go Lomo! Don't give up your DNA!

[EQ]

First, he is a convicted felon. He broke the tacit agreement with society to live within its rules and lwas, and by ding do he lost his ability to take advanatage of them - including fines, incarceration, and the loss of his ability to own a firearm or vote.

Second, Giving his DNA in the manner the law prescribes is a condition of his PROBATION. If he is this opposed, and its truly a religious issue, his faith should help him wait it out and serve the whole sentence.

Additionally, the reason for the DNA database isnt "secret research" for "a genetic profile of a hacker/genius/criminal" (sell that to the tinfoil hat conspiracy crowd, it doesnt hold water here in the real world). Its to be able to search out and find repeat offenders quickly and with high degree of precision. Many crimes are comitted by recidivists, so the database makes sense in that these are people already proven to have broken the law seriously (feonly), and are thus inclined to do so again (statistics are very solid about this, good causality). To sum this point: crimes are frequently done by repeat offenders, so having the DNA database allows the repeat felon to be quickly identified and more easily apprehended.

I applaud Mr Lamo's stand for his religious rights, but he and others should realize that often you have to pay a price for staying true to your beliefs, not to mention paying a price for comitting a crime.

I don't know what all the fuss is about...

[andrewa]

Adriana Lima is hot, I'd give her some of my DNA anytime....

If it's a condition of his probation...

[Silverhammer]

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.

On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[pla]

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now.

How about an indirect condition of his probation? The intent of which he has agreed to satisfy, if not the specific method?

Some stupid statute says he needs to let the FBI put his DNA in their happy little database. Even in genetic research, they usually use a cheek swab rather than draw blood, so why won't they accept another method of DNA recovery?

If they want his DNA, we can debate the moral and privacy implications of the issue, but most people will agree that it will probably help solve certain classes of crimes. And it wouldn't matter if they get that DNA from blood, from buccal cells, of from hair follicles.

If they just want his blood, we don't have much to debate - Nothing more than a barbaric ritual of the supplicant allowing the alpha-ape to ritually wound him to prove his subjugation. And that we absolutely cannot allow, whatever the pretense.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[sjames]

On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.

Actually, since the law changed after he committed the acts he was convicted of, even if the change came before the conviction, then applying the law to him is Ex Post Facto. (See the second paragraph of the definition) and thus, plainly unconstitutional.

I would certainly think that the imposability of probation for people who object to giving blood samples is a significant change in the severity of the penelty for such a person.

The fact that date of conviction is so frequently treated as the legal cut-off point simply reveals either an astonishing ignorance of or a profound disrespect for the Constitution on the part of U.S. judges and lawmakers.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[fyngyrz]

Actually, since the law changed after he committed the acts he was convicted of, even if the change came before the conviction, then applying the law to him is Ex Post Facto. (See the second paragraph of the definition [lectlaw.com]) and thus, plainly unconstitutional.

No. The government turned that one around using the pedophiles. (First they came for the pedophiles, but I did not object, because I was not a pedophile.)

What they did is make a law that required many years worth of previously convicted sex criminals (not just pedophiles, actually... people who had sex with 16 y/os and so forth as well) to "register" after they were convicted. They claimed that this was a "function of registration", which they asserted the state had an obligation to do, rather than "punishment", and so it was not ex post facto. Same mommy-magic applies here. They're not punishing, they're just keeping track. Any negative consequences of registration are not the intent of the state, so they don't count against the method. Which includes the registrant's being lynched or murdered by their neighbors. And btw, that's the exact reasoning of the supreme court.

Every right you let go because of some exceptional circumstance is a right that will be taken from others eventually. Sooner or later, those "others" will include you. Count on it.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[hackstraw]

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.

Don't go there. The US government does plenty of illegal, unethical, and violates the rights of people under the guise of "they volunteered" to such a thing so they will not get raped any more in prison.

Drug tests are another simple example. Tons of people do "illegal" drugs simply because human beings like to do them and they have been doing them for thousands of years.

Also, people volunteer for "therapy" and other crap so they can leave or get out of prison time. I know someone who when at 15 she had a button pushed, and albeit irrational, she just gets mega-pissed off when she is called a bitch, and a friend of hers did, and she blacked out and beat up a friend of hers very badly.

She "volunteered" to anger management and is not allowed to get into any other physical fight the rest of her life. At anger management, when she is around 15 the counselors would get into her face and repeatedly call her a bitch, and believe it or not, she never got too used to it. She also now has a concealed weapons permit and carries a gun as insurance so she will not get into a fist fight because she can't. Yes, the girl is a bit of a nutjob, but the government has inadvertently suggested that she now carry a gun instead so that she can assure herself not to get into a fist fight.

I "volunteered" for alcohol therapy and random drug tests simply because I had a little bit of alcohol in my system while driving, and I had to pay for such treatment. The government could never do this stuff directly, but under the guise of being a "volunteer" they can do these things.

I mean, even sweepstakes offered by companies under the law have to offer a "no-purchase" necessary option to participate in the sweepstakes so that it does not become unethical. Participants in things like medical and psychological testing are allowed to be given "nominal compensation" for their time, but they cannot be offered millions of dollars to participate in something like a torture study.

This is wrong, yet becoming more common.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[MourningBlade]

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.

Generally I agree with the sentiment that contracts should be binding. If you get a loan and don't pay it back, the bank has the right to seize the collateral. If you get paid to do a job and don't, you should have to give the money back (plus damages). I'm a believer in civil suits for breach of contract. I believe that there should be few (if any) restrictions on the agreements that can be made between free persons.

But there is a difference when the agreement is with the government. There is a difference when the government is the only entity with which you can make the agreement. Given the massive power imbalance between one person and the government, given the fact that the government can use force to accomplish its means, there is a special quality to agreements with the government. It is the proper place of the courts to restrict the forms and types of agreements the government can enter.

There is an easy way to get a small glimpse into why this is: the rate of people being parolled did not change with the addition of DNA tracking. In the real world, if you have a contract that millions of people agree to and you add a clause expressly to your benefit and not that of the other party, you will see a drop in the number of people willing to sign that contract. It may be small, depending on the change. It may take a little bit for people to figure out and respond to the change. But the number will change.

Parole isn't an agreement between free men. It's not the moral equivalent of a bank loan. There are things you cannot demand.

There are other "agreements" that are this way: driver's license, military enlistment, passport application, entry to and exit from the country by citizens, raising livestock, interstate commerce, and the list goes on and on. The courts have been lax in enforcing restrictions, but the opportunity is still there.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[sjames]

"register" after they were convicted. They claimed that this was a "function of registration", which they asserted the state had an obligation to do, rather than "punishment", and so it was not ex post facto

Actually, I *AM* of the opinion that it is in fact ex post facto sophistry notwithstanding.

I never claimed that the lawmakers and courts actually upheld the Constitution. Failure to uphold it certainly doesn't make the violations go away, it just further indicts the courts and lawmakers.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[fyngyrz]

Well, the problem is, once an issue like this has gone through the supreme court, we no longer have any viable options to repair the situation unless the composition of the court changes radically (unlikely... they have to resign or actually die); appeals will be denied, and you're done for.

You and I agree: Such registration is blatantly obvious ex post facto action by the government. Your views and mine, however, do not count. There is no legal mechanism by which we can apply a correcting force.

The bottom line is, registration is well established as a legal, outside the ex-post-facto concept mechanism, and this almost certainly means that DNA registration, for whatever reason, will also be deemed to be non-punative and therefore not subject to ex-post-facto restrictions.

The thing that comes immediately to mind here is the supreme court declaring that California's growing pot for use inside California's border's constituted "interstate" commerce. Sophist? Well, yes, I suppose, but really it's more like absurdity. It it sophist if I look you in the eye and claim to be a large boulder, not a person? My argument has no technical merit, so it is just absurd, I think. The government freely does this kind of thing and there isn't squat we, as law-abiding citizens, can do about it.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation...

[sjames]

I agree 100% It's not likely to be fixed unless somehow the citizens of the U.S. are moved to revolt.

Sad but true.

Genetic privacy

[Savage-Rabbit]

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Felons? I suppose it depends on whow serious the crime is, if the person in question committed murder, rape, child rape or some equally serious crime I suppose that sample taking can be justified, but should we DNA record every person that breaks the law right down to a casual shoplifter? As for it being mandatory to hand over your DNA profile to the government that is to my mind a pretty awful thougth. As a somebody who has a common metabolic affliction that has little effect on my ability to function normally and can be easily regulated with medication I still have found that this affiliction has already made me practically uninsurable when it comes to private health and life insurance. I shudder to think what will happen to peoples insurance policies and how their payments will increase or even how they will become completely unensurable when some corrupt bunch of lying and cheating piece of sh!t politicians pass a law that gives the insurance industry unlimited access to such a global DNA database. The insurance companies will use every single possible genetic imperfection to fleece people and discriminate against them and they won't be the only ones doing this either. The potential for colossaly abusing such a central DNA information repository is just to great for me to be in favor of genetic samples being collected by the Govt. of the entire population.

Re:Genetic privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly confident that shoplifting isn't a felony, *yet*.

WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[aepervius]

Disclaimer , from the reaction I am guessing you are from the US. Well, WTF why do I have to give a fingerprint to your governement every time I have to travel in the US ? Not even counting other data they get through APIS CAPS or whatever.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[Anonymous Coward]

cuz you are a visitor... not a citizen... aka a guest... our country, our rules, stay out if you don't like them...

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[osgeek]

We've got a real problem here with people who enter illegally, enter legally but stay illegally, or just enter legally to deliberately break our laws. I'd be fine if we just cracked down harder across the board on people entering the country for the reasons cited above.

You can have your privacy while you're here; but if you want complete anonymity, maybe you should just not come at all.

Anonymity is a nice-to-have feature of society in some ways, but I think that the great Internet experiment has shown that anonymity just leads to spams and scams in your mailbox; constant threats from script kiddies, hackers, vandals, viruses, and trojans; and just a great lack of civility and human-deserved respect from destructive cowards who would never do what they're doing if they could easily be identified and have their asses kicked.

I wouldn't mind if we returned to a bit of the old days where everyone in a town knew you by name and if you fucked up, they all knew it was you. Fingerprinting gets us a little of that familiarity and sense of consequence to our actions in a society.

I know that the above sounds harsh and you're thinking that I'm some sheep republican religious dumb-ass rube... but you'd be surprised. I like a strip club as much as the next guy. I think that marijuana and prostitution should be legalized (even though I probably wouldn't partake in either)... I'd love to live in a society where anonymity was one of its guarantees. Unfortunately, there are too many assholes fucking it up for the rest of us to allow that. Hence my willingness to sacrifice some anonymity for some security. Don't quote Ben Franklin on me, since his saying about liberty vs security is provably bullshit as a rule to live by. I don't care who you are -- you sacrifice liberty for security every day in some way... it's just a matter of where we all draw the line.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[schon]

from the reaction I am guessing you are from the US

Your guess is incorrect. I am Canadian.

My reaction was a knee-jerk to the assumption that "everyone" should give their government fingerprints. What amazes me is that there seem to be a lot of Americans here who believe that such an thing is reasonable, rather than being evidence of a police state.

WTF why do I have to give a fingerprint to [their] governement every time I have to travel in the US?

You are entirely correct in your outrage.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

Question: WTF why do I have to give a fingerprint to [their] governement every time I have to travel in the US? Answer: You are entirely correct in your outrage. Well - I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I am not quite sure why you have stated that the outrage is correct. If someone is not a citizen of the US, it does not seem to be unreasonable for the US to be able to track them. The world is not everyone's playground. In a utopian socienty, perhaps that would be fine, but in our current worldwide situation we have crazy dudes that want to fly airplanes into buildings, backpack bombs, bus bombings, etc. Thus, a level of control of non-citizens is needed and that may only be a starting point. I find it to be a little naive to think that people (today) should be able to travel anywhere anonymously.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[schon]

If someone is not a citizen of the US, it does not seem to be unreasonable for the US to be able to track them [...] we have crazy dudes that want to fly airplanes into buildings

Tell me - how exactly does having someones fingerprint prevent them from flying airplanes into buildings?

What would be your reaction to the President saying "Well, 3000 people died - but at least we have the hijackers' fingerprints on file now!"

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[ppanon]

It's not about flying anonymously. The USA already requires passports or some other form of ID to fly. It's about the collection of information which is not necessary for identification. Instead of fingerprinting, passports could contain a smartcard with a pin. You would have two factor authentication without resorting to biometrics and the collection of data which could be misused for other purposes.

Good thing that teleconferences are easy to arrange and increasingly a better substitute in person meetings, because I could see a number of foreign executives being unwilling to submit to those procedures. Visa restrictions are hurting the USA's ability to attract top research talent and this is going to damage its ability to do business with foreign corporations.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

"Tell me - how exactly does having someones fingerprint prevent them from flying airplanes into buildings?
What would be your reaction to the President saying "Well, 3000 people died - but at least we have the hijackers' fingerprints on file now!"
You know, you could probally get a job at cnn, msnbc, foxnews, talk radio, white house spokesperson, etc if that is what you took from my comment. That was a serious spin job. In short, my comment hinted on the fact that a lot of crap happens in the world and it is not wise to let foreigners run around anonymously.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[caluml]

Well, WTF why do I have to give a fingerprint to your governement every time I have to travel in the US ?

So that the UK government can get a copy of those prints too. You rub my back....

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, so much for a land for liberty and freedom for all.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

bah! Passports with a pin is a ridiculous idea if the goal is to uniquely identify someone. Think about it. Regarding Visa restrictions hurting the US, show some proof. Don't just spout subjective bull. I counter with that statement is made-up and is only your 'feeling'.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[mce]

... a lot of crap happens in the world and it is not wise to let foreigners run around anonymously.

1) What does preventing anonymity have to do with fingerprinting friendly businesmen with a NATO Secret security clearance (my case), a valid European passport, and a valid US visum? It's not like I'm trying to hide the fact that I'm in the US, now is it?

Besides, you can have somebody's finger prints on file and still not know who he is. After all, you only want them when you think the person's passport technology isn't "reliable", so...

2) You should come and visit us, for a change. We live in the same world that you live in, but we don't need to fingerprint you in order for us to feel safe.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

let's see... hmm... where do fingerprints show up, oh yeah, on stuff that you touch, perhaps you go rougue, perhaps you steal some documents, perhaps you touch the door knob, fibbies pull your prints off the door knob, ergo, you are a suspect, i like that, i do NOT like crimminals getting away... (simplistic example)

regarding your "qualifications", in the US when a person joins one of many government organizations, their prints are taken, despite them having been born here, having valid id, social security card, driver's license, yadda, yadda, yadda... finger printing is just another way of id'ing someone, you are treated no different than the nationals are treated that have been granted clearance

perhaps your country does not fingerprint people, what is your point? i guess your your country has other strategies to ID people...

finger printing does not make me feel safe, finger printing is just another tool that my country uses, you may not like it, but that is your problem, i have no issue with it, other than it may at times be redundant and therefore a waste of taxpayer money (but the government does plenty of that in many other areas that i would rather be concerned about)...

continuing on that point, what is so invasive and reprehensible about finger printing since you "still not know who he is"

there are far more intrusive measures that the US government takes that you should be concerned with

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[schon]

etc if that is what you took from my comment. That was a serious spin job

Translation: "I can't refute your comments."

a lot of crap happens in the world and it is not wise to let foreigners run around anonymously

s/foreigners/people/g

I hope you enjoy your life under fascist rule.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[ppanon]

bah! Passports with a pin is a ridiculous idea if the goal is to uniquely identify someone. Think about it.

Really? Because I said a smartcard with a PIN. Not the kind of stupid PIN you get with debit cards in the US, but the kind of PIN that is the decoding PIN for the non-exportable private key in a PKI key pair on a smart card. Use a 4096 or 8192 bit key pair and the result is pretty strongly identifying.

So maybe I've got some experience with PKI infrastructures and have thought about it, and you should RTFP.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[ppanon]

Oh and regarding Visa restrictions impacting foreign student enrollment, it's not just my opinion.
Although apparently, enrollment improved in 2005 after three years of decline as a result of efforts made on behalf of the departments of Homeland Security and State to streamline the visa process. So if anybody is spouting subjective bull, it's you, Mr. Reactionary Weenie.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

So what happens when your smart card / pin combo are stolen? Does that person automatically become associated with your ID? psst... bad idea... Fingerprints/Photos/etc combo is much more difficult to steal and/or forge.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

"Visa restrictions are hurting the USA's ability to attract top research talent and this is going to damage its ability to do business with foreign corporations."

I find it difficult to equate, "top research talent and this is going to damage its ability to do business with foreign corporations" with graduate school enrollment figures.

However, if students were who you were referring to in your initial comment, then I obviously agree with you.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[ppanon]

How is somebody going to steal my PIN if I don't write it down somewhere? Do you have your debit card PIN written down?

As for pictures, you could have your digital picture be part of the identification signed by the ID CA along with the rest of your identification. If my ID card or passport is stolen, then the key pair for that ID can be added to a revocation list. In the worst case, IDs using PKI can have built-in expiration dates that require re-issuing. Fingerprints never expire.

In contrast, we know that all COTS fingerprint readers can be fooled by gelatin. If my fingerprints (and everybody else's) are available from a database, that database will become a major target for penetration by criminals. If my fingerprints are obtained in that fashion, it becomes easier for somebody to plant evidence to throw a false trail or to discredit me should I take a stand against a powerful interest. If that happens and I am exonerated, unlike with a PKI key pair, I can't change my fingerprints so I could have to continue to defend myself against new planted accusations for the rest of my life.

Or from an IT perspective, one of the things you should avoid in designing a relational data model is using a variable piece of information as part of the primary key in a strong entity. Instead you should use a surrogate key so that changes to the information don't require propagation through dependent entities. It should be possible to understand the corollary, that when identification is subject to theft and falsification, the key identifying information that will have to be reissued in the case of theft or falsification should be based on something that can be replaced so that the old ID can be marked as bad and the change can be propagated instead of constantly being subject to falsification because the core of the identifying information is no longer secret and falsifiable.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[ppanon]

The sentence was "Visa restrictions are hurting the USA's ability to attract top research talent and this is going to damage its ability to do business with foreign corporations". It was a parallel between demonstrated fact "Visa restrictions are hurting the USA's ability to attract top research talent"
and [the collection of fingerprints for Passports and/or IDs as a requirement for flying] "is going to damage [the USA's] ability to do business with foreign corporations". In both cases, additional bureaucratic impediments dissuade foreigners for pursuing activities in the US if there are alternative countries that offer similar (even if not as lucrative) opportunities. All it takes is one or two Presidents or CEOs being fingerprinted at an airport like common criminals due to a case of name confusion with someone on the do not fly list. Emotionally that will be even more shocking and revolting to them than being denied the right to board. Assuming they are willing to have it done to get the passport in the first place.

Yes, greed is a powerful motivator, but so is outrage.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

good, let the arrogant prima donna's stay put... they'll come running when they get hungry :)

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[wanna_be_a_developer]

"How is somebody going to steal my PIN if I don't write it down somewhere?"

Well - We are spying on you. :) In fact, George just let me know who you were speaking to last night. Naughty boy!

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ?

[ppanon]

I'm sure they'll think exactly the same thing.

Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek?

[leftie]

I could swear the standard procedure is to swab cells from the inside of ones cheek. If he's willing to do that, then they they are just intentionally screwing with him for no reason.

Right wing Christians have a real bad habit of intentionally screwing with people with differing religious beliefs (See photos of naked Iraqi pyramids, and the long, long history of guards in US prisons screwing with African-American prisoners who practice Islam).

Something everyone should provide to government?!

[D4C5CE]

"Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

At birth, "just in case", huh?

Here are two particular movies the submitter urgently ought to get for the weekend:

1. GATTACA
2. Minority Report

Hopefully he'll be able to do so while neither a blood sample nor a fingerprint are considered "something that everyone should provide at video rental" just yet.

Nexis-Lexis?

[tyme]

What the hell is Nexis-Lexis? Maybe the submitter meant LexisNexis and maybe the so-called editors should have caught this?

Re:Nexis-Lexis?

[Yartrebo]

If I was an editor I would throw out LexisNexis (error intentional) as no letter in proper English can be capitalized save for the first letter. I would replace it with the closest valid spelling, in this case Lexis Nexis. I also correct misspellings (especially when the misspellings are just so that they can get a trademark on a generic word, like with Blue Ray).

I can understand ordinary people being sloppy with their spelling, but when marketers do it on purpose, it drives me crazy. Just one more reason they should be rounded up and thrown into the sea next to their lawyer friends.

Re:Nexis-Lexis?

[Anonymous Coward]

of course, you mean "If I were an editor"

Re:Nexis-Lexis?

[Yartrebo]

You're right, but it's just an internet post. I try not to make too many errors, but one here or there is nothing to be embarrassed about. What gets me upset is doing them purposefully, which marketers make an art out of.

Except he agreed as part of his probation

[Anonymous Coward]

He don't like it, he can go to jail. Where he can take Tiny's DNA samples. :-)

Retention policy?

[Chris Pimlott]

On a related note, what's the law regarding retention of stuff like DNA data, fingerprints, etc? For example, if my next door neighbor got murdered, I might get asked to provide my fingerprints to rule me out as a subject. I might be willing to do this (provided I'm not actually guilty) but what happens afterwards?

Are there restrictions for situations like this that only allow the authorities to use such data for only a specific case? Or does my data get permanently entered in a general database, to be automatically scanned for any and every crime in the future?

I'm not against cooperating with the police, but if it's the later, I'd be extremely wary of volunteering for such things.

Re:Retention policy?

[Shadyman]

AFAIK, there was a case where they did this with a rape suspect.. Got his DNA to rule him out of a murder trial, but they used it to convict him in the rape trial.

Re:Retention policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so wrong! It makes me mad when the government intrudes on our privacy like this! GRRRR!

Re:Retention policy?

[asuffield]

Your data is permanently kept, so that if ever one of the other few dozen people who have near-identical fingerprints to you (in the US alone) commits a crime, you can be charged with it, thereby reducing the number of unsolved cases. It's a form of patriotism.

Sadly I'm not joking.

Re:Retention policy?

[westlake]

Your data is permanently kept, so that if ever one of the other few dozen people who have near-identical fingerprints to you (in the US alone) commits a crime, you can be charged with it, thereby reducing the number of unsolved cases. It's a form of patriotism

Modded to +3, Informative?

Informative demands a show of proof.
Not the kind of bald assertion that would be beneath contempt if you heard it on AM Talk Radio.

Re:Retention policy?

[meringuoid]

For example, if my next door neighbor got murdered, I might get asked to provide my fingerprints to rule me out as a subject. I might be willing to do this (provided I'm not actually guilty) but what happens afterwards?

If you're not actually guilty, why are you giving the State your fingerprints? If they think you're guilty, they can arrest you and charge you and THEN they can check your fingerprints. Not before.

You're a free man, for fuck's sake. Act like it.

Re:Retention policy?

[SpacePunk]

In the United States, the citizenry have been boondoggled into believing they must prove their innocence, not that the authorities must prove the accused is guilty.

Re:Retention policy?

[djmurdoch]

See http://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/prabhakar_indiv_pami .pdf for a discussion of this. It suggests that the chances of "near identical" fingerprints in someone else whose fingerprints are collected carefully is pretty small, but the chance of a match to latent fingerprints (the ones someone left at the scene of a crime) are quite a bit higher. "A few dozen" people being able to leave latent prints that match yours is plausible.

Re:Retention policy?

[westlake]

"a few dozen" people being able to leave latent prints that match yours is plausible.

In the real world, the New Jersey state police do not close a rape case when partial prints are matched to a seventy-five year old war vet bound to a wheelchair in Petaluma.

Re:Retention policy?

[djmurdoch]

In the real world, the New Jersey state police do not close a rape case when partial prints are matched to a seventy-five year old war vet bound to a wheelchair in Petaluma.

That would be more comforting if I was a seventy-five year old war vet.

Fingerprinting everybody is just another version of mass screening. As is well-known from AIDS testing and the NSA phone screening, mass screening for rare events is a recipe for generating false positives. Right now fingerprints are useful and reliable because only targetted individuals are fingerprinted. If everybody was fingerprinted, the number of false positives would skyrocket.

Why not a DNA Swab?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Blood? Can't they just swab his mouth?

It's a sign of the times, I tell you!

[binkzz]

Big time criminals used to get hanged or chopped into bits in the middle ages.

Not too long ago, they might get the electric chair!

Nowadays, hardened, dangerous criminals get detention at their parents' house.

Really, soon I won't even be afraid to walk the streets at night anymore.

Re:It's a sign of the times, I tell you!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it very hard to believe this person is "hardened' or 'dangerous'. Therefore your post makes absolutely NO SENSE!!

Re:It's a sign of the times, I tell you!

[lxs]

Reactionary fuckwits used to die in bar brawls

Not too long ago they might drive a cab!

Nowadays they have slashdot accounts.

Really, what is the world coming to?

Fuck the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bunch of fascist fuckers anyway.

Felons don't have privacy rights.

[Pedrito]

When you're a convicted felon, you pretty much lose your right to privacy. Whether you're sentenced to prison or probation, it doesn't matter. Giving a DNA sample is not much different than having to give you fingerprints, which you're required to do when you're arrested, not even convicted.

So personally, I have no problem with it. Don't want to give up your DNA? Don't commit crimes.

Look, more and more, DNA is being used in investigations and that's a good thing. It's getting innocent people out of prison and it's putting guilty people away. As much as I have issues with the government and invasion of privacy, I don't have issues with the police enforcing the law and using the tools available to them to solve crimes.

Once you're convicted, the law makes the assumption that you have a tendency towards crime, so they collect data that will help them catch you if you do it in the future. That makes sense. That's why they've been taking fingerprints and mug shots since those two pieces of information have become part of fighting crime. They're tools that are, for the most part, used for very good things.

The guy broke the law, got convicted, and if the police feel they need a DNA sample as part of their ability to enforce the law in the future, then I'm totally okay with that.

Now, that said, once his sentence is completed and he's no longer on probation, then no, they shouldn't be able to come collect this data from him. Once you've served your time, unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise (such as being a suspect in a new crime), you should have your right to privacy back. But as long as you're serving, whether in prison, or at home, you don't. It's that simple.

Re:Felons don't have privacy rights.

[novus ordo]

"It's getting innocent people out of prison and it's putting guilty people away."

DNA testing is not the panacea you say it is. Incompetence and corruption, as well as the ignorance of the accuracy of such methods that put innocent people in jail. With the complexity of DNA analysis it is easy to contaminate or otherwise distort the sample. So the lab that tested your DNA and got you convicted is not accredited? And you happen to be the 0.001% error in DNA testing? Tough. Don't have blood.

not the same

[sidb]

There are some important differences between fingerprints and blood that get glossed over by calling them both just means of identification. Blood has historically been regarded as much more private than fingertips. Plus, the more we learn about genetics, the more powerful that DNA becomes. The government could theoretically start analyzing it for different genetic traits. They could probably clone you someday soon. Not that they couldn't just follow you around and pick up your hair, of course, and sure, they have no policy of doing any of that stuff, but governments always abuse their powers sometimes. I can understand the guy's reluctance.

Re:not the same

[Sentrion]

"but governments always abuse their powers sometimes"

Sometimes I always agree.

Re:not the same

[MadTinfoilHatter]

but governments always abuse their powers sometimes.

It was as if a million grammar Nazis suddenly cried out in horror... ;-)

Re:not the same

[sidb]

Hmm. Yeah, sorry. The always goes with governments, and the sometimes goes with the abuse. So in every government, abuse will sometimes happen. Clear as mud. As punishment for my own abuse, I will now go flog myself. Oh crap. I should just stop writing.

A fingerprint is fine but...

[Roblem]

I think if they were only asking for a DNA fingerprint (just the factors used to identify one person from another) that's ok. It's just that today you can't control what anyone dose with a blood sample. I would like to think that I have copyright over my DNA sequence but it's likely not to be true. I can understand why he is refusing.

For those who weren't paying attention...

[danwesnor]

He's not refusing to give DNA, he's refusing to give blood, on religious grounds. He has offered up DNA in other forms, but the state says they can only process DNA from blood.

Re:For those who weren't paying attention...

[v1]

Do you really believe that hair and fingenail clippings contain DNA? Those are the ONLY two things he could possibly offer that do NOT contain his DNA. He knows what he's doing, and it has nothing to do with religion.

6 months in parents basement?

[Anonymous Coward]

six months detention in his parents' home

And exactly how is this supposed to punish a geek?

What's the problem?

[hpcanswers]

Why is anyone afraid of providing a DNA sample? Is the government going to discover that I have a rare genetic condition that makes me susceptible to disease? If I did, then I'd sure like to know; thanks for the free life-saving test. Is the government going to clone me? I already have an identical twin brother. Resistance to ID cards makes sense; FUD about DNA sampling does not.

Re:What's the problem?

[linvir]

Well hurray for you and your interesting point. But unless you're willing to put it as reply to one of the people bitching about DNA in general, you're offtopic. If you press Reply and create a new thread, it is assumed that you're talking about the story. This story is not about DNA privacy, so please have the courage to engage with the people you disagree with rather than replying indirectly like this.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought...
DNA in the form of blood, nails, hair, etc. has been the traditional ingredient in international witch's brew since long before science stumbled onto its power. Who in their right mind would want to be susceptible to the ploys of evil witches?

Because this guy offered nail clippings, I realize my point is ineffective for this case. I just can't help but wonder how a court would have responded to allegations of mass modern day witchcraft (instead of the boring Bible case the Jehovah's Witnesses provided).
Maybe, bring up the strange practices of Bohemian Grove for the hell of it.

Nexis Lexis?

[leftie]

A phat ride for someone in Kresint Nexis?

http://www.garageband.com/artist/KNX

Didn't he stalk an old GF?

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, stalkers should be made to provide dna samples.

But that's not the issue here

[ladybugfi]

>Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

This is an interesting issue, but unfortunately not the one Lamo is raising. According to TFA, Lamo is refusing to give a blood sample, but is prepared to give other forms of DNA (nail clippings and hair). His reasons seem to be religious and aren't based on any privacy concerns.

Re:But that's not the issue here

[linvir]

How dare you insult the sacred Slashdot tradition of tacking a completely fucking retarded question onto the end of the summary?

Re:But that's not the issue here

[v1]

Why are there SO MANY posts here saying how he provided DNA with his hair and fingernail/toenail clippings? GET A CLUE, read a book. I learned this in what, 6th grade science? keratin/chitin does NOT contain DNA. Never has, never will. Give me a hair with a follicle attached to the end and we'll talk. (this is why he provided the samples in advance, to make sure there was no follicles in the hair, and I would be the nail clippings were washed in alcohol)

Other means of DNA

[Rainbird98]

If the NSA can tap your phone. Surely the cops can tap his toilet. Instant DNA.

Re:Other means of DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

But I thought turds did not include human cells. Please clarify.

Fingerprints

[jbailey999]

Eh? I've never provided fingerprints to my government. Are americans already whipped into shape that badly?

Re:Fingerprints

[GenericDefect]

Institutions usually scare the parents into surrendering them when we are children.

If a monopolistic, unipolar government actually could represent my interests and needs, I'd love for them to know everything about me.

Re:Fingerprints

[JustNiz]

>> Are americans already whipped into shape that badly?

Yes. Europeans have far more freedom of speech and other liberties than Americans. There's far more religious brainwashing and censorship of the news in the US. Phone tapping of millions of citizens (like Bush just allowed) would just not be allowed to happen.
Go live in Europe for a while then come back to the US and the difference very obvious.

Re:Fingerprints

[Worldwatcher2u]

Well you have never been in the armed services. In California, hairdressers, nurses, doctors, and a whole host of other professions must give fingerprints to protect the public from fraud. Fingerprints, like DNA eleminates as well as convicts. Get a grip.

Re:Fingerprints

[lordmetroid]

I too have not given fingerprints to my country(Sweden). However as I have family in the states and which I want to visit. I have given fingerprints to the state of USA. Just travelling into the State seem to be enough for being treated as a criminal. Not even Japan does treat you like a criminal in such way regardless how antiforeign they are compared to the rest of us. I never needed to do anything like that. What I had to do because I was there for a whole lot of time(1 Year), was to register my presence to the country with a picture. I can agree to a picture. But fingerprinting or DNA sampling that's just right out being classified as a criminal in my mind. Some would say a picture is equaly bad. But I can accept giving the governement a picture. I needed to for a VISA anyway soo...

Re:Fingerprints

[Millenniumman]

Europeans do not have more freedom of speech than Americans. Several European countries have stopped people from saying things the government did not agree with, or things that may have offended someone. America has very few restrictions on free speech.

Re:Fingerprints

[jbailey999]

How is a fingerprint going to keep my hairdresser from defrauding me? Swiping my Visa number at the till, overcharging me, or outright slitting my throat and leaving me for dead in the dumpster are all possible after the hairdressed has his/her* fingerprints taken.

Given this and the basic tenant that one ought to be held innocent until guilt in proven, why should I have to be eliminated? If I come up as a suspect, then sure. But even then, a DNA or fingerprint test could be done in front of me and then destroyed while I'm standing there.

The government should be held on a strict need-to-know basis. It's a concept they understand.

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

Re:Fingerprints

[toddestan]

Yes. Europeans have far more freedom of speech and other liberties than Americans.

I wouldn't count on that. The UK seems to be more and more like Orwell's 1984 everyday. CCTV cameras everywhere, national ID cards, a system to track vehicles, etc.

It's even worse than that

[cyberformer]

It used to be that samples would be destroyed and data erased if the police didn't charge you or you were acquitted. (You even had the right to go to the polie station with your lawyer and see them being physically destroyed.)

They still do this with fingerprints, but *not* with DNA. Now, even if you're provably innocent and only arrested due to police error, prejudice, etc., they still keep your DNA profile in a database. And they keep the actual samples too, so that they can get a reading of your complete genome when DNA sequencing techniques improve.

Re:It's even worse than that

[feyhunde]

The first year that DNA got good enough to do identification, about 1986, there was a serial rapist/killer in a small english town.

The solution of the Bobbies?

DNA test every male in town till they found the rapist. The Blooding is I believe the title of the book about it. They kept the DNA on file too. 5,000 locale men were tested, most of whom had albis.

DNA ID is Easily Foiled

[cquark]

There are a lot of cheap ways to contaminate crime scenes. Criminals have already begun dumping the contents of public ashtrays onto crime scenes, contaminating the scene with the DNA of dozens of people. We need to consider whether the immense expense and privacy invasion of a national DNA database, along with the inevitable errors and counterfeiting (the 9/11 terrorists were able to pay DMV personnel for fake driver's licenses; surely people will pay to falsify their records to replace their digital DNA records with those of someone else), makes sense when there are such simple, cheap ways to evade the system. Are there other systems that would give us more security for those billions of dollars, perhaps without such loss of privacy?

... DNA evidence for a computer hacker?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how DNA evidence would be applicable to computer crimes where you don't have a bloody keyboard or something. Felon or not, I don't think anyone should have to give their DNA when it has absolutely no use in solving the crime or linking them to others. Beyond that scope it's an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

The summary is asking if DNA samples are required.

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary asks, 'should DNA samples be required' and we're addressing that discussion.

It's silly for you to tell people to not discuss the discussion.

Re:PLED

[Anonymous Coward]

The past tense of "plead" is "pled" (or "pleaded") - get it right!

Oh, and the past tense of "lead" is "led", just in case you managed to not absorb that fact either.

YES - separate out and amp up the white cells DNA

[spineboy]

Title says it all

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[jscheelmtsu]

How dare you accuse right wing christians of that. Your gross generalization is both pitifully uneducated and extremely offensive. First and foremost, not all conservatives are christian. Second, prove to me that those guards are conservatives. Third, prove to me that they are christian (this one is going to be rather hard, considering the fact that their actions were completely un-christian-like, not to mention the fact that not everyone who says they are christian actually is). Then, if you can prove that they are right-wing and christian, prove to me that this is what every right-wing christian does. I am a right-wing christian and you don't see me making prisoner pyramids. Then, after all of this, prove to me that the authorities demanding a dna sample are all right-wing christians. Oops, you can't! Why don't you attempt to comment on the story instead of using your post as a completely unrelated jab at conservative christianity.

As for the story in question, if the government will provide alternative options for different faiths in some areas, then they should carry it through to the end. Of course, one can question if the government should make concessions for anyone. Being a christian, I can look at several instances where men and women of the Bible stood up for their faith in front of government opposition, and paid the price for doing so. They stood up for what is right, but they did so fully understanding the consequences. It's up to the people to decided whether or not the government should bend for individual's beliefs. On one hand, you end up being crippled by attempting to bend to everybody, on the other, you end up being overbearing and stomping on the citizens of the nation.

He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[rxed]

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA?

Hell, yeah! Felony, in many common law legal systems, is the term for a "very serious" crime; misdemeanors are considered to be less serious. Crimes which are commonly considered to be felonies include: aggravated assault, arson, burglary, murder, and rape.

Re:He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[rxed]

I meant to say: HELL NO! Felonies are serious crimes and people that commit them should have no rights to DNA privacy.

Re:He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

I am too lazy to create an account. So this is being posted anon.

That being said I totally support my viewpoint and will defend it to my dieing breath.

Allowing the federal government an INCH means they take a mile.

In terms of privacy the federal and state laws requiring felons to give DNA samples have steadily increased in scope. Originally they where intended for violent sex crimes and or any sex crime where the offender was at risk of repeating the offense. This got expanded to include all felonies. If you think that's ok you should check your states definition of a felony. Things like drunk driving or shoplifting an expensive watch even getting in a fist fight in your local bar. The point is felony doesn't mean the same thing it meant 30 years ago. Because of the so called "Tough stance on crime" it's been expanded to include lesser and lesser offenses. Recently within the past 15 years more and more courts have relied on the diversionary programs to allow people to have the opportunity to re-earn there rights and some say it's been very effective.

My overwhelming point is that with the current law requiring all federal felons, certain states AKA Wisconsin have a state law mirroring the federal statute. There is nothing stopping them from including minor crimes traffic stops and jaywalking. You say that won't ever happen. What happens when they have all the criminals in codis. Hmm Maybe we should DNA type babies at birth and then we can predetermine there risk of becoming offenders. Perhaps we should just DNA type them inutero and if they are at risk of being an offender abort the fetus. You say that's ridicules it won't ever happen. I say don't give away even one iota of your rights or eventually it will happen. Our government operates on the philosophy that if we nibble away at there rights they may bitch and moan but they won't take the streets with guns. We are slowly becoming a third world country controlled by fear mongering and money.

Now a note about felons. I don't believe just because you made a mistake and paid for it you should be marked for life. Taking DNA is forever taking away ones right to vote is forever. Personally I think removing ones ability to vote is an insult. All of our founding fathers where criminals and felons don't believe it look it up. The fact is that when they rebelled against England they committed a felony called treason. Our country was built by criminals and thieves it's only recent history that paints them as patriots.

So before you say it's only a little bit of freedom and by giving it up I gain peace of mind remember that each little bit adds up and before you know it uncle sam will be elbow deep crawling up your ass.

So try and remember that when you approve of things like NSA wiretapping or secret warrants. Or incarceration without a trial. We have words for these things. But perhaps it would be better if I drew a picture. Secret Police, KGB, Torture, Domestic spying, Domestic kidnapping, Executions, Hitler, Genocide.

It's a slippery sloop that's best stayed off of.

Re:He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

What you said might have a point if the laws hadn't been perverted long ago by those with an agenda. Meanwhile, back in the real world, someone caught with a 2-month supply of pot or someone caught in the wrong state with the wrong memeber of the same sex will become a felon and a CFO who cooks the books resulting in people loosing a large portion of their life savings get off on a misdemeanor and some fines (I won't mention the company, but I worked for them...thankfully, I hadn't vested yet when this all happened). Hell, you can even fake a terrorist attack, start a unilateral war based on false pretenses, kill hundreds of thousands of people and divert billions of taxpayer dollars into companies that paid to get you elected...all without a single consequence.

The point being, it would be great if felony and misdemeanor meant anything, but in a country with such fucked up morals, short of actually physically harming someone with no provocation, you can't read too much into those classifications.

Re:He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crimes which are commonly considered to be felonies include: aggravated assault, arson, burglary, murder, and rape."

Don't forget possession of a detectable amount of marijuana.

Re:He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

And why is it none of you find even that list of felonies that suspect? Battery/Aggravated Battery, sure...but assault?!

But in most places, assault isn't even the *threat* of force, but "belligerent or rude behavior". Somebody can be charged with a felony for flipping the bird or telling a cop to fsck off. How many of you would be belligerent if a cop gave you a hard time? Oops, free felony--now they have a good lawful reason to harass you. It's de-facto evidence that the threshhold for breaking a law is pathetically low and serves the interests of a state that wants to manufacture a 'lawful' reason to arrest someone.

Re:He is a felon thus he should give his DNA

[Motherfucking Shit]

Crimes which are commonly considered to be felonies include: aggravated assault, arson, burglary, murder, and rape.

You forgot copyright infringement, but I guess that wouldn't jive with your mindset that all felonies are violent or destructive.

"False Dichotomy"

[Anonymous Coward]

is that some kind of neegeroo talk?

Simcurity

[Doc Ruby]

His DNA is like his fingerprints: if he left it in public, the government can just collect or copy it. Otherwise,

Fourth Amendment
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Re:Simcurity

[Sloppy]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how there can be "probable cause" to suspect this guy for a future crime that hasn't even been perpetrated yet. One might argue that there is some reason to suspect him for a future website defacement, but the information the government is demanding suggests that he is a suspect of a future rape or something. Did someone already affirm that they witnessed this guy commit that future rape? If so, then the real news here isn't some weirdo act of Congress, but the discovery of a time machine -- truly News for Nerds.

Sounds like your entire argument...

[schon]

... can be summed up as "nobody really needs to be considered innocent until proven guilty"?

The phrase "Convicted Felon"

[mpapet]

Is a clue that the fellow has long ago left the non-felony citizenship a long time ago.

Most states do as they please with felons with no fanfare what-so-ever. Americans like their felons behind bars and generally prefer to keep them in the penal system once they've entered. So, the institution in charge is doing as it pleases with the broad support of the vast majority of Americans.

I'm really puzzled why there's outrage and indignation from the fellow or the /. crowd. He's a felon like all the others.

Lamo did try to provide his DNA.

[BobVila]

My synopsis of this article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70869-0.htm l?tw=wn_index_1
Lamo just refused to give blood. He attempted to provide nail and hair clippings, but the authorities refused. The particular people he was dealing with do not have the equipment to extract DNA from those samples. They are only capable of extracting the DNA from a blood sample. Lamo did not refuse to give blood due to privacy concerns. Lamo objected to giving blood for religious reasons. It was not stated what Lamo's religious affiliation was, but Jehovah's Witnesses have been know to refuse giving blood samples. It was the ACLU that jumped all over this with the political agenda of promoting the privacy concerns involved.

Re:Lamo did try to provide his DNA.

[v1]

Sure why not, I'll reply to a FOURTH one... (what is it with slashdot today?)

He attempted to provide nail and hair clippings, but the authorities refused.

Go read a book on DNA. I will bet MONEY that on at least one page in that book it will specifically say fingernail clippings and hair do not contain any DNA. duh?

The particular people he was dealing with do not have the equipment to extract DNA from those samples.

Yep, those imbiciles along with everyone else on the planet

Sorry to vent but this is getting silly. The slashdot IQ is particularly low today for some reason. I think I'll stop reading this thread, I'm sure I'll just run into more of these silly posts if I continue.

Re:Lamo did try to provide his DNA.

[Gta-Klue]

I think you need to practice what you preach:

Genetic fingerprinting is used in forensic science, to match suspects to samples of blood, hair, saliva or semen.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_analysis
So they CAN get DNA from hair, wow, I guess you owe me some money. :)

Re:Lamo did try to provide his DNA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gta-Klue, you forget that those like v1 were born that way. Were it not for welfare, they could not survive. They are too socially incompetent to work a job. When I say this, I mean it in a sociopath kind of way, can't seperate GTA from reality. In otherwords, a mentally retarded child with an anger management issue and a superiority complex. Take pity on the trolls, they were born that way.

Re:Lamo did try to provide his DNA.

[v1]

blood (white blood cells) have DNA (red do not)
saliva (dissolved lining of the mouth) has DNA in the form of dissolved skin cells
semen (duh, that's the point)
hair (FOLLICLE only, there is no DNA in the hair strand itself, that is chitin)

Re:Lamo did try to provide his DNA.

[Anonymous Coward]

v1 is a well-known imbecile. I doubt he has any money.

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[Martin Blank]

I could swear the standard procedure is to swab cells from the inside of ones cheek.

That is how California does DNA collection. Not only is it just as effective, it doesn't require someone with special training in needle handling.

As a side note, California voters passed DNA collection into law 62-38 with Prop 69 in 2004. It specified that DNA be collected from any adult or juvenile convicted of a felony offense; any adult or juvenile convicted of any sex or arson offense, felony or not; and any adult arrested for any murder, voluntary manslaughter, or felony sex offense, or attempt to commit any of those. Those on parole or probation, or who are arrested for any offense and have a prior criminal history, are required to provide samples as well, if they have past offenses that are on that list. In 2009, this expands to any adult arrested for or charged with any felony offense at all. The costs are offset by a 10% addition to criminal fines imposed by the courts. Any person who has been released without being arraigned within the lawfully allowed time, or who has been found factually innocent or not guilty, or who has had their case dismissed, may make a written request to have the samples destroyed and the database expunged of searchable DNA information.

As of the end of last year, 631,913 DNA profiles have been collected, 368,307 of which have been analyzed and uploaded into the database. More than 2000 investigations have been assisted by this, including many cold cases that have been solved through DNA matching. I have read numerous stories about rapes being tied to existing prisoners, and several murderers have been caught based on the evidence. Several times it has been after their release from prison on other, lesser charges, because there's a backlog in the DNA work that is expected to be largely caught up sometime in the next few years.

^BumP^

[TubeSteak]

I knew there was something wrong about that statement.

And it's not just the felons ---> everyone statement, it's also the assumption that, like a good party member, everyone should get fingerprinted.

DNA versus Fingerprints

[goombah99]

On the one hand there is clear neccessity for the governement to establish a foresnic identity system. Finger prints, photographs, age, weight, height, eye color, build, race and gender are all legitimate and well established metric the government collects and wisely uses in our collective best interest.

One the other hand, DNA is quite different. You can learn from DNA things the govenrment is not entitled to know. Your lineage, your health prospects, your allegries, and any number of personal attributes. From blood you can learn even more. e.g. are you HiV positive.

So saying DNA and bllod are one more in a long line of useful tools is not a gimme. We have to think it through.

It is quite clear that infinite knowledge of people is not neccessarily in societies best interest. Or at least our society does not agree that it is. And crime deterence is not the sole purpose of governement. protection of privacy and civil lberties needs to be considered. For example, even prisons and navy ships, the most well watched populations on the planet, do not fully prevent crime. And we certainly would not be willing to subject ourselves to that kind of scrutiny just to reduce crime. So there must be a trade between security and liberty and risk. One should not just blindly always trade liberty for security becuase the trade off is without limit.

Yet coming back to DNA. unlike everything except finger prints, it's something that ubquitously taints crime scenes, and it's utility is thus so much above any othe rmetric it's foolish not to atleast consider a DNA databse of former felons and possibly even citizens at large. One solution to this might be DNA hashing. perhaps there is a way to hash a DNA sequence in a manner that would be sufficient to establish presence at a crime scene. Or maybe atleast probable cause for further testing of a particular individual without actually having the governement retain DNA samples of innocent people.

An approach to this would be to identify a long list of biological diversity markers then weed out all the ones know to be associated with any health condition. Then hash these in a way that preserves just enough features to establish likely identity between two samples without revelaing any further details. The govenrment would be required to destroy the original samples and to delete any of the pre-hash specific information. This would have to be done in a manner we can trust them to actually execute this policy. I think this could be done and just to make the point, here's how. Have all testing done in labs in non-networked computers with small hard disks. This would be a physical layer to prevent overt records retention. One could of course imagine ways this could be subverted on a case by case basis but it would impede wholsale collection.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[fyngyrz]

This would have to be done in a manner we can trust them to actually execute this policy.

The problem here is that we can't trust the government. We already know that. They said that the SSN would only be used for social security. They said that there would be no new taxes. They said that there were weapons of mass destruction. They said that eminent domain was a tool never to be used for commercial interests. They said that no citizen could be held without a right to a hearing or the ability to contact a lawyer. They said that no person's privacy could be invaded without a warrant. They said the patriot act was only to fight terrorism. They said that they would make no law regarding the establishment of religion. They say that intrastate commerce is magically interstate commerce. I could go on for pages.

They lie. They lie all the time. They're not lying for our benefit, either — they lie to do us harm, to hide things from us, to get certain people into office (or keep them there), they lie to take our property, our freedom, to erode our rights, and to diminish our ability to hold them accountable.

You give them your DNA, and they'll swear up and down that they'll hash it and throw away the raw data. But mark my words, that DNA will appear in a database not too long afterwards in the hands of not only the government, but your insurance company, your employer, and your potential spouse.

Anything you do to extend the power of the government will be misused. Anything. Our government is completely, utterly, absolutely out of control.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Pig Hogger]

The problem here is that we can't trust the government. We already know that.

Some cultures have an innate distrust of Government, but they are far from being the norm.

They said that the SSN would only be used for social security.

It's the private companies that abuse the social security numbers, not the government.

They said that there would be no new taxes.

And you were stupid enough to believe that? Nevertheless, despite saying that, Bush Ist got routed out of power.

They said that there were weapons of mass destruction.

It was not the government who said that, but croporate oligarchs who wanted to get Iraki oil.

They said that eminent domain was a tool never to be used for commercial interests.

And it is the courts who said that, not the government.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[samkass]

It's the private companies that abuse the social security numbers, not the government.

This is not true. The DMV asks for it, it's on government medical forms, etc. It is used today as a way to uniquely identify each American completely outside the context of social security.

They said that there were weapons of mass destruction.

It was not the government who said that, but croporate oligarchs who wanted to get Iraki oil.

This is also obviously false. Colin Powell was acting on behalf of the government when he gave a speech to the UN detailing the reasons we know Iraq to have WMDs, and implying there was much more evidence that was too secret to share (which has also, now, been found to be a lie.)

And it is the courts who said that, not the government.

Courts are part of the government. The US government is comprised of three separate (ha!) but equal (ha!) branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[RAID 0]

Well put. Thank God there's people out there who see the truth. The tighter the grip, the more that slips through the fingers. RAID 0

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

One the other hand, DNA is quite different. You can learn from DNA things the govenrment is not entitled to know. Your lineage, your health prospects, your allegries, and any number of personal attributes. From blood you can learn even more. e.g. are you HiV positive.

Yes, however, the government can covertly get your DNA anyway. Ever dispose of a paper cup? Your DNA is on it, and they have the technology to extract it.

In Canada, the police have the authority to search most DNA-containing material that you dispose of. So that paper cup is fair game (at least if disposed of in a public place). However, since the DNA of anyone who recently touched that cup could be on it, the DNA from the cup itself is not enough to prove in a criminal court that the DNA really belongs to you. However, it is enough (when matched to suspicious DNA at a crime scene) to allow the police to get a warrant to require you to give them a sample of your DNA (typically a blood sample).

Not that any of this discounts your points, but in this discussion I think it might be helpful to know that if the government wants your DNA, they have the technology to get it with reasonably high probability.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[jesusfingchrist]

Damn, you the man.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[gadlaw]

Wish I had some mod points for this one. I agree one hundred percent in everything he says. Or as Chevy Chase said once in some movie a long time ago - "Well said, well spoken"

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[piper-noiter]

Currently, the FBI and local police branches do not keep an active sample of DNA, just the test results. These DNA profiles, would allow a qualified individual to make statistical assumptions about the person's ethic background and a few other things, but all that should already be in a convicts police profile. The photo in the file would be far more revealing than the DNA results. It would hardly reveal all their genetic defects and allergies.

The database allows investigators to match criminal's to a crime and to maternal relations. That remains it's only real use.

It is possible they'll try to keep more defined DNA profiles in the future, but extensive tests are expensive, and unnecessary for criminal investigations. They wouldn't keep active DNA samples either, like blood samples, DNA samples don't last forever and take up space. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to just keep the basic profile on file.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[i41Overlord]

Finger prints, photographs, age, weight, height, eye color, build, race and gender are all legitimate and well established metric the government collects and wisely uses in our collective best interest.

LOL

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[timeOday]

One the other hand, DNA is quite different. You can learn from DNA things the govenrment is not entitled to know. Your lineage, your health prospects, your allegries, and any number of personal attributes. From blood you can learn even more. e.g. are you HiV positive.

For that matter, given your DNA it is possible in theory (and soon in practice?) to manufacture your twin!

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

...perhaps there is a way to hash a DNA sequence in a manner that would be sufficient to establish presence at a crime scene.

IANAFS, but the forensic uses of DNA mostly involve microsatellite regions, which don't really tell you very much about a person, but are pretty unique identifiers. If we could get the government to keep only microsatellite information, and not actual DNA samples, then our privacy risk would be a lot lower.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[codegen]

One the other hand, DNA is quite different. You can learn from DNA things the govenrment is not entitled to know. Your lineage, your health prospects, your allegries, and any number of personal attributes. From blood you can learn even more. e.g. are you HiV positive.

...

One solution to this might be DNA hashing.

first to start off with, I'm against DNA profiling on principle. And I'm against it in this case.How is DNA going to help in any case involving Computer crime, or do they think that since he has been convicted of computer crime, he is suddenly going to become a murderer?

But the DNA sequencing used in crime does not sequence the entire genome. That would be entirely too expensive. Instead they only target a particular part of the genome that is know to vary widely with individuals. So the current DNA profiling is already a hash that does not reveal other characteristics such as health markers since they do not sequence that part of the sample. Your other comment about HIV status is well taken though.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree with this statement: "They said that eminent domain was a tool never to be used for commercial interests."

Actually, the government never said that, as far as I ever heard.
States have pretty much always been able to use eminent domain for any purpose relating to the health/safety/general welfare, subject to provisions of state constitutions (and after the Bill of Rights was incorporated to apply to the states (after 1868), subject to the federal constitution's takings clause.)

The federal constitution has never been understood to prohibit states from using eminent domain for economic development, where there are private beneficiaries. Last year's Kelo case was not an expansion of the power of states to use eminent domain--it was shocking only because people had forgotten how much power the states have had to take your property the whole time.

(But anyway, a lot of states have already passed laws to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development, so we don't really have too much to worry about.)

(As a practical matter, the best way to make sure that your house isn't taken by the government is to make friends w/ members of your city council.)

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[noth(a)nk.you]

"unlike everything except finger prints, it's [DNA] something that ubquitously taints crime scenes."

If you ask me, we ought to just start leaving these pin art things everywhere.

Whenever I see one, I can't help but make a quick facial imprint!

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Siward]

Allow me to extend this point to other things which have performed mighty injustices against me and humanity: 1) my mother, for not being absolutely infallible and a perfect human being, 2) the automobile, for causing countless deaths, traffic jams, global warming, wars, gas shortages, and NASCAR, 3) agriculture, for creating a surplus of food and forcing human beings to barter or exchange money in order to get that which we absolutely need, and for exploding the human population over tens of thousands of years.

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read in all my time reading slashdot. Let's paint a ridiculously lopsided picture of the government as having never done anything right and perpetually trying to drain us for as much as they can get before killing us. These people must surely be the world's worst tyrants, and we must live the worst lives of any humans on earth, right? ...Well, after most African nations, lots of people in China who can't search Google, surely the Russians and other eastern European countries. We can't forget the Arab world and Israel, too. But after them, we're absolutely living the worst lives!

Get a grip. Government isn't perfect, people aren't perfect, the world isn't perfect. Complaining doesn't fix things, and pretty much everyone who's upset with the way things are going already knows what the hell is wrong with the world, and the people who don't already know will figure it out soon enough.

You want governmental change, then convince the electorate that they want governmental change, and by god governmental change will happen. Of course, you've also got to convince them to be vigilant and to hold the media to their jobs as our watchdogs. Yes, it's a pretty tall order, but that's how change happens in a nation with a democratically-elected government. So before we crucify every Representative and Senator, let's make sure that we won't need to crucify the next batch we elect.

Is the government to blame for many of society's ills? Hell yes, but so is society, and it's time that reasonable people stand up and say so. Demanding change without accepting duty or responsibility is childish and has no place in a discussion about our troubles. Lamenting our problems while offering no solution is insulting.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Bladestorm]

fyngyrz, you are the only person i've seen on /. who understands what the Government is (f)actually doing. However, the rabbit hole does indeed go much further. I strongly encourage you to check out the links below, and read the book.

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/

http://thereisnostate.proboards39.com/

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[fyngyrz]

Constitution, from amendment V:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the public modifier in that statement.

Having read that, note this, from amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to take land for public use is specified. Your argument appears to be that the legal authority to take land for private use, which was never granted at all, descends to the state. It does not. No such legal authority was described by the constitution to do any descending. So now the question is, since this putative authority is not reserved for the feds, is it forbidden to the states? To answer that question, we turn, of course, right back to the constitution:

From amendment XIV:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Land ownership is one of the privileges accorded to our citizens. Clearly, any state making a law that abridges that privilege is manifestly unconstitutional.

There you have it. No legal authority can exist for any state to take land for private use as such action would enormously (completley, in fact) abridge the privilege of land ownership. Anything you have read, heard or thought to the contrary is sophist nonsense.

Note that I use the phrases "authority" and "power" as two completely disjoint concepts. Obviously, the government has whatever power it cares to take, because as things stand today, we cannot stop that process. This includes the power to take land, silence you, deny you representation and communication, and so on. But it can never obtain authority when such authority does not exist in the first place. In these matters, ethically and morally, it is a ship completely adrift. My land is my land, and it cannot be legally taken by the state with an authority going back to the constitution. And by the way, that includes for purposes of collecting taxes. Constitution, section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

...that's it. They can take taxes in coin, but not in property. Niggling about what "coin" means in terms of nickle, copper and paper aside, the intent was clearly to exerpt items such as property, spouses, slaves and titles from being used to pay any debt.

We've let the government screw us. It is operating without legal authority in many areas. We must begin to recognize this. If the public can be informed of the facts of the matter, which are after all quite simple, positive change may be able to take hold.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is very spirited, but shows a lack of understanding of our federalist system, and also shows that you do not understand the Supreme Court cases that deal w/ interpretation of the 14th amendment. (I'm sorry; I'm not trying to be rude, but it's true.)

You said: "The power to take land for public use is specified. Your argument appears to be that the legal authority to take land for private use, which was never granted at all, descends to the state. No such legal authority was described by the constitution to do any descending."
The problem with that statement is that, before the states ratified the Constitution, they had eminent domain power as sovereign states. They did not need to get this power from the Constitution--in fact, what the Constitution really does is take some amount of sovereignty away from the states and vest it in the federal government.

So when you read "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," it means this:
1. if the Constitution expressly gives the feds power, the feds have it, or
2. if the Constitution takes a power away from the States, the States don't have it anymore
3. whatever's left, the States (or the people) get

You declared that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States") protects property rights, and follow up by saying that "No legal authority can exist for any state to take land for private use as such action would enormously (completley, in fact) abridge the privilege of land ownership. Anything you have read, heard or thought to the contrary is sophist nonsense."

I just want to let you know that the Supreme Court has interpreted the privileged and immunities clause of the 14th amendment to protect almost nothing (some people, post-Civil War, were very disappointed about that). All it really prevents is one state from discriminating against citizens of another state. For example, in Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for California to give a lower amount of welfare money to California citizens who had just moved to the state versus other California citizens who had been living there longer. In the Slaughter-House Cases, the plaintiffs tried to argue that it protected a right to pursue one's chosen profession; the Supreme Court disagreed and told 'em to walk.

While it's nice to hear vigor in your statements, I just want to let you know: If your state used eminent domain to take your property, and then you went to court to challenge it, and you came in yelling, "My 14th amendment privilege to own property has been abrogated!", you would be laughed out of court. This is obviously at odds with your "Anything you have read, heard or thought to the contrary is sophist nonsense." If you don't believe me, look it up.

Lastly, with respect to the private use/public use thing: The Supreme Court has made it very clear that, if the government would transfer A's property to B for B's benefit, that would be obviously unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted "public use" to also mean "public purpose." (Originalists such as Scalia and Thomas disagree w/ this interpretation, but it's too bad for them.) Things that have been seen by the Supreme Court as valid being a valid "public purpose" include doing stuff that will create jobs and improve neighborhoods. Which is why states are permitted by the federal constitution to use eminent domain for economic development/urban reconstruction. In Kelo, for example, they were going to take the land to give it to Pfizer, which would have created a crapload of jobs and improved the city as a whole.
You may disagree with this (and I myself don't want to see Grandma's house getting bulldozed to make way for a shopping mall), but remember: there is a big difference between how you feel the law should be and what the law is.
Also, be aware that rarely do words in the Constitution mean what you think they'll mean.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[infestedsenses]

Excellently said, I'm actually going to bookmark this post. It's sad to see how such a large mass of people can be mucked about with. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the government is not superior to us, but (should be) our elected representatives. No president and no police officer is superior to me, actually I pay these people good money to protect my rights, but all they do is tromp about on them. Who in their right mind would keep an employee in their company that not only doesn't do the job they are being paid for, but goes and steals from the register? Sometimes I feel "we the people" need to storm the White House, jail the criminals calling themselves "government" and start over again.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

See also: Canada's DNA Identification Act.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[MikeFM]

IMO there is no reason the government should be able to take any of my blood, dna, fingerprints, etc unless they have specific evidence that I've comitted a crime - and if I'm not convicted they should have to delete that data. Once your time is served there should be a time limit, for non-violent crime, after which time your data will be deleted.

The government should not be able to collect large amounts of data on it's citizens. Privacy is an important component of freedom.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

Courts are part of the government.

That's actually (one of) the biggest problems with the US today. In my country (Oz), the courts are completely independent of the government.

Once you realise that that is an option - you wouldn't ever allow a government to run a judicial system ever again.

Of course, it shouldn't take too much effort to change that in the US, would it?

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[sm62704]

It was not the government who said that, but croporate oligarchs who wanted to get Iraki oil.

This is also obviously false. Colin Powell was acting on behalf of the government...

You realise that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are both oil men, don't you? And that gasoline was about $1.00 per gallon when they assumed power? And that Powell works for Bush?

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[sailor80]

goombah99 said" On the one hand there is clear neccessity for the governement to establish a foresnic identity system. Finger prints, photographs, age, weight, height, eye color, build, race and gender are all legitimate and well established metric the government collects and wisely uses in our collective best interest." You crack me up. What is the "clear necessity for the government to establish a forensic identity system"? Why does the government - any government, not just the feds - need that information? And if it is so vital, why hasn't the Department of Transportation federalized driver's licenses or created a mechanism for mandatory collection and reporting of that data to the federal level? When I was young and stupid, I gave the feds a full set of fingerprints in exchange for my Z-card (merchant mariner's document, required for me to work on ocean-going oil tankers) because the issuing agency, the US Coast Guard, administered that program. At that time, the USCG was under the US Department of Transporation; when our goverment is at war, it shifts to the Pentagon. Plus, our government regulations made the American merchant fleet obsolete, so I suspect that the USCG will remain under the Pentagon, even if we declare this fiasco a success and leave the Middle Eastern theatre. Although I am now too old to be called to active duty (and believe me, I sweated through the entire first Gulf war), I bet my fingerprints are still on file. Why does the government still need them? I understand the government's need to identify its soldiers, who are now required to give DNA samples for that purpose. Beyond that, there is no clear and compelling reason for the government to collect and indefinitely retain personal data from law-abiding citizens. I don't really see the distinction between personal crimes and property crimes. Another of my prior jobs was overseeing collection of DNA from mothers, children, and their alleged fathers to establish paternity and child support orders. You don't need to give blood any more to get DNA. We collected DNA from children younger than one using a buccal swab, a big Q-Tip that is gently rubbed against the inner cheek to slough off epithelial cells.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[sshir]

And another thing about DNA which is different from fingerprints.

While fingerprint identifies only you, DNA on the other hand identifies ALL your blood relatives.

So government by just taking samples only from felons actually gathers "DNAprint" (as "fingerprint") information on much larger slice of the population.

Basically, you never know if they have "your" DNA or not.
... but in few years they will, one way or another...

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[dbIII]

implying there was much more evidence that was too secret to share (which has also, now, been found to be a lie.)

Just to clarify things - there WAS more evidence that was too secret to share - it just wasn't very good evidence. It was too secret because it was obtained under torture (or repeatedly taking a suspect to the point of drowning over a period of many days for anyone in the habit of redefining such terms). It also turned out to be lies uttered under torture to get the torture to stop. The details were also not released because anyone that had bothered to even thouroughly read a decent newspaper in the lead up to the earlier Gulf War would have read the bits about Bin Laden and associated people wanting to fight against Saddam and get him out of Kuwait. The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy so I'm not trying to justify Saddam or Bin Ladin - just that the link wasn't there, isn't relevant, and Colin Powell was not about to stand up before the UN and say that the only evidence we have is unlikely uncorroborated hearsay from a guy we've been drowning for a week. It was up to his sucessor to attempt to justify torture to other national leaders after the evidence mounted up, which of course leaves her with less chance for the top job than Jeb.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[fyngyrz]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I interpret the constitution as I can best interpret what I think they were trying to say. There is no other way I can see to do it; it's antiquated, insufficient to the task, and more generally, completely invalid as a contract. I read it in my understanding of the English that was current when it was written, or in the case of the amendments, the English that was current when they were written. I try to put it all together; some things (like this issue) seem blindingly obvious to me, yet not to you (and others, of course.)

Broadly, reading the entire document, and subsequently coming to the belated conclusion that the framers seem clearly — to me — to not actually have meant us harm, I interpret the individual portions with that in mind.

Since the undermining of the principle of private property ownership would be one of the most grevious imaginable harms of all to citizens, commerce, and the nation, I find it relatively easy to conclude that my interpretation of what may, or may not, be done with privately held land, is correct.

I will make a further observation here. When you get an informed citizen to willingly part with land for a specific recompense, you have brokered a fair deal, at least, as best humans can. But when you take land for a value that you place upon it, rather than the value the owner places upon it, then no matter how good your intentions, you are engaged in theft. This is because land values move radically with the current state of affairs, and of course, this is one of the key reasons why people invest in land. They are entitled to this investment. They may be wrong; in that case, they will not find a buyer at the new price. They may be right, in which case, they deserve the reward to be reaped by having risked their capital in such an enterprise. But when you snatch the land from them at an arbitrary valuation, you have turned the investment into lost time -- and we are each only given so many days to live, at least, thus far in human history. This is not only theft, this is destabilizing, unfair, and downright evil. Barring the generation of such social good as to be almost incomparable in human experience, no land should ever be taken from its rightful owner, and should such a situation come about, then the value of the land should clearly reflect that almost unimaginable value. Anything else — anything — can be justified by nothing you will ever find in a document any sane person would freely put a signature to.

You may indeed draw a different conclusion, and you may gather a huge host of like-minded people behind you, and I will still disagree.

In the end, it doesn't matter a lot anyway, as the constitution is not a binding contract. I never signed it, nor would I, if the opportunity were offered. I could write a far, far better document. One that at least some people would sign, I am certain. Accordingly, so can others. Perhaps some day someone will generate an instrument that people can agree to in order to become citizens. Certainly, should that day come, the document won't be as poorly written as the constitution and its amendments are; for who would be so ignorant and self-destructive as to sign it, actually understanding it as it is today?

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[fyngyrz]

Complaining doesn't fix things

Please research the "War of Independence" and the rhetoric leading up to it for a fine example of how complaining (from rhetoric to tossing tea in the bay) can indeed serve to initiate resolution of those complaints.

Thanks for your post. It was very much a window on middle America.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Siward]

My point was that commentary without action or call to action is useless. Plenty of people in America know that something's wrong, but there is an overwhelming wealth of action that needs to be taken before change happens. I agree that complaining plays an integral part in the process, but it accomplishes nothing by itself.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[fyngyrz]

I agree that complaining plays an integral part in the process, but it accomplishes nothing by itself.

Complaint opens, and subsequently extends, debate that in turn determines and isolates the common ground (if any) amongst the disaffected. It is only upon common ground that action can be formulated. In many cases, complaint serves to realize in concrete form previously unresolved issues citizens may have -- this may be because they are not articulate, have not thought the matter(s) through, been confused, been misinformed, etc. In this role, it is critical and it must come first. Action, or calls to action, should not spring whole from a coalition of the uninformed; should that happen, the odds favor little focus and much confusion. No one should be considering action until they have thoroughly considered the issues.

Accordingly, complaint is both an integral part of the process and a very important step that should preceed any call to action, especially on a matter as fundamental as that of the country's underlying operating methodology being disfunctional.

Complaint, debate, reformulation, more complaint, debate and reformulation until a reasonable consensus is reached, and then it is appropriate to issue a call to action because it is only then that the group has resoved what it is that it stands for. Anything less is a disservice to their fellow citizens.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Siward]

I understood what you were saying ages ago, but perhaps I have not spelled out my meaning enough. Complaining does not make change. Reaction to complaints makes change. Hence why I said that it was important but did not by itself produce results. Saying "We're out of milk," does not immediately buy milk, while the typical reaction to hearing such a statement does indeed result in the purchase of milk. Obviously politics and societal issues are hairier than milk (hopefully), but I hope you get the gist of what I've been trying to say.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

[Garrett Fox]

As I understand it, "single nucleotide polymorphism" studies are a way of doing the hashing you speak of -- identifying a person by their DNA without actually storing the full sequence or any information such as presence of cancer-associated genes.

It's not just about Rights

[Sloppy]

if the police feel they need a DNA sample as part of their ability to enforce the law in the future

But do you really think the police sincerely think that? Think about what crime he was convicted for. It's not like some policeman said, "Hey, you know why we're having so much trouble catching these website defacers? We don't have DNA from previous suspects to compare to. If we get this guy's DNA, then we can identify him next time."

It's Congress who passed this "Justice for All Act" and the very types of crimes that it adds, are mostly things where DNA evidence would not be useful. It's not like some crime-solving master-sleuth came up with this idea.

"Rights" aren't so much the issue, as the absolute pointlessness of this strange new law. There's no purpose or legitimate reason to be asking for this DNA, whether the convict has rights or not. This is all merely about increasing government power and getting us used to expansion. Once people accept this request for DNA, then the government can start to demand even more ridiculous and unnecessary instances of DNA harvesting.

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

[Descalzo]

Well, we have to achieve a balance between living in a police state and living in an anarchist state (apologies to all the anarcho-capitalists out there if I am abusing the word anarchist here). We collectively trade a little bit of our liberty for a little bit of security. We seem to have this choice forced upon us as the price of living in a civilized society. Yes, it puts us on a slippery slope, but it seems to be worth it (as long as we keep it under control).

I think the real question ought to be: how far is too far?

Re:Common Sense by Thomas Paine

[joe 155]

that is a good point and relates to my post directly above yours... when we all have complete freedom we become unfree. If we all live in the state of nature then no one can exercise any of their right, not even the right to life, because everyone has rights to everything so conflict is inevitable. There is a need to limit freedom in order to be able to use the freedom that they have.

Frog soup

[Scrameustache]

Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies.

When they came for the felons, I said nothing, because I was not a felon...

Re:Frog soup

[general_re]

"Felon" is not a condition that one has no control over. The notion that you shouldn't break into computer systems that don't belong to you didn't exactly come out of left field just for Adrian here.

Re:Frog soup

[Firethorn]

For those that can't see it...

Then they came after the babies/children, for their 'protection'
(we're about here now)
Then they came after those who committed misdemeanors
Then they came for those who committed traffic accidents
Then they came for the men, to identify rapists and absentee fathers
Then they came for any workers, to ensure that the proper taxes were paid...
Then they required it for health insurance, then health care.

Re:Frog soup

[murdocj]

When they came for the felons, I said nothing, because I was not a felon...

I find that thought offensive. What you're saying is "gypsy, Jew, black, convicted felon, they're all the same".

People being oppressed, simply because they belong to a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group is NOT the same as an individual whose rights are reduced because he or she commits a felony.

Re:Frog soup

[HiThere]

You are presuming that all those in jail have comitted crimes. The evidence I have seen leads me to doubt that.

To me it appears that frequently being in jail is the result of annoying someone with power, and not having sufficient power to escape the consequences. This can be as simple as a black or brown person driving a car.

OTOH, even when you are rich, justice may be difficult to get. It's not criminal law, exactly, at least not yet, but consider SCOX vs. IBM. IBM has been trying for three years to find out what they are being accused of, and hasn't yet gotten a straight answer. *Someone* is funneling money to SCOX, but just who is doing it is still a matter of speculation.

Given the rediculous state of our "justice" system, I wouldn't be too quick to presume that someone labelled a felon has done anything reprehensible. Look up plea-bargaining and study a few of the examples. If you aren't powerful, they can threaten you with next to no evidence, and usually get a conviction if they want one...if only by coercing you to agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge so that they don't, e.g., formally accuse you of reping poodles. They don't need to prove you guilty to ruin your life permanently.

OTOH, communication has sped the transmission of information. Now we hear about news from distant cities as if it were local. Things probably actually aren't any worse than they ever were. Probably. But the also don't appear to be any better.

Re:Frog soup

[general_re]

People being oppressed, simply because they belong to a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group is NOT the same as an individual whose rights are reduced because he or she commits a felony.

Precisely. Guess what? When they came for the murderers (terrorists, embezzlers, pedophiles, gas-station stick-up men, et cetera), I said nothing. Know why? Because those are groups of people who should have their rights restricted, by virtue of the fact that their own voluntary actions violated someone else's rights. To compare that to someone having their rights restricted due to circumstances beyond their control is not only offensive, it's positively stupid.

Re:Frog soup

[Kjella]

When they came for the felons, I said nothing, because I was not a felon...

When they put the felons in jail, I said nothing, because I was not a felon...

Ever notice how little sense that makes? We don't object to criminal records, mug shots, fingerprinting and the like because they've committed a crime. Yes, there are certain rights a prisoner have as well, e.g. "no cruel or unusual punishment" but on the whole your civil rights are suspended when convicted. You have no right to freedom (we lock you in a cell), you have no right to resist searches of your home on probation and so on. In short, if it is legal to lock you up in a cell for the rest of your life, I think retaining a DNA profile for the rest of your life is well within the scope of "permissable" punishment.

Re:Frog soup

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that thought offensive. What you're saying is "gypsy, Jew, black, convicted felon, they're all the same".

That poem is a warning about not standing up for people who are not like you. That the original author spoke about race and creed does not mean the poem does not also apply to felons.

Nor does it mean the grandparent is equating being "gypsy, Jew, black" to be a convicted felon.

That's your own interpretation. It's completely assisine, but surpisingly common. It's made by 'politically correct' zealots who are more concerned with political correctness than actually combatting racism. They are often lack the introspection to identify their own racist thoughts and attitudes. They become offended when something that mentions race is used to talk about something else, for instance.

Re:Frog soup

[heinousjay]

Nobody stated the particular presumption that you set up as a strawman. You knocked it down well, however. Too bad it made no real point. You should be a politician, the technique is popular in that set.

The truth it, the vast majority of people that have been convicted are guilty. There are some that slip through the system in both directions, because nothing humans do can be perfect. Unfortunately, there's no way short of letting all the criminals out to guarantee that no innocents are jailed. Is it a price worth paying? Society says yes. My opinion is left as an exercise for the reader.

Given your tendency to commit logical fallacies in your statements, I have serious doubts about the state of your opinions.

Re:Frog soup

[general_re]

I am presuming nothing, except that those in prison have been tried and convicted in accordance with the laws and procedures that govern such things. If there are those who are not, they are being wrongly imprisoned and should be freed. However, I see no evidence of that in this case.

If your objection is on the general grounds that the current system is less than perfect, and that therefore people are occasionally wrongly imprisoned, I'd sure like to hear about the perfect, error-free system you propose to replace it with. Or even about a system that will substantially reduce the prevalence of such errors while not making it impossible to imprison real, actual criminals. Who, I might remind you, do actually and in fact exist, whether or not we choose to believe that a substantial fraction of felons are simply being oppressed by The Man.

Re:Frog soup

[MythoBeast]

Although this was presented by an Anonymous Coward, I believe it has a kernel of truth in it. It is a poem about not caring about those who are different than us. People are extremely good at assuming that anyone who is different deserves whatever they get, for whatever reason. For instance, many of us assume that the black population deserves tougher drug penalties (and the ratios of arrests and convictions demonstrate this), but the truth is that blacks have a considerably lower drug use percentage than most other enthic populations.

Don't assume that, just because a person deserves incarceration, they also deserve an anal probe, display of their genitals on public television, or to be submitted for genetic experimentation. These are extreme examples, but each references a basic human right that even felons should be granted.

The question still exists of where to draw the line. In this case, I'd have to turn to the nature of the crime. When was the last time a computer cracking crime was solved through DNA evidence? Murder or rape, sure, I can understand that, but cracking? I do not feel that this is in any way warranted.

Re:Frog soup

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Not to devoid your point.. But seriously don't lump gypsies in with the rest of them. I'm trying to hard not to say "they are all criminal assholes", but in my exprience they're either 100% straight up (but this is extremely rare) or they're wild uneducated yobs who would take the shirt off your back without a second thought.

My parents run a local steam festival (or at least part of it) last year a group of gypos went in and stole a little boys pet dog and his pet ferrets (the ferrets were at the animal tent, so there for everyone to enjoy). Then they went around and stole loads of bikes and anything else they could carry.. If it wasn't for a drunken mob at the beer tent hitting them all in the face they would of got away with it.

There are good and bad in all, but I'm sad to say in the gypsy case the bad far outways the good. A lot of them are raised to think they are a minority (much like black women) except they have no stable ground of education to get out of that rut (unlike black women in most cases). So they just because thieves, crooks and general nasty people.

Convicted felons I won't go into.. I don't think that's fair because a convicted Felon could be anything from a single mum who had to steal a loaf of bread to feed her kids to a guy who's raped and mugged old ladies.

To stay on topic. My DNA should be mine and mine alone. If I'm a non-violent criminal who did nothing but hack a server or two then any DNA base just isn't going to help you. Plus if we get a nice evil government who enjoys polices and states.. Well having a complete record on me is rather nasty. I mean if we start with DNA why don't they take a sample of my sweat so they can automatically set tracker dogs on me if they ever suspect I've done something?

Re:Frog soup

[Aranwe Haldaloke]

That sentence is, in fact, part of a longer saying. I've heard many versions, so I don't know which one is the original, but it goes something like this:

When they came for the jews, I didn't say anything, because I wasn't a jew. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for other groups, I said nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything for me.

Re:Frog soup

[heinousjay]

I really like the slope you're sliding down. I guess the most interesting facet of it to me is that the crux of the story is nothing even remotely new, and your nightmare scenario hasn't even come close to happening. I suppose that won't change your beliefs, but I know better than to try and counter paranoia with rationality anyway.

Re:Frog soup

[john83]

OTOH, communication has sped the transmission of information. Now we hear about news from distant cities as if it were local. Things probably actually aren't any worse than they ever were. Probably. But the also don't appear to be any better.

"The world's always been this crazy. It's just better documented now." I can't remember who said that. I think he was Latvian though.

Re:Frog soup

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the nature of the Byzantine legal system everyone has committed crime. They just don't all get convicted of them. And of course not all of them are elevated to the same levels. Even the good ol' POTS has been convicted of DWI twice, not counting all of the drug offenses and other offenses he was never convicted of. The Ol' VPOTUS was such an alcoholic that he failed out of Yale several times and was caught driving under the influence. CRIMINALZ#%#*#@( Just not elevated to the same level as hax0rs, you know, despite that driving under the influence can result in the deaths of perfectly law-abiding citizens. Don't worry, you won't even notice the transition from collecting hax0rs' DNA profiles and infants ("do it for the children"). And then after that you'll just feel out of the loop if you don't have a DNA profile, too. Carry on, citizen.

Re:Frog soup

[MoonBuggy]

Not so much a reply to you here, but a reply to the sibling posters who say that you just shouldn't commit a felony; fair enough, it's not a division like race, gender or whatever but what is linked to a felony is an arrest, and it's expected that innocent people sometimes get arrested (and put on trial) and then are cleared of any wrongdoing. What happens, then, when they just take the DNA on arrest for 'administrative reasons'? It worked in the UK, who's to say it won't work in the US?

Re:Frog soup

[giorgiofr]

blacks have a considerably lower drug use percentage as evidenced by...?

Re:Frog soup

[ceoyoyo]

In this case they're taking the DNA as a condition of his release on probation. Not on his arrest. In other words, he's been tried and convicted and now they're saying okay, you're probably not dangerous so we won't lock you up with the rapists and murders if you give us a DNA sample to make it easier to catch you in case we're wrong.

Re:Frog soup

[murdocj]

My problem is that the poster who quoted the "when they came for group xxx, I did nothing" is completely twisting the meaning of the quote. The whole point of the quote is to oppose government action against innocent people who are being persecuted simply for being a member of a group (a religious group, an ethnic minority, etc).

To equate someone who has committed a felony with one of those groups is to completely pervert the meaning of that saying. And by doing so, cause the original meaning to be lost.

Re:Frog soup

[Khyber]

You can bite my ass, with your first sentence. I'm a felon, wrongfully convicted of conspiracy to witness. WHAT KIND OF FUCKING LAW IS THAT? By the broad definition of the state that I was convicted and tried in, (Mississippi,) it can mean even being an innocent bystander near the scene of a crime who may have seen something. In my case, I was behind the scene of the crime, with the crimescene's 50-foot wide, two-story tall building directly blocking any possible view I could have had of whatever crime was being committed. Did I have knowledge of the crime? I don't know, as I was tripping my nuts off on shrooms and LSA. did I ever step foot onto the property itself where the crime was being committed? No. The crime I was supposedly "witnessing" was auto-burglary (one of my friends wanted a new car radio, while we were out getting wasted and fucked up, as I learned when I had sobered up, and found myself attached to a steel pole with handcuffs.)

I spent two weeks short of a year in prison boot-camp, and got another 5 years of probation. I had to submit my DNA two months ago. I committed no crime except for using drugs (which, incidentally, they never charged me with any public intox, and no report of me being pretty much lit up out of my mind was ever made on the arrest report, either. This kind of thing is bullshit, plain and simple. Flakes of your skin could float on the wind and end up somewhere else, and you can easily get a DNA sample off of it. DNA's floating around in the DUST (99% shedded skin cells in household dust, pollen, mold, etc, including human DNA for outside dust) and can put any person at any place at practically any time. DNA is everywhere. I think people convicted of RAPE, MURDER, ASSAULT, yes, take their DNA after conviction and put it in a database. Things like computer fraud or hacking, it's kinda useless, as no real physical presence is required at the crimescene, generally. Conspiracy to Witness? I don't think so either, and I think that particular crime is a bullshit charge in and of itself. Anyone could "conspire to watch someone flee the scene of the crime" and find themselves in a jail cell, under interrogation, then find themselves charged with something else soon after.

Regardless, people are put in prison wrongfully, and are given no recourse to have their grieveances with the government addressed. It's absolute bullshit on the grandest scale, and you're relying upon the assumption that everyone was tried and convicted under the correct procedures. That's going to be a fatal mistake upon your part, perhaps you should learn from my personal experience.

Re:Frog soup

[Rob the Bold]

. . . OTOH, even when you are rich. . . OTOH, communication has sped the transmission. . .

You're up to three hands, man.

Re:Frog soup

[Firethorn]

My DNA has been collected and filed for my job(military). It's original purpose was solely to be used to identify my remains if that became necessary. Then a few years later they used the repository to try to identify a couple rapists. Sliding slope? You bet.

There's now states that encourage parents to 'register' their kids, promising that it would help if the child is kidnapped/disappears. Thing is, they have no intention of getting rid of the records after 18 years or so.

California has expanded DNA from a select list of felonies to all felonies.

It's happening, and becoming more popular as DNA testing/typing gets cheaper.

Re:Frog soup

[general_re]

You can bite my ass, with your first sentence.

What, you weren't tried in accordance with the criminal procedures that govern such things? You didn't have a trial, or you weren't offered one? You didn't have the assistance of counsel? You didn't have a jury of your peers available if you wanted it? Help me out here - which part of what happened to you was a violation of your due-process rights?

I'm a felon, wrongfully convicted of conspiracy to witness. WHAT KIND OF FUCKING LAW IS THAT?

I don't know - Lexis doesn't seem to reveal any such law, nor is Google helpful. Perhaps you're misremembering the charge?

Re:Frog soup

[Khyber]

I'm holding the entire conviction paper in my hand. "Conspiracy to Witness - Auto Burglary" Is the charge listed. All I did was hire a lawyer, never got told shit (apparently, now that I'm looking thru it, they tried to charge me with Larceny and Felonious trespassing as well, which were dropped charges - I wonder why?) I signed some plea bargain (my lawyer did a shitty job of explaining it to me, too, regrettably.) that put me in what was supposed to be a 4-month boot camp program. I instead spent 50 weeks. That sure as hell wasn't four months.

And you know what's funny? Now that you mention it, as I'm Googling my ass off, I can't find one fucking mention of MS laws including conspiracy to witness auto burglary ANYWHERE. Okay, Mississippi Annotated Code 1972, 97-1-1(a) Here it says on my charges conspiracy to witness, but on my actual conviction paper, it says conspiracy to commit auto burglary. Now I'm getting fucking confused, here. These papers/documents don't seem right.

Re:Frog soup

[general_re]

97-1-1(a) is a generic conspiracy statute which reads "If two (2) or more persons conspire...to commit a crime, such persons, and each of them, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction may be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, or by both." (extraneous subsections omitted).

Obviously I'm not privy to the details, but perhaps the larceny and trespassing charges were dropped as part of your plea deal. As far as the conspiracy charge goes, you said yourself that you were a little fuzzy on the details of what happened - maybe you should ask your friends what they told the cops you were doing or saying that night. I mean, if they all said that you agreed to go around the corner and be a lookout, then you can kind of see where the charge comes from....

Re:Frog soup

[Khyber]

Problem is I can't be a lookout when I'm sitting in the back of a pickup truck and not able to see any roads. I was arrested off the property, just sitting in my pal's truck, he was arrested inside the actual car lot, caught in the middle of tryig to squeze his fat ass thru the back glass of a ford ranger.

Re:Frog soup

[Anonymous Coward]

You are welcome to your interpretation, but that is not the only interpretation. The poster simply holds an interpretation with a greater scope.

By holding an interpretation with a narrower scope, you are, in a sense, saying that either you or the author hold religious and ethnic groups in higher regard than other types of groups. Why should we make that division? Choice is not an issue, since religion is a choice. I would find it very hard to believe that you believe the original author would support the government persecution of, say, Boy Scouts as a group. So, I doubt that is the issue.

I think the problem is your prejudice against felons. The problem is, the government decides who is a felon. Sure, it takes a trial by jury and all that, but even if we assume there are no failures in our system, it is still the government who decides whether a crime is a misdemeanor or a felony. It is still the government who decides what is a crime and what is not a crime. (And in this day and age, they can even do anything to a "terrorist", and they decide who is a terrorist!)

No, the message is not about religious and ethnic groups. The message is about "those people" being the same as us. In essence, the message is saying "United we stand, divided we fall." It applies to ANY group, even if that group "deserves" to be persecuted. Because what the author is ultimately saying is that if we do not stand for each other, despite our differences, then no one will stand for us.

Re:Frog soup

[general_re]

Conspiracy only requires that you participate or agree to participate - it's not required that your participation is actually *effective* ;)

Re:Frog soup

[MythoBeast]

The whole point of the quote is to oppose government action against innocent people who are being persecuted simply for being a member of a group (a religious group, an ethnic minority, etc).

Um, no. The whole point is that you shouldn't let government oppression occur simply because it's not happening to your group. If you wait until it happens to your group, there may be nobody left who will help you.

Re:Frog soup

[murdocj]

That's right. Which is why applying it to individuals who commit felonies is truly perverting the meaning.

Re:Frog soup

[MythoBeast]

That's right. Which is why applying it to individuals who commit felonies is truly perverting the meaning.

I disagree. Those under felony conviction are a different social group just as much as any religious or ethnic group. Becoming a felon doesn't mean that you lose all of your rights, just the ones against imprisonment and for voting. What happens to them CAN happen to us. After we get used to doing it to felons, we may start applying it to anyone who collects welfare or medicare. Then we can extend it to anyone who gets any service from the government, which leads to anyone who owns property.

You seem to be of the opinion that felons, as a class, always deserve whatever we dish out to them, no matter now horrible it is. I'd review that if I were you because it's an attitude that someone might be applying to you some day.

Re:Frog soup

[Khyber]

But I never knew whether or not I willingly participated! I was tripping balls that time, right around New Year's, maybe a couple of days before Christmas on some really good hallucinogens - yet no toxicology report is made. Is that exactly a kosher thing to do to someone - submit to the court what mind-ALTERING drugs are in one's system??

Re:Frog soup

[dfjghsk]

original quote by Martin Niemöller

Re:Frog soup

[Hrodvitnir]

Unfortunately for you, I believe that in our society you are guilty of any crimes committed while on drugs, unless you did not willingly take the drugs. If the drugs are going to alter your mind enough to make you do things that you would never do sober, it is best not to "Just say yes."

Apparently there was sufficient evidence for the court to believe you did what the prosecutors say you did. If I were you, I wouldn't be blaming the laws, I would be analyzing the quality of your representation.

IANAL

Re:Frog soup

[hurfy]

Doesn't matter now....you plead it, you did it, whatever it was ;(

You don't actually have to have even done what what you plead to for it to be kosher.

Someone round here just made a plea to 'copyright infringement' cause it was the only felony without jail time and the DA made a plea bargin for no jail time, but one guy would have gotten automatic time for another conviction but avoided it with this. Paper even had some snazzy legal term for it of course.

PS. He plead to 500-1000 copies of music, so subtract that number from all future RIAA claims....... hehe

Re:Frog soup

[Scrameustache]

Ever notice how little sense that makes?

First the felons.
Then the suspected felons.
Then the suspects of misdemeanors.
Then people who are found in violation of traffic laws.
Then it becomes a requisite to have a driver's liscense, or to fly... as a safety measure... it's to protect you from mislabelled blood samples in case you are screened in a road block. It's for your own good, really. You don't have anything to hide, do you?

Then it's every baby born, everyone coming in the country, everyone who wants to collect a government cheque. Everyone.

It's the reciepy for frog soup: If you put it in boiling water, it'll just jump out. You put the frog in cold water, and slowly raise the temperature.

Say it with me...

[davmoo]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. This falls under that same statement.

If this were a case where someone who had only been *charged* was being asked to submit to a DNA database, I'd feel different. But that's not the case here. Its not a situation of someone who might be innocent being treated like a criminal. He is a convicted criminal.

I also don't buy the religious objections. I'm sure his religion also teaches not to break the law, and that didn't seem to cause him any moral issues.

Just as when he was first convicted, I have absolutely no sympathy now. In fact, I probably have even less than that. If he doesn't like the terms of his probation, put his ass in the clink.

Re:Say it with me...

[mephistophyles]

That's a good point, but I still don't see why the 'privacy maffia' are to darn anal about a database about everyone or whatever people are worried about. Maybe someone can enlighten me, but if the government wants to watch everyone's every move and have a full database on my DNA, blood, fingerprints and such. Fine by me. I have nothing to hide and as such, if some government employee has nothing better to do than to watch reruns of me going to school, then be my guest, it's his wasted life. I realize that DNA holds information such as lineage and predisposition to medical ailments and such, but hey, your medical record isn't as confidential as you think. Also, if these databases can help speed up the police's ability to track down and incarcerate criminals, so much the better. Added to this is that no one is looking through everyone's fingerprints and saying 'ooh, look at this guy's thumb, check out that swirl!'. I think the people who are complaining are being a little too paranoid on what this database will be used for. There are too many Americans and 19 times more foreignors in the world for the police or any other conspiracy you imagine to look into each and every person's personal life and look for them downloading illegal music or anything along those lines. Take this even further, if everyone had a chip in their arm or back or where ever making them traceable, good idea. If a database where in some way set up to record this, we can pinpoint exactly who was at the crime scene and therefore almost guarantee most crimes are solved. Just think about it logically, if this is a universal thing, then you won't be spied on because it's just not possible to go through everyperson's life, not enough people do it and they also have better things to do than care about what you do in your spare time. Unless you have something to hide then you shouldn't be against this, seriously. And then if you DO have something to hide, well then you should be worried either way, the system isn't designed to help you, it's designed to protect the citizens from people who might infringe on their rights.

I do not care on franklin. I care on logic

[aepervius]

Let us see your point one after one :

1) catching illegals immigrant.

Firstly I will ask you : how the hell fingerprinting is supposed to catch illegals. If you fingerprint you have them at hands. You can as well kick their ass out because they commited a felony (which imply fingerprinting already).

Secondly, chance is, if you are not one of the native, you were an immigrant from the last 100, or 200 years (your family at least). The US were fully built on immigration. that tells a lot that the locals now balk at the word and use it as a demon.

2) catching legal commiting crimes.

What sort of crime ? Most crime you are already caught WITHOUT fingerprinting before. So how does it help to fingerprint people comming a few day for duty travel and holiday ? AND KEEPING THE DATA 5 YEARS AFTER THEY ARE GONE ???

I have a news for you. The immense majority of the crime in comparison from population to people gaining lawful entry of your country is msot probably from LOCAL people. So when do you start fingerprinting them ? Thougth so.

3) Catching lgeal entry staying illegally

And how the hell fingerprinting them helps ? Do you make random control of fingerprint in the street ? Thougth so too. This won't help a iota. As usual they will catch those people when they have "contact" with the normal authorithy (police, social security, work adm, whatnot).

I am sorry but fingerprinting people arriving at airport is not a security measure. It is only used as a "tranquiliser" from your govt, to reassure people not using their brain that they are "fighting crime". And this certainly won't help crime in the US.

Re:I do not care on franklin. I care on logic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you fingerprint you have them at hands.

Way to miss the point.

Firstly, if it's an illegal's initial apprehension the data needs to be gathered to have a baseline of a known lawbreaker (and indeed if you're here without the government's blessing you're a criminal.. period) before they're ejected from the country. This will facilitate nailing them quicker next time as they tend to use false documents to get in and/or stay here anyway. There are an incredible amount of people who originated from outside the US who are here on false/forged/stolen documents. Come back again illegally? Throw them in maximum security for a year and then throw them out of the country afterwards. We need to make it very unattractive for people to come here in violation of the law, and very unattractive for legal visitors committing crimes.

Secondly, chance is, if you are not one of the native, you were an immigrant from the last 100, or 200 years (your family at least). The US were fully built on immigration. that tells a lot that the locals now balk at the word and use it as a demon.

Tough shit. The new generation of immigrants don't want to assimiliate so they can screw off. The world changes as do individual countries.

I have a news for you. The immense majority of the crime in comparison from population to people gaining lawful entry of your country is msot probably from LOCAL people. So when do you start fingerprinting them ? Thougth so.

If they're non-felonious lawbreakers, you don't. If they've committed a felony, you do. If they're not a citizen they do not have the same rights as a US citizen so they will do what we goddamned well tell them or they will leave. I'd rather you not show up in the first place. Also, it's not an either/or situation. Of course nailing those here illegally and/or those here legally committing crimes won't drop the crime rate dramatically but it will help (I can assure you of this after having lived in Arizona). Just because it doesn't cover domestic lawbreakers doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

And how the hell fingerprinting them helps ? Do you make random control of fingerprint in the street ? Thougth so too.

If you're suspected of being in the country illegally and you cannot provide proof of citizenship that checks out (i.e. a form of ID that indicates you are a US citizen that has not been blatantly forged) then you should be let go. Present a social security card with a number not in the database or a driver's license that doesn't measure up, sure... finger print away!

As far as data retention, for those who are not US citizens I think it should be permanent.

As far as domestic issues are concerned, I'm center-left... but when it comes to the rest of the world, fuck all of you. Play by our rules in our country or get out. By all means if I show up in your country on a passport you can have fingerprints, retina scans, DNA, whatever.... mainly because I don't plan on committing any crimes and secondly because once I'm home good luck trying for an extradition. We've got plenty of problems to solve (health care, energy, etc) and this is one that is largely solvable if somebody is willing to crack the whip and get with it. You take care of your own first, and then worry about everybody else.

Re:I do not care on franklin. I care on logic

[osgeek]

If you read my post again, you'll see that the list I gave was of some of the problems we have with people entering this country, not one that would be completely solved by having fingerprints on file.

That said, to respond quickly to each of your subsections:
1. Naturally, this would only apply for people re-entering the country illegally when they had been here legally previously (this is why you want to keep those fingerprints on file).
2. Fingerprinting is an extremely useful tool in fighting crime. I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm fine if people visiting the country are the first ones to be fingerprinted to protect the people already here. I'm not totally against having citizens have their fingerprints and DNA on file either, if you must know.
3. Umm, if you can't see how fingerprinting helps in this case, I'm guessing that you're not even making an effort to see my side of the argument. You've decided that fingerprinting is evil and no amount of logic would change that.

You should lose the religion. Have a nice day anyway.

Shakespeare suggests "A Pound Of Flesh"

[Anonymous Coward]

But exactly a pound of flesh and no blood, should suffice. From "A Merchant of Venice".

You are one of the few to mention benefits

[SmallFurryCreature]

There are some right loonies on slashdot and they always come out of the woodwork during discussions like this.

The simple fact is that the issue of taking DNA samples from criminals has been discussed ages ago. It is very old news indeed.

It really does help police to investigate crime just as fingerprints do. Especially crimes like rape wich any normal person would consider worthy of prosecuting.

Offcourse over the years more and more people have had to give up their DNA. The reason is simple. ANY police officer can tell you that where there is smoke there is fire. If a person commits one type of crime they are very likely to also have done other things. You would be suprised how many "heave" criminals are arrested because they were stopped speeding. Not that every speeder is a criminal and not that every criminal speeds but often enough for it to make sense to check a criminal convicted of say drug abuse for being involved in other offences.

Like it or not, the "public" has voted in favor of it every single time.

This case is not about the collecting of DNA but about the donation of blood. He objects on religious reasons.

Offcourse slashdot spin turns it into something else but the simple fact is that criminals have no rights. It is one of the rules of prison. You do it their way. No or about it.

I am sure this has come up before. Nothing like jailtime to bring the religious nutter out in people. Guess what, the rule about donating blood still stands. BEcause in the US criminals ain't got rights.

The public wants it that way.

Don't like it. Run for goverment. Make it your agenda to give more rights to conviceted criminals. Good luck.

Re:You are one of the few to mention benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't like it. Run for goverment. Make it your agenda to give more rights to conviceted criminals. Good luck."

If you need help getting your political career off the ground, move to Detroit.

DNA as an identifying attribute ...

[constantnormal]

... would be OK with me, so long as there were reasonable safeguards that it would not be used for anything else. Possibly using a one-way hash based on it would be OK, if someone could devise one.

In any event, for the time being it is unlikely that they would be using the entire genome, only a sampling of key markers, just as fingerprints are matched not by the entire fingerprint, but only upon a set of matching points. But as costs of full DNA decoding continue to fall, more and more of our genome will be available at reasonable prices in years to come.

The problem with using DNA as an identifier, is that it (the entire genome) can be used for many other things. If there were some legal safeguards limiting its use to identification only, I would have no objections -- EXCEPT THAT OUR GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO OBEY THE LAW.

So, to err on the side of safety, I would have to resist use of DNA as an identifier -- of course, this is pretty meaningless, as DNA is already used as an identifier in courts across the USofA.

What "religion" does Lamo profess...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to follow, and what were his reasons for not following it's tenets, except for when it's convenient?

More paranoia

[orionware]

More paranoia coming from the left. He's a felon, give the DNA. They only thing they can do with it is index it against DNA taken from a crime scene.

Is it overkill for his crime? Possibly. Might it keep him from associating with the wrong people or getting into trouble again? Quite possibly.

Wanted: +1, Patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

For Crimes Against The United States Of America.

Remember the date for the D.C. protest. Over and out.

The N.S.A. just collected point-to-point connections. Wrong.. This doesn't establish anything. They were intercepting the CONTENT. ie. Bush .Abramoff slush fund RNC bribe cocaine
              U.S. Treasury financial markets short long commodities options equities Iran announcement.

Hopefully, the Washington Post will publish the N.S.A. intercepts of the Bush and Cheney calls to Pakistan
and Afghanistan.

You get the picture.
,
Have a Bush_Cheney_Rice_Rumsfeld_Hayden_free-day,
Kilgore Trout

Probation

[deanj]

It's a condition of his probation. If he doesn't want to give it, that's up to him: Probation revoked.

Big Difference

[blooba]

Womens advocacy groups want DNA databases because it is the only really reliable way to identify a rapist. I can see their arguments. However we should not so easily compare DNA to fingerprints.

There is a huge world of difference between DNA and fingerprint samples. You leave fingerprint evidence behind when you commit a crime with your bare hands. On the knife or the gun or the doorknob, what have you. But with DNA, you may have simply walked by a crime scene coincidentally, DNA samples sloughing naturally from your body as you go.

DNA is much, much more easily abused than fingerprints. There are vulnerabilites with DNA samples that people do not anticipate when they try to say the two are the same.

Re:Big Difference

[Firethorn]

But with DNA, you may have simply walked by a crime scene coincidentally, DNA samples sloughing naturally from your body as you go.

Even being in contact with one of the people involved with the crime, whether victim or perpetrator, can be enough.

Sampling molesters, rapists, and other violent criminals I can understand. But a computer hacker?

Draconian and unnecessary.

[blair1q]

There are far less invasive ways to collect DNA samples.

Jenga Fett? any1?

[obfuscat0r]

Maybe they want to use his DNA to start the next clone army.

You're a right-wing Christian, jscheelntsu?

[leftie]

jscheelntsu, you aren't making prisoner pyramids because you are hypocritically sitting on your butt in front of your computer here in the US demanding others fight a war you refuse to fight yourself.

Why aren't you in Iraq "keeping terrorism over there instead of here" and "fighting those who hate our freedom" (those quotes are from your guys)? You are in luck. I know how to hook you up with recruiter from the US Army. We can fix this error and get you to Iraq very quickly. Just click this link...

http://www.army.com/

And everything you wrote in the first paragraph is wrong. I never said ALL right wing Christians do anything. You made up a strawman argument, claiming I made sweeping generalizations I never typed. MANY right wing christians do exactly what I said they do, though, and you know it.

Here's a transcript of CNN coverage during Lyndie England's prosecution...

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening.

More government witnesses appear to be helping prosecutors build their case against pregnant reservist Lyndie England. She sat stone faced listening to testimony, including some testimony from another guard from her Reserve unit who testified by phone from an undisclosed location.

Specialist Joseph Darby became the whistleblower who turned his friends in. He said it was a hard call, but he told the court it was the moral thing to do.

Darby testified he was given a CD with photos from fellow guard Charles Graner, identified by prosecutors as a ringleader. These photos by now very familiar: Lyndie England holding a detainee on a leash; a pyramid of naked prisoners; some posed to simulate a sex act.

At the time, according to Darby, Graner explained one photo of a hooded prisoner chained to a cell like this. "The Christian in me knows it was wrong, but the corrections officer in me can't help but love to make a grown man urinate on himself."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/06/ldt .00.html

Re:You're a right-wing Christian, jscheelntsu?

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the time, according to Darby, Graner explained one photo of a hooded prisoner chained to a cell like this. "The Christian in me knows it was wrong, but the corrections officer in me can't help but love to make a grown man urinate on himself.""
looks to me like an admittance that she's more corrections officer than christian. "the Christian in me knows it was wrong" I thought I heard something about a strawman . . . maybe that was just a foreshadowing of bullshit to come?

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[HiThere]

You might want to think about how accurate such comparisons are...your intuition is quite likely to mislead you.

I'm not sure about current practice, but awhile back the protocol only called for a comparison at 10 point. each of those 10 points could have only a very few choices. Call it four, but I'm not certain. So after there are 10^4 samples in the databse you can expect to start getting LOTS of false matches.

There are a lot of guess numbers in that paragraph, but try it again with a different number of options. The actual fact is that DNA is only a "very good" identifier if you compare at a much larger number of placed. And it's never perfect, as identical twins have the same DNA.

If DNA is used as auxillary evidence, which is what this system was designed for, then it's quite reasonable. When you scale the database, you need to revamp the rest of the system or the quality of the answers deteriorate markedly. These people are scaling the database, but I've seen nothing that indicates they are changing any of the other procedures.

Send him to federal, "pound me in the ass prison"

[melted]

Send him to federal, "pound me in the ass" prison and take a blood sample from his torn rectum. Come on, people, the guy is a convicted criminal. I have no problem with federal government requiring his blood sample. Privacy has nothing to do with it.

"DNA dragnet" on the cape, cops watched declinees

[SuperBanana]

On a related note, what's the law regarding retention of stuff like DNA data, fingerprints, etc? For example, if my next door neighbor got murdered, I might get asked to provide my fingerprints to rule me out as a subject. I might be willing to do this (provided I'm not actually guilty)

A woman was raped and killed in a small town on Cape Cod. So what did the police do? Set up DNA collection stations around town and asked men to submit DNA samples. "Well, nobody said 'if you don't submit a sample you must be guilty'"m you say? WRONG.

"A few people have declined to give samples, according to news reports. Police said investigators will closely watch individuals who fail to "volunteer" their genetic code."

"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us taking your DNA."

"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your car."

"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your house."

Doesn't work that way. NEVER has, NEVER will. If I'm innocent I don't HAVE to give you my DNA, or let you search anything- I'm INNOCENT. If the police or prosecutors of a crime wish to collect evidence from you or your personal property, they need search warrants- and they don't just hand those out for shits and giggles over at the local court. What is frightening is that 5-10% of the population of Truro apparently felt it was OK for the police to just ask for their DNA- and gave it!

He's Jehovah's Witnesses that's why no blood

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't believe in giving blood, eating/drinking blood, getting blood products such as vaccines made from blood, or transfusions.

Even storing there own blood for later use is not allowed.

That's it.

Five points for "insightful" -- but wrong. Lookup!

[ankhank]

To save you the trouble of looking it up at, for example, http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp

No disfranchisement for felony convictions (prisioners may vote):
ME, PR, VT

Voting restored after release from prison:
DC, HI, IL, IN, MA, MI, MT, NH, ND, OH, OR, PA, SD, UT

Voting restored after release from prison and completion of parole (people on probation may vote):
CA, CO, CT, NY

Voting restored after completion of prison, parole and probation:
AK, AR, GA, ID, KS, LA, MN, MO, NE*, NJ, NM, NC, OK, RI, SC, TX, WV, WI

Permanent disfranchisement for some felony convictions, unless government approves individual rights restoration:
AZ, DE, MD, MS, NV, TN, WA, WY

Permanent disfranchisement for all felony convictions, unless government approves individual rights restoration:
AL, FL, IA, KY, VA

* After a two year waiting period

Re:Send him to federal, "pound me in the ass priso

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me.

"Rape is not funny"

who isn't a felon?

[David Jao]

What you're saying is "gypsy, Jew, black, convicted felon, they're all the same".

Has it ever occurred to you that the legislature can in principle make you a felon just by passing a law against breathing air?

This is not a joke. It's happening already. My guess is that well over half of all Americans have committed a sufficient dollar amount of music piracy to qualify as felony. The fact that you personally think that you are capable of avoiding felonies is irrelevant. If the government wants to make you a felon, then believe me, you will be made a felon.

There are cases on the books where even the text of the laws themselves are not available for you to read. Google for "secret laws" if you don't believe me.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[ceoyoyo]

Has it occurred to you, that, since you (I've heard) live in a democracy, those laws are made by YOUR representatives (ie, by you, by proxy)? So if you the people don't like what's going on, then you should do something about it.

Your argument is against bad laws, which I agree with -- bad laws should be removed. It is not an argument relevant to the treatment of felons.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[Anonymous Coward]

You never heard of the crime of "loitering" or "vagrancy"? It is illegal to be poor and homeless in many middle and upper class areas.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[murdocj]

Has it ever occurred to you that the legislature can in principle make you a felon just by passing a law against breathing air?

Funny... that's exactly the same logic that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein might be making WMDs. He might give them to terrorists. He might buy some yellowcake.

Try this one on for size... the Soviet Union had some serious bioweapons research. Vladimir Putin might manage to completely restore the old USSR that he yearns for. Putin might in principle decide that the only way to put the USA out of the picture is a bioweapons attack. So the USA should immediately launch an all out nuclear strike now, while we still can.

But getting back to reality, lumping felons in with religious and ethnic minorities is just plain stupid.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[David Jao]

The United States is, at best, a representative democracy, which is a far cry from the original athenian ideals of democracy.

There are so many problems with your suggestion to fix bad laws through voting that I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps George Orwell said it best ... if there is any hope, it lies with the proles. But let me try to list the problems anyway.

In the first place, any individual voter's influence on the federal government is exceedingly limited, because a voter can only vote for senators/republicans/electoral votes in their own state, and frankly, the problematic laws in question are not being sponsored or supported by congressmen from my state, but rather congressmen from other states, for which I have no vote. Likewise, I have no direct vote in presidential elections, because my right as a voter is limited to electing an elector to represent my own state, and frankly, the electors from my own state are not the problem -- it's the electors from other states that are screwing us over.

Election procedures are of course defined in the US Constitution, and amending the Constitution is a Herculean task bordering on impossible, so like it or not we are stuck with the two party electoral vote system instead of the proportional voting system which is what most of the world thinks of when they think "democracy".

Related to the previous item is the fact that unconstitutional legislation is practically routine these days, thus seriously raising the question of whether the federal government would allow itself to be thrown out by the voters even if the voters voted it to be so. It is already plain to see that the executive branch of government in the US (the branch responsible for enforcing laws) has utter contempt for all laws and constitutional obligations. Who will be left to enforce a transition of governance, if the executive branch does not enforce it?

I need not mention the numerous problems with Diebold voting machines (which as of this writing are still on slashdot's front page). These machines are legally mandated to be used in polling booths in many states. It is common knowledge by now that the Diebold CEO has publicly pledged to do everything in his power to deliver Republican votes to Bush. How do we know that our votes are even being counted? How can we know?

The point is, representative democracy is not a panacea. It requires cooperation from our leaders in order to run well, and right now we're not getting cooperation from our leaders, we're getting opposition.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[ceoyoyo]

First off, if a leader does something bad, you vote him out. Doesn't matter how much he apologizes afterward, you vote him out. Your representative system isn't that much worse than direct democracy and in a lot of ways it's better. If you had direct democracy you would be complaining that you can't do anything because your vote doesn't count enough. You're right, it doesn't, but if you hold a majority view (or can convince a majority that you're right) then that voting block WILL do something. The problem is that everyone has the same attitude you do -- oh, I can't do anything about it.

Other problems -- a two party system. So, vote for someone else. There are way more than two parties that run for presidential elections, but nobody votes for the alternatives, perhaps because they don't get enough airtime. You can even run yourself!

For some reason the US seems to have representatives that have served in their same office for decades. That isn't the norm elsewhere. You might have a mix of long serving politicians but they likely get booted out of their offices every four to ten years at the minimum. In lots of cases they work their way up over a career to serve a term or two in top jobs. If they screw up they're out, to wait in obscurity for at least a term.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than whining that the government is trying to get you. If everyone would realize that the government is the servant of the people you'd have a lot less to fear.

From what you say it might be too late though. Your current executive branch scares a lot of people in the rest of the world. Maybe you have no choice but to put those second amendment rights to their intended use. I doubt it though. For now.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[Shajenko42]

One word:

Diebold.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[ceoyoyo]

Two words:

Second amendment.

Hey, can I be a citizen and join the militia now?

Re:who isn't a felon?

[Shajenko42]

Two more words:

Ruby Ridge.

Though there are plenty of other examples.

Re:who isn't a felon?

[ceoyoyo]

Well that's 'cause y'all ain't organized! Yah can't jus sit a home an mind yer own bizness, ya gotta yewnite!

Meanwhile I'm glad I live in a country where we kick the bums out when they screw up to remind them who's boss.

RE: felon rights

[ThePub2000]

Felons have rights? News to me ;) Commit a crime against society in general and you lose your right to claim rights, until such a time as you have redeemed yourself in the eyes of the law.

*shrug*

[faloi]

As a former member of the US military, the government has my DNA, fingerprints, and some of the best first-hand information with regards to how I react to stressful situations.

I tend to see both sides of this. One the one hand, I did volunteer for service. And having DNA samples to figure out whether that patch of blood is all that's left of me or not is good (at least for closure for my family, doesn't help me much). On the other hand, I don't think *every* citizen should be required to give DNA samples, fingerprints or anything of the sort.

I don't believe that felons, regardless of the crime, should get that same right to (relative) privacy. Nor should they be provided more civil liberties than I was entitled under the UCMJ. Heck, I don't think they should get more rights and priveleges than I got in basic. Sure, I volunteered for the service. But they chose to commit a crime, whatever the crime might've been.

Huh?

[rindeee]

"Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

According to who? Have you (author of this submission) provided your government with your fingerprint? To my knowledge, fingerprints are only provided voluntarily (child safety crap) or as a requirement for those arrested or involved in a job where security is extremely tight (which is also voluntary, though of a different nature than the aforementioned). I work for the gub'ment in a role that requires that they have my prints (and DNA for that matter) on file. I chose to do this (though it was a condition of my job). If it were not for that, you can be damn sure they would not have my fingerprints/DNA. It's not an issue of trust, it's an issue of need to know (something the government understand quite well). That's my two cents...don't spend it all in one place.

E

Declaration of Independence

[Anonymous Coward]

We declared our independence a long time ago and are supposed to be following our own government document, the Constitution of the United States, with its rather explicit Bill of Rights. I do wish we would follow it, in particular the part found under the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp

[ankhank]

Which nation are you from?

In the US, at least, Constitutionally-recognized rights aren't all lost upon a felony conviction, though you're limited in some of them. That's why it's illegal to experiment on prisoners, or torture or kill them.

Nor do you give up the rights administered by states. You can still vote, in most states. See the list at http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp

Re:http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp

[Cadallin]

Illegal to experiment on prisoners? HAH! Do you know anything about how medical trials are done in this country?

Re:http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp

[llyenn]

His conviction was federal, and with the Fed, you never get your rights back...no guns, no voting, no public office, no jury duty...DNA and fingerprints on file for ever. You *may* get a presidential pardon after 10 years from your conviction date that restores your rights, but you are still technically a felon... Sorry about no links for this info...personal experience....

He's probably a mother RAPER, or

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably a mother RAPER, or FATHER raper, and doesn't want to get caught. Statue of limitations is 5 years on rape, and 7 years if he's a father raper.

Re:He's probably a mother RAPER, or

[kd5ujz]

I wonder if he eats at Alice's Restaurant.

Re:He's probably a mother RAPER, or

[19thNervousBreakdown]

*gives you a hairy eyeball*

Re:He's probably a mother RAPER, or

[yiantsbro]

I believe he's just a scared litter-bug.

Fingerprints are not voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

In California at least, you need to provide at least a thumb print to get a driver's license. You need a DL to do such basic things as use a bank, vote, travel by airplane, travel by train, buy a gun, walk down the street, etc.

We used to make jokes about (with German or Russian accent) "show me your papers" and we used to say how horrible it was that they needed internal passports there. Now we have all the same stuff here, and for the same reasons.

Re:Fingerprints are not voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that explains the summary -- "CaliforniaCCW" presumably lives in California, so he thinks it's normal to hand over your fingerprints. Thank God I live in the Free State. I've never given my fingerprints to anyone, and don't intend to start.

Re:Fingerprints are not voluntary

[TorAvalon]

Why not?

I will (and do) freely donate to the government...

[flatulus]

... expulsions of rectally delivered gaseous matter. They are free to sample most anytime they like.

Correction

[arpk4n3]

It's Lexis-Nexis, not Nexis-Lexis

Out of curiosity

[heinousjay]

I have a question for all you Slashdotters jumping to the defense of the poor convicted criminal: Suppose this was Ken Lay refusing to give up DNA. Would you jump to his defense as quickly? I'm asking an honest question here, because I think what most of you are doing is identifying with this criminal because of the computer connection. Since a lot of you have expressed a dislike for corporation and their employees, I'm curious to see if a sizeable number of you have the courage of your convictions. No pun intended.

Re:Out of curiosity

[gral]

Read the Article. He is NOT refusing to give DNA, just NOT in the form of Blood.

Re:Out of curiosity

[heinousjay]

Don't play politician and give the answer to the question you wanted me to ask. That won't work on me.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Oh, wait.. that declaration is already useless..

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

I'll stop here.. it's already rather depressing..

Can somebody clarify, please...?

[Peet42]

Is he refusing to give a DNA sample, or refusing to give blood? I certainly wouldn't give blood under any circumstances, because I am needle-phobic, yet I'd be perfectly happy to give a cheek-swab.

Re:Can somebody clarify, please...?

[gral]

This is EXACTLY the case. He doesn't have a problem providing DNA in any other form. He just doesn't want to give a BLOOD sample.

His lawyer stated he has no problems with a cheek swab or other form of DNA gathering. He says that it is against his religion to provide blood. He also says that having to provide blood for DNA is the Dark Ages, or something such.

ass hat

[mikey2600]

adrian is an ass hat. take his blood, please.

In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[CountBrass]

Here, if you are arrested (i.e. commit an arrestable offence and are caught) they can take your fingerprints and DNA and photo: permanetly. It is *not* deleted if they don't charge you or you are found not guilty.

Here's the really neat bit. Since January this year every criminal offence is arrestable. This is includes littering and speeding...

So there is at least one area in which the UK with it's New Labour government leads the US with it's rabid Reuplican one: destroying it's citizen;s civil liberties.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't George Orwell warn us about this?

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[geekSession]

Where's the destruction?

A: A crime is a crime, why shouldn't you be arrested for it? If you don't want to be arrested, don't do it.

B: Say a really serious crime has been commited and you are suspect number one. If the police get hold of a DNA sample at the scene, test it and it doesn't match the DNA you have on record, you're off the suspect list. OK, so that's a little unrealistic, but you'll be further down the list at least.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[makomk]

A: A crime is a crime, why shouldn't you be arrested for it? If you don't want to be arrested, don't do it.

The trouble is, I suspect that if the police really wanted to, they could find a reason to arrest almost anyone. B: Say a really serious crime has been commited and you are suspect number one. If the police get hold of a DNA sample at the scene, test it and it doesn't match the DNA you have on record, you're off the suspect list. OK, so that's a little unrealistic, but you'll be further down the list at least. And if you wouldn't normally be suspected, but some DNA links you to the location of the crime, you could instantly become Suspect No. 1 - even if there's no other reason to think you committed the crime - and you have to prove your innocence.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[xelah]

A: A crime is a crime, why shouldn't you be arrested for it? If you don't want to be arrested, don't do it.

Not committing any crimes isn't a guarantee of not being arrested for one. Even if it were, it isn't for the police to punish people by 'processing' them when there's no need to do so (you're only going to be released on bail anyway, it's not like there's any advantage). If they police accuse you of a minor crime and know who you are then they should summons you, not detain you. In fact, whilst the new law does away with the notion of 'arrestable' offences, it still says that you can only be arrested if it's 'necessary'. 'Necessary', IIRC, means that they have to do so to identify you, to stop a crime being committed, to stop you being a danger to anyone or some other reasons I can't remember. Not that many police know about the changes, or that your DNA and fingerprints would be destroyed if you were wrongfully arrested.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[ktappe]

A crime is a crime, why shouldn't you be arrested for it? If you don't want to be arrested, don't do it.

Because in civilized society we recognize the difference in degree between various crimes. For example, misdemeanors and felonies.

Think about what you're saying. Let's say you accidentally arrive a mere 5 minutes too late to put another coin in the parking meter. By your statement, you think it's right that you be placed in handcuffs and taken down to the local station for processing (which now includes permanent DNA collection). I strongly doubt you'd be OK with that. And if not, then pipe down with your draconian "don't do it" edict.

-Kurt

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[geekSession]

The trouble is, I suspect that if the police really wanted to, they could find a reason to arrest almost anyone.

Fair point, but they could probably do that already if they really wanted to.

And if you wouldn't normally be suspected, but some DNA links you to the location of the crime, you could instantly become Suspect No. 1 - even if there's no other reason to think you committed the crime - and you have to prove your innocence.

Another good point. I hadn't considered this. And I guess there are cases where this is quite likely to happen.

Still, my opinion still stands. I think keeping records of dna and fingerprints is no bad thing. Though, maybe not a good thing either.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[geekSession]

True. I do agree the Police shouldn't waste their time with petty arrests. My comment was more of an 'in theory' comment than an 'in practice' one. But as you say, the law states necessity, and I'd like to think most Police would just do as they usually do, i.e. give warnings, whether they know about the changes or not.

Not that many police know about the changes,

To be honest, I live in the UK and I didn't know about this law. Am I being really ignorant, or has it not been publicised much?

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[geekSession]

I accept your view, that would be a pain in the arse, though I wouldn't have an issue with the DNA records. I hadn't really considered the issue of accidental crime.

It is a draconian view, but I think a lot of people are far too blase about 'petty' crimes these days. I too often hear peoples defence when caught speeding as "I didn't know the camera was there" or "Well that bit of road should have a higher limit." Whether the police can see you or not, the speed limit is still the same, and if the limit is too slow, speek to your local councillor, don't just ignore it.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[GoddessOfDeath]

Here, if you are arrested (i.e. commit an arrestable offence and are caught) they can take your fingerprints and DNA and photo: permanetly. It is *not* deleted if they don't charge you or you are found not guilty.

When I worked in a forensics lab in England in 2003, the DNA was destroyed and the DNA fingerprint deleted from files if they didn't charge you or you weren't guilty. Admittedly, this was 3 years ago and the laws may have changed since then, but just thought I would throw that into the discussion.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[armb]

And most people don't understand probability. Say there is a one in on million change of your DNA matching someone else's in a test (the tests aren't perfect, and they don't compare the whole of your DNA, so it isn't only identical twins that match).
The police get a DNA match on a sample at a crime scene, and you are the only match in the database. What's the chance that they have the wrong person?

Most people will look at the 1 in 1,000,000 figure and think it's almost certainly your DNA. In fact with 60,000,000 people in the UK the chances they have the right suspect based on DNA evidence alone is only one in 60.
If other evidence leads them to suspect you, then they do the test and it matches, then there's a very high chance you were at the scene. But if the only reason you ever because a suspect was because your DNA was in the database already, possibly from an earlier investigation where you were cleared of any suspicion, and the other 59 matches weren't, the situation is very different. Once the police are convinced you are guilty, the chances of them "finding" supporting evidence goes up and the amount of looking for the real culprit goes down.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[RobertLTux]

http://www.speedtrap.org/speedtraps/stetlist.asp

if you get "tagged" and the place is listed you may want to bring that up at court

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[Trogre]

Since when has speeding been a criminal offence?

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[lga]

Things have changed.

Actually, the law was changed in 2001, but the law lords only ruled it legal to permanently keep DNA records of cleared suspects in 2004.

The register has followed this story in some detail. (See the links at the bottom of that page.) There has also been some coverage in mainstream newspapers.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[rkww]

In fact with 60,000,000 people in the UK the chances they have the right suspect based on DNA evidence alone is only one in 60

And conversely there are 59,999,940 people who could demonstrate 'beyond doubt' that they were not the right suspect.

'Register a DNA sample and you will never be a suspect' - unless you're closely related DNA-wise to the true suspect - is a beguiling argument.

But it presupposes that the authorities are capable of maintaining an accurate, secure, database. There would be a very strong incentive for a 'bad person' to register a fake sample, so that they would be eliminated early from an enquiry.

And even if the authorities were to find a match in their database for a sample obtained at a crime scene, how could they locate the individual who provided the sample? Aha! - force people to provide a fresh sample every time they visit a hotel or use a government service. Too expensive? Then make everybody buy an ID card instead, and have it reference the central DNA database.

That would be a very strong incentive for a 'bad person' to carry a fake ID card (perhaps pretending to be me or you).

So if the police arrested somebody, they would be obliged to take a fresh DNA sample if only to validate their identity card. And now we have an entire new layer of bureaucracy, with its unerring ability to f*** up. Woe betide you if a data entry error were to list you as 'interesting to the state.'

Most innocent people would voluntarily provide a DNA sample if there were other evidence linking them to a serious crime and the additional DNA evidence was likely to exonerate them. If they were wise they would ensure the sample was destroyed afterwards.

But what about non-serious crimes (a parking ticket, for instance)? Should refusal to provide a DNA sample be a serious crime? Should I be obliged to show my ID card (and hence reveal my DNA sample)? What should the penalty be if I fail to show my card on request?

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[plague3106]

I thought this is what everyone in the UK wanted?

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[plague3106]

A: A crime is a crime, why shouldn't you be arrested for it? If you don't want to be arrested, don't do it.

Because being arrested for a 'crime' which hasn't hurt anyone is a bit excessive? Oh sorry, I forgot the government is always right in everything it does, and you should always follow all laws.

B: Say a really serious crime has been commited and you are suspect number one. If the police get hold of a DNA sample at the scene, test it and it doesn't match the DNA you have on record, you're off the suspect list. OK, so that's a little unrealistic, but you'll be further down the list at least.

More likely they'll manufacture evidence to 'prove' you are guilty. Here's a helpful hint; the police don't care if they actually arrest the right person, they just want to arrest someone.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[mdwh2]

Say a really serious crime has been commited...

And is littering a really serious crime? What about the non-serious crimes?

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[xelah]

To be honest, I live in the UK and I didn't know about this law. Am I being really ignorant, or has it not been publicised much?

It hasn't been publicized much. It's also been called the 'Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005', which hardly draws attention to the fact that it allows you to be arrested for littering. This is the section in question.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

[HTH NE1]

A: A crime is a crime, why shouldn't you be arrested for it? If you don't want to be arrested, don't do it.

Because no crime needs to be committed, only an arrest. Arrests on false charges are common, and will become more common as pretext to getting a DNA sample.

Expect being a recluse to become a crime of evading law enforcement, because if they can't find you on the street and arrest you for loitering in a queue then you're trying to shield your DNA from their database.

After that, being put in a database for no crime being committed and a search being made against it to match suspect DNA samples would become an unreasonable search of the very essence of your person. It would seem you have no protections against that. (I'm not sure we do here anymore, either.)

Depending on certain caveats...

[multimediavt]

...Adrain may have little rights at all as a convicted felon (on probation to boot).

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf

There are many state and federal felonies that basically negate your rights under the Constitution. For instance, this kid may never be allowed to leave the country. He may never be allowed to vote. So, giving the government a DNA sample may be a moot point. I will agree that the govt. having a DNA sample of any citizen is scary beyond belief, for a myriad of reasons, but convicted felons aren't exactly citizens anymore.

"Convicted felon"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "felon" has long since been emptied of useful content anyway. If "felony" meant truly heinous crimes, like murder or rape, it would be one thing. But please, filling out some government forms the wrong way is a felony. Having pot or related paraphernalia on you can be a felony. Fact is, the vast majority of felonies are in no way violent, and yet we treat any "felon" like a child rapist. "Convicted felon" is our society's equivalent of yelling "witch!"

Most blonde women....

[SonicSpike]

Most blonde women have intelligent DNA in them... the problem is they tend to spit it out ;-)

I think a survey needs to occur

[gral]

How many people actually read the articles that are in the links? Based on the comments, hardly anyone. They read the blurb, and if it doesn't have pertinant information then all the comments are useless.

This guy is not stating he WILL NOT give a DNA sample. He just doesn't want to provide it in the form of BLOOD. He doesn't mind any other form.

I believe convicted felons SHOULD be required to provide a DNA sample. The reason, if someone commits a crime then society should have an easier time of proving THEY did another crime. Not that DNA would necassarily help in a hacker case. (Unless they find DNA on the keys. I guess if he sneezed on the keyboard would provide the same evidence.)

Absolutely Not

[MrSoundAndVision]

First, the government's assertion that it needs every felon's DNA to keep the public safe is a complete myth. After 911, it seems that we may need to do some other things to keep the public safe like keep an eye on the government itself. Secondly, given the political climate of the times, it's very likely that such information would be deliberately abused against the political adversaries of the political establishment. No government should be trusted with the control of evidence of crimes that have yet to be committed.

Duh.

[jesusfingchrist]

[joking, but serious]

This is why the government will continue to lose the war on all sorts of shit. War on drugs, war on terror, war on hackers, etc. Because they have this asinine misunderstanding of the issue(s). DNA sample for a computer hacker ? How about you get his MAC address first, that'd be a smashing place to start. I highly doubt his DNA will do them a bit of good. Killers, rapist, etc. Sure, get their DNA. Computer hacker ? ComeTheFuckOn.

[/jocking, but serious]

One more thing....

[jesusfingchrist]

It's not just *our government* IMHO, it's *every* government. These kinds of things will always be a problem IMHO.

Re:One more thing....

[fyngyrz]

Yes, but there is a difference. Our nation is founded upon, and gains all of its authority from, our constitution and the subsequent amendments. We have the right, and I would argue also the obligation, to hold our government to the terms upon which it was founded and which give it the only legitimacy it has.

Other governments hold power through such diverse mechanisms as pure force, "god"-given authority, near-universal acceptance of the fact of the matter, myth, and in some rare cases, philosophically.

Each underlying mechanism for a form of government presents a unique set of problems and solutions to its subjects. In our case, if we allow our government to stray much further from the constitutional basis upon which we originally agreed to acccept its domination, we will have made a change that we very well may not be able to undo. In my opinion, this would be a disaster unmatched in all of the history of the US to date.

Re:Send him to federal, "pound me in the ass priso

[woolio]

Have you ever copied a music record/cd/tape?

Have you ever listened to an illegally copied record/cd/tape?

Have you ever seen anyone with an illegally copied record/cd/tape?

Have you ever used a product in a manner that was inconsistent with its labeling?

Have you ever torn the tag off your couch cushion and then later gave away/sold the couch?

Have you ever took your kid and the neighbors to an out-of-state camping trip/vacation/drive/etc without explicit written permission from the parents?

Have you ever flattened a coin on a railroad track?

Have you pissed on the side of a federally maintained road?

Well guess what buddy? You have violated federal laws!!! You should be convicted and sent to "pound-me-in-the-ass prison". Where the DNA can be collected in the manner you suggested (in the parent post)....

what a dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like he didn't get enough quality time in a cell with Bubba.

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[Anonymous Coward]

[DNA is] never perfect, as identical twins have the same DNA.

Dude, the "my secret identical twin did it" defense doesn't work. Is this the best you've got?

"His own" ?

[TwilightXaos]

Wrong. It isn't his own DNA, the patent is clearly for all DNA and other double helical nucleotide structures

Thus, he doesn't own the DNA. Weather it is a genuine copy or not is up for debate, even if it is he only has a license to use the DNA as a end user and cannot resell the DNA or make copies or allow copies to be made of it.

Most likely, it is a rouge copy of DNA. In which case the police's "genuine disadvatage" program would have caught him and he would go back to jail.

Re:"His own" ?

[zcat_NZ]

Most likely, it is a rouge copy of DNA. In which case the police's "genuine disadvatage" program would have caught him and he would go back to jail.

Nah, they'll just tattoo his forehead with a box that says "You may be the victim of DNA counterfeiting"

Re:"His own" ?

[unitron]

"Most likely, it is a rouge copy of DNA."

I think a nice azure copy looks better myself.

I'm Willing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to fingerprint and DNA database everyone with only one condition: ALL of the information is public without exception (ok, two conditions: participation would have to be mandatory).

I think the argument is effective either way: everyone has guaranteed privacy, or everyone has absolutely no privacy. So long as everyone is on a level playing field. Want to find if the President has AIDS? Or has the 'gay gene', or is 10% black?

Think about it. The problem starts when only some people have access to this kind of information, or the information is logged in a discriminatory manner. Then there is an imbalance in power.

Hm. When you go to jail for no good reason. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Come on, people, the guy is a convicted criminal. I have no problem with federal government requiring his blood sample.

Right. Because our legal system is so very just. --Sorry, but being a "convicted criminal" doesn't hold much water with me. --When 0.7% of the U.S. population is currently in jail, a higher percentage than ever before in the nation's history and all very suddenly, then something is wrong.

When they put you in jail for not good reason, I'm sure you'll want people on the outside to be a little more aware of reality and a lot more forgiving than you appear to be. There are criminals in America, but unfortunately, they're the ones making up the rules.

-FL

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[Bacon Bits]

DNA, like fingerprints, only places you at the scene. Even if it's semen collected from a woman, they have to show that it got there without her consent.

Means + opportunity + motive = crime. DNA generally only gives you opportunity.

Why do we have laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

And so I wonder, do laws exist to -protect our citizens- or to -catch criminals-?

Jehovah Witness

[lordsid]

Very simple solution he just needs to tell them he's a jehovah witness. He doesn't need to proove it.

Re:Jehovah Witness

[Anonymous Coward]

JW's don't have anything against giving blood samples, only taking blood or blood component transfusions.

Reverse them, no-hyphen, and StudlyCaps, please.

[Deal-a-Neil]

It's LexisNexis, not Nexis-Lexis. Or then again, it is possible that he hacked into a misspelled parked domain squatter page.

jscheelntsu - right-wing Christian hypocrite

[leftie]

jscheelntsu starts off by cutting and pasting out of context.I said "Right wing Christians have a real bad habit of intentionally screwing with people with differing religious beliefs." It's true. Right wing Dominionist Christians do have a real bad habit of intentionally screwing with people with differing belief systems. You want me to post all the quotes from right wing Christians calling people of differing faiths evil, demons, etc? You want me to post all the right wing Dominionist Christian quotes calling America a "Christian nation" even though the Constitution was written specifically to protect people from having one religion or denomination being forced on the US population? That was because there had been so many Protestants oppressed in Europe by other state religions or different state Protestant denominations?

I am a better Patriot than you. I served my country. Army. MOS: 19D - Cavalry Scout. No... I don't believe everyone needs to serve in the military. Did you serve in the Peace Corps? Vista? AmericaCorps? Did you teach in an inner city or rural public school? Worked in health care in urban or rural medical clinic? Not only no, but %^$# no. You ain't done &%#& for anyone but yourself. You are a useless eater and a leech upon American society. You suck capital out of the American economy and you return nothing of value. For an utter waste of a $2 sack of water and minerals like you to say a word to anyone of real value in our society of the ultimate hypocrisy. The idea that your complete lack of value to America should make you one of the "chiefs" is utterly hysterical.

And all you do in the media is propagandize for your fellow borderline Franco-model fascists.

CNN anti-military? Utter rubbish. CNN spends the vast majority of it's broadcast day peddling right wing propaganda. The Graner quote comes from the official depositions leading up to court-marshall anyway. What's next? Are you going to claim the US Army is anti-military and Anti-Christain, too?

Re:jscheelntsu - right-wing Christian hypocrite

[jscheelmtsu]

You are pitiful. First you accuse me of quoting you out of context. You are so controlled by your own biased that you do not see that you are still making a generalization. Just because I left out "...with differing religious beliefs..." does not mean I took you out of context. I took the very meaning of your statement. If I replaced the last section with "...that work at McDonalds," your statement would still be a generalization. The part you are generalizing is the "action" of right wing christians, not who they are acting against.

You want me to post all the quotes from radical muslims calling people of differing faiths evil, demons, etc? All religions have extremists that utilize the squeaky wheel. These extremists take terms out of context. No, I do not believe that other religions are true, but I don't look at others as evil or demonic. I see them as the result of incorrect teaching, and I have enough love for them to treat them just as I would treat my fellow christian.

This country is founded on christian principles. Your history is severely skewed if you think that is not the case. I, however, do agree that this country does not officially sanction christianity as the state religion. For America to do that would be to ignore the Constitution.

For you to say that you are a better patriot than me without knowing a single thing that I do is foolish. First and foremost, I will take your claim to a calvary background at face value. You pose several scenarios of patriotic contribution, and then assume that I have done nothing of the sort, stating, "Not only no, but %^$# no. You ain't done &%#& for anyone but yourself." That was a mistake. Yes, I have taught in a rural public school system. No, I am not a member of the America Corps, but I have been to several parts of America (and other countries) to assist in community service. I have repaired homes in Appalachian communities. I have helped to build training centers for Choctaw Indians. I just recently finished organizing a large relief effort for the tornado victims in my community. I am active in national political discussion. Should I go on? I don't have to blow my own horn, my actions speak for themselves. Do you still stand by your assumption that I am a "useless eater and a leech upon American society?" Or that I "suck capital out of the American economy and [return] nothing of value?"

You, on the other hand, assume automatically that military service equals patriotism. Tell me, why did you join the Army? Be truthful. I know plenty of people that enlisted because they didn't know what else to do when they got out of high school. Or what about those that were drafted, when the draft was still active? Or those that joined to get a free education, or a free meal (i.e. stability)? What about those that do it because that's what their family has always done? Or those, like one of my best friends, who enlisted because they wanted to be James Bond? I am not stating that any of these situations apply to you. For all I know, you could have enlisted out of fierce loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America. The point is, I am not automatically assuming something about you. A courtesy you seem unable to extend to me.

Your statement that I believe that my "complete lack of value to America should make [me] one of the 'chiefs'" is your attempt to take my figure of speech and twist it around. The figure of speech merely means that not everybody can do the same thing. For me to think of myself as a chief and everyone else as a little indian would be arrogant. Thankfully, I did not say that.

I think you should study fascism a little more before automatically assuming I align myself with the likes of Francisco Franco. A good definition of fascism is this:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based p

Re:jscheelntsu - right-wing Christian hypocrite

[castle]

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (Anatomy of Fascism, p. 218)

1: Community Decline - Anecdotally it is quite evident that news media and the religio-militarist-fascists-in the guise of liberty loving folks like you use this very assertion hourly (24 hours a day, on CNN - headline news) but don't worry, it's fascism "for the children."

2: Humiliation - Outing of Valerie Plame (sic?) . Multitudes of others.

3: victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity - Again, the popular recent meme of the victimized Christian was used admirably by the Bush Administration to gain power, appealing to the sheeple works admirably. Where have you been?

I could go on, but the further points are less easy to make a case for objectively, the above were not really objective either, but fascism is not far from the mark, in my opinion.

It aint just the Republicans either. The Dems will gladly give away freedom for security, arguably faster than most Republicans, they both read from the same playbook.

Re:jscheelntsu - right-wing Christian hypocrite

[leftie]

14 warning signs of fascism...

"...For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice--relentless propaganda and disinformation--were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct c

It's people like you

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

THAT EVERYONE SHOULD PROVIDE TO THEIR GOVERNMENT ???!!!

As a liberty limiting condition of citizenship?

You make the jump from positive ID of criminals (something in the public interest and generally agreed that convicted felons will be lossing some rights) to "ALL PEOPLE SHOULD...."

This is sickening!

Criminals at least exercise freedom of the mind .... you imprison yourself by default and state that all people should do the same. Freedom and liberty is hard to come by buddy, don't be so quick to give any of it up.

Why don't you move to a place with even more monitors and controls over your living condition since you seem to wish crawling back in the womb, this one provided by government. Is it because you view the yoke of oppression as some desirable fashion accessory or is it simply because the world can be a scary, dangerous place and your a chickenshit?

Freedom isn't for cowards.

If eunuchs like you feel safer while sucking off a cop, go ahead, but you ain't no piece of a man and can't be trusted to either provide or uphold freedom or liberty. Such as you are a disgrace to the memory of our forefathers and a parasite in the stomachs of free men.

You fellatio queens will be forever attached to the groins of your masters. Such is your destiny by choice. Picture that in difference to standing resolute in the bow of a boat crossing the Delaware in the winter of 1776.

Yeah, I can see you abondoned half naked shrieking little bitches huddled in the middle of a burning street. Otherwise your just harem slaves. Not saying the life of a harem slave can't be comfortable over the term if you manage to keep yourself up.

Ah well. It was your choice, not mine.

Or perhaps not enough. . ?

[Fantastic Lad]

Paranoia from the Left? I don't know. "Left and Right" political divisions are seeming increasingly out-moded these days. I find it's somewhat more complicated than "Left and Right" when more and more Republicans are openly rejecting Neo-Con philosophy.

Currently, the United States has a LOT more of its citizens locked up in prisons than ever before.

That makes me more than just uneasy.

Tacitus said, "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state."

Perhaps rather than "Left and Right" we need a new division. "Prisoners and Guards" is seeming increasingly applicable.

-FL

Wow. Attitude adjustment needed!

[Tjp($)pjT]

"...Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

It is comments like this that really scare me. I assume it is meant to be limited to those arrested, but if this applies to the authors thoughts for the general populace we are way to far down the slippery slope already and all hope may be lost. Might as well just get chipped at birth. Wow. The government has no right or need to fingerprint all of its citizens. It is presumption that they will commit a crime. Ben Franklin is spinning at warp speed tonight.

The objection appears to be over the method

[Sycraft-fu]

He claims to have religious opposition to having his blood drawn. Fair enough, we'll assume he's telling the truth. Now in general, the state can't force you to do something you are religiously opposed to, even if you are a convicted criminal. For example prisions offer vegitarian meals for those that have oppositions to eating animals, or opposotion to the way normal meals are prepared (they are usualy non Halal for example).

In this case, there is another method for DNA collection, a cheek swab. It's highly reliable and easy to do. In fact I'm supprised it's not their prefered method because I think it's even cheaper. Thus he has standing to challenge the method of collection, even if he doesn't have standing to challenge the collection itself.

That doesn't mean that you are totally immune from blood tests no matter what based on religious convictions. If there's something they have a court order to test for, and blood is the only way, they can still force you to submit to a blood test. However in a case like this, I think he's got a legit argument and can most likely get a judge to hear it.

Re: felon rights

[solitas]

Felons have rights? News to me ;) Commit a crime against society in general and you lose your right to claim rights, until such a time as you have redeemed yourself in the eyes of the law.

They get: meals, health care, exercise, media-entertainment, education, legal representation/aid, and a pretty-much tax-free existence - all without paying a dime or lifting a finger. If any one of those privileges get curtailed in the least little way: then the lawsuits start flying. and Citizens are paying for it all.

Lots of law-abiding Citizens are scraping for a living and don't have half of those privs. Have you ever had to work for a living, or are you still "sucking the family teat"?

__________________________________________________ ___________
Good breeding shows, bad breeding illustrates; age instructs.

Government should Have our DNA already

[Stevecrox]

I realise things might be a little different in the USA, but a few years back the Uk considered takning everyones DNA on file. The reason was for crime, and to be honest I'm all for it there are way to many unsolved rape and murder cases for my liking. ALright just because your DNA is at a scene doesn't mean yo udid it, but rather than looking at a needle in a hay stack it gives the governement imediate suspects.

I understand your concerns about abuse of this information, I'm guessing many people have seen the film Gattaca. But right now we don't have the technology to make clones, so the only real fears I can see anyone having is that a company won't hire you because of your DNA. But then I can't see this working in a age without proper genetic engineering.

The one thing i found ammusing about the UK governments attempt a while back, was that the people who seemed vocal against it appeared to be the type of low level crime figures the law was designed to catch.

Re:Government should Have our DNA already

[gd23ka]

I'll leave it up to your imagination as to what obscenities flashed across my mind while reading your post.
The richer and more creative your imagination, the better.

You may not like the idea at all, but the right to privacy of billions on this planet is by many magnitudes
far more worth than a couple of dozen murdered and raped 4-year olds. It's a ghastly price to pay, but alone through
the embargo on Iraq after the first Gulf War we killed a hundred-thousand Iraqi kids for Arco and British Petrol.
As far as The "Will Someone Please Think Of the Children"-angle is concerned, that angle was KIA in Falluja.

I certainly will not give up such extremely personal information (as a lot of other people have already pointed
out: allergies, genetic disorders, biological weaknesses and strengths etc. etc.) just to track down one of
few perverts.

Two words: mice and boogers

[Maxmin]

Hackers are well-known for skillz in probing the depths of their proboscii. Computer mice are unintentional collectors of dessicated cranial mucus. It would be easy as, well, picking your nose to track down a hacker, IF you and ONLY if you know all of their DNA in a database.

Mandatory DNA samples for all hackers should be a no-brainer.

Great.

[ABoerma]

Clone and hack makes for sloppy code.

Think!

[Fantastic Lad]

Unless you have something to hide then you shouldn't be against this, seriously. And then if you DO have something to hide, well then you should be worried either way, the system isn't designed to help you, it's designed to protect the citizens from people who might infringe on their rights.

Allow me to copy & paste a portion of another Slashdotter's comment. . .

Have you ever copied a music record/cd/tape?

Have you ever listened to an illegally copied record/cd/tape?

Have you ever seen anyone with an illegally copied record/cd/tape?

Have you ever used a product in a manner that was inconsistent with its labeling?

Have you ever torn the tag off your couch cushion and then later gave away/sold the couch?

Have you ever took your kid and the neighbors to an out-of-state camping trip/vacation/drive/etc without explicit written permission from the parents?

Have you ever flattened a coin on a railroad track?

Have you pissed on the side of a federally maintained road?

Well guess what buddy? You have violated federal laws!!! You should be convicted and sent to prison.

Think it can't happen to you? Hm.

Currently, the United States has a LOT more of its citizens locked up in prisons than ever before.
  and it this increase has happened very suddenly.

Let's put that another way. . .

The U.S., which has 5% of the world population, had a quarter of its prisoners in the year 2000. (about 2 million of the world's total of 8 million)7

That doesn't make you uneasy?

Tacitus said, "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state."

-FL

Re:Think!

[mephistophyles]

I think that's pretty scary, the US is certainly far from a good place to live. I think this is where I mention that I'm not American and I don't live there anymore, so I guess I don't really have to worry about American federal laws, unless George Bush decides to invade Europe. I'm not going to say I haven't listened to illegally downloaded music. I think it would be lying to say I haven't downloaded a bit, but usually I got the album if it's any good, otherwise deleted the content. I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are varying degrees of evil. And I think that we (society) should focus on dealing with the worst before going after the mildly and slightly criminal. That means murderers, rapists and pedophiles should be summarily castrated and perhaps shot in my opinion. Some student (I'm 18, so most of the things on your list don't really apply) who downloads a bit is not too high on the list of criminal perpetrators. As to your prison issue, maybe it shows that your prison system works too well, or maybe it imprisons too many. Take the other side of the coin, here in western Europe, most criminals get away very easily and are out on the street very soon. I think I'd rather see a few innocent men go to jail than the same amount of murderers and rapists get out. It's a rotten choice, but it's the lesser of two evils. I do believe however that there is something in that constitution of yours that states that if the state or government starts to work against its people, then the people have the right, nay the duty to rise up. I'm not saying a rebellion is in order, but maybe the state has lost sight of what it's purpose is; to serve its citizens.

I keep seeing. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

comments like the following. . .

Unless you have something to hide then you shouldn't be against this, seriously. And then if you DO have something to hide, well then you should be worried either way, the system isn't designed to help you, it's designed to protect the citizens from people who might infringe on their rights.

Allow me to copy & paste a portion of another Slashdotter's comment. . .

Have you ever copied a music record/cd/tape?

Have you ever listened to an illegally copied record/cd/tape?

Have you ever seen anyone with an illegally copied record/cd/tape?

Have you ever used a product in a manner that was inconsistent with its labeling?

Have you ever torn the tag off your couch cushion and then later gave away/sold the couch?

Have you ever took your kid and the neighbors to an out-of-state camping trip/vacation/drive/etc without explicit written permission from the parents?

Have you ever flattened a coin on a railroad track?

Have you pissed on the side of a federally maintained road?

Well guess what buddy? You have violated federal laws!!! You should be convicted and sent to prison.

Think it can't happen to you? Hm.

Currently, the United States has a LOT more of its citizens locked up in prisons than ever before.
  and it this increase has happened very suddenly.

Let's put that another way. . .

The U.S., which has 5% of the world population, had a quarter of its prisoners in the year 2000. (about 2 million of the world's total of 8 million).

That doesn't make you uneasy?

Tacitus said, "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state."

-FL

Government Is Violence

[Rob the Bold]

If you are convicted of a felony, they have a right to keep your DNA on file.

Because they say they do? Well I say they don't. How can they say they're right and I'm wrong? Oh yeah, the violence.

ex post facto?

[redelm]

These sounds like measures [punishments] that are being now imposed that did not exist at the time of the offense. Quite likely unconstitutional.

Re:ex post facto?

[Martin Blank]

They're data points collected on people currently in process in some fashion, similar to fingerprints in that respect. If a person is not in custody or on parole or probation, the DNA sample cannot be required.

It's been in place now for more than a year, and DNA collection of certain felons has been the norm for much longer. This simply expanded the collection to include all felons, and certain non-felons. If it were an unconstitutional ex post facto law, it would have been challenged and dismissed by now.

Lies

[umbrellasd]

They lie. They lie all the time. They're not lying for our benefit, either -- they lie to do us harm, to hide things from us, to get certain people into office (or keep them there), they lie to take our property, our freedom, to erode our rights, and to diminish our ability to hold them accountable.

Yet, they are us, and we elected them.

Re:Lies

[vertinox]

Yet, they are us, and we elected them.

Are you so sure?

Re:Lies

[fyngyrz]

Yet, they are us, and we elected them.

They are not me. I did not elect them. There is no one in federal office that I have ever cast a vote for, nor anyone I perceive would represent even a fraction of my views should I vote for them. Those in office, and even those who run for office from the two parties and fail to obtain that lofty goal, do not represent my views. They do not do, or assert they will do, as I would have them do, nor do they show any signs of understanding my views.

I am ready to consider, however, that those in office may "be you", as you so artfully put it.

Re:Lies

[xalorous]

It must be wonderful to be so ignorantly naive. It is our duty to vote. If we do not vote, the system will not work. And if you do not vote, you need to STFU about political issues. It's like saying, I am against fires but I wouldn't, umm, pour water on a house if it were on fire. It is laziness. Every adult citizen of the United States has the duty to, at the very least, vote against someone. You say they do not represent you. You need to dig deeper. I'm sure there is a candidate somewhere who represents similar views to yours. Or if you look and they're all scoundrels in your area, you got two basic choices, put forth a candidate (either yourself or someone else) or vote for the one you dislike least.

Re:Lies

[fyngyrz]

It must be wonderful to be so ignorantly naive. It is our duty to vote.

"Our" duty? What did I sign that says I accepted a duty to vote? Or, what oath did I take, and to whom, in front of what witnesses, that causes this duty to fall to me? Explain, please. I mean, other than in your opinion. What are the facts of the matter here?

If we do not vote, the system will not work.

Well, I suppose there is nothing to stop one from hoping for such an outcome, but the fact is, this is not so. The system is designed to work even if only one person votes. As long as someone from the two major party organizations is elected, it makes absolutely no difference how many people elected them. The fact is, the system doesn't significantly vary its actions or authority based upon the level of activity at the polls.

And if you do not vote, you need to STFU about political issues.

So you're saying, if I don't agree with you, I am not entitled to the same degree of free speech as you are? How fascinating. Clearly, you are a true patriot. I was truly unaware of the this rewards-based delivery of the right of free speech based upon political participation. Would you please do me a favor and show me the portion of the constitution, or the amendments, or common law, that you found this in? Thanks, I really appreciate learning new things.

It's like saying, I am against fires but I wouldn't, umm, pour water on a house if it were on fire.

No, it's like saying: I am against fires, so I'm not going to help you keep this fire going. And by the way, your house is on fire.

Every adult citizen of the United States has the duty to, at the very least, vote against someone.

Again, explain why. What did we adults sign, or what oath did we take, that commits us to this duty you speak of? From what contract does this obligation arise? I am currenly unaware of this duty.

You need to dig deeper. I'm sure there is a candidate somewhere who represents similar views to yours. Or if you look and they're all scoundrels in your area, you got two basic choices, put forth a candidate (either yourself or someone else) or vote for the one you dislike least.

How... interesting. I can't imagine why you would think that there would be a candidate anywhere that would represent me without even knowing what I think needs to be done. Have you no adequate concept of the range of human values and views? Nor can I imagine why you think a candidate such as I might be interested in supporting would be electable in a country that elects from the two party baskets, repeatably and dependably, given that I have provided clear indications that I am not even slightly aligned with them. Or why you think it would be worth the effort and not a complete waste of time and funds to run if unelectable. I'd love to hear your explanation, though, if you actually have one.

Thanks for your response; it truly lightened up my morning.

spelling nazi

[Psykosys]

who plead guilty to one count of computer crimes against Microsoft, Nexis-Lexis and the New York Times in 2004.

Does anyone ever spell LexisNexis correctly?

All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

Well said and a reason I respect Libertarians although I do not consider myself one. And why don't I consider myself a Libertarian? Because big private corporations ALSO work hard to screw us and the world over, do Microsoft, Enron, Nike, Global Crossing, and large oil companies ring a bell? The real problem is allowing any large organization public OR private control over your life either physical or economic. And yes we may be reliant on corporations for computers, medicine, etc, and the government for roads and other infrastructure, but the goal should be to give large organizations the absolute minimum control over our lives we need to survive.

Libertarians who fail to realize the corrosive effects of private greed are blind, and leftists who fail to realize the terrible power of the state to oppress us are also blind.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[fyngyrz]

Libertarians who fail to realize the corrosive effects of private greed are blind

No corporation can force me to give them my DNA. No corporation can jail me. No corporation can force me to give them money. No corporation can force me to work for them. No corporation can encourage me to do anything with any force stronger than dissasociation from that corporation's products, services, or opportunity at a job with them. I retain my freedom to travel, speak, act, and so on outside the domain of the corporation with complete impunity, regardless of what they might want to do.

But the government can do all these things. They can force me to give them DNA. The government can jail me for arbitrary terms. The government can take my money without my co-operation, any recompense, or requirement for a criminal conviction, and to add insult to injury the government can, and does, then use that money for purposes that are morally and ethically repugnant to me. The government can cause me to be ostracized by my community by accusation and/or hounding me publicly. The government can make me join the military, and they can keep me there against my will. The government can keep me from getting jobs by declaring I am a security risk, a sex offender, a felon, and so on. No matter if I am, or not. They can prevent me from flying by putting me on a list. Should they do so, I can't get off the list, and they will refuse to tell me why. They can cart me off to jail, deny me access to communications and representation, directly steal my land, stipulate what I may do to and with myself in my bedroom, my living room, eavesdrop on me, sell and give away information about me... and there is not one blessed thing I can do about it.

I have seen the government do all of these things in the last few years with the single exception of drafting people into the army from civilian life, but that I saw in the 60's and 70's and I have no doubt they will do it again, given another war, perhaps in Iran or somewhere similar such that our cannon fodder becomes a wee bit too thinned out for their requirements.

I don't see corporations as any kind of a serious threat to liberty. I see the current state of government as the very antithesis of liberty. I look around me, and all I see are sheep. Mutton Jeff, as it were.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

As the consumer of the end products of multinational corporations in the belly of the empire of course you are living large, and the people making crap for you in the third world, not so much...

For example Shell in Nigeria:

"Oil Spills

Although Shell drills oil in 28 countries, 40% of its oil spills worldwide have occurred in the Niger Delta10. In the Niger Delta, there were 2,976 oil spills between 1976 and 199111. In the 1970s spillage totaled more that four times that of the 1989 Exxon Valdez tragedy12. Ogoniland has had severe problems stemming from oil spillage, including water contamination and loss of many valuable animals and plants. A short-lived World Bank investigation found levels of hydrocarbon pollution in water in Ogoniland more than sixty times US limits13 and a 1997 Project Underground survey found petroleum hydrocarbons one Ogoni village's watersource to be 360 times the levels allowed in the European Community, where Shell originates14.

Pipelines and construction

The 12 by 14 mile area that comprises Ogoniland is some of the most densely occupied land in Africa. The extraction of oil has lead to construction of pipelines and facilities on precious farmland and through villages. Shell and its subcontractors compensate landowners with meager amounts unequal to the value of the scarce land, when they pay at all. The military defends Shell's actions with firearms and death: see the Shell Police section below.

Health impacts

The Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team observed increased "discomfort and misery" due to fumes, heat and combustion gases, as well as increased illnesses15. This destruction has not been alleviated by Shell or the government. Owens Wiwa, a physician, has observed higher rates of certain diseases like bronchial asthma, other respiratory diseases, gastro-enteritis and cancer among the people in the area as a result of the oil industry16.

The Shell Police and the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force

Both Shell and the government admit that Shell contributes to the funding of the military in the Delta region. Under the auspices of "protecting" Shell from peaceful demonstrators in the village of Umeuchem (10 miles from Ogoni), the police killed 80 people, destroyed houses and vital crops in 199017. Shell conceded it twice paid the military for going to specific villages. Although it disputes that the purpose of these excursions was to quiet dissent, each of the military missions paid for by Shell resulted in Ogoni fatalities18. The two incidents are a 1993 peaceful demonstration against the destruction of farmland to build pipelines and, later that year, a demonstration in the village of Korokoro19. Shell has also admitted purchasing weapons for the police force who guard its facilities, and there is growing suspicion that Shell funds a much greater portion of the military than previously admitted. In 1994, the military sent permanent security forces into Ogoniland, occupying the once peaceful land. This Rivers State Internal Security Task Force is suspected in the murders of 2000 people20. In a classified memo, its leader described his plans for "psychological tactics of displacement/wasting" and stated that "Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken."21 Since the Task Force occupied Ogoniland in 1994, the Ogoni have lived under constant surveillance and threats of violence. The Nigerian military stepped up its presence in Ogoniland in January of 1997 and again in 1998 before the annual Ogoni Day celebrations."

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html

YOU don't killed and exploited by private corporations, others not so much.

Or Nike in Indonesia:

"JAKARTA, Indonesia -- Workers at nine Indonesian factories under contract by U.S. sportswear giant Nike say they have either suffered or have witnessed sexual and verbal abuse.

Laborers also say they were asked to work

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[petermgreen]

No corporation can force me to give them my DNA.
Sure they can, just get thier staff to point loaded rifles at you and i'm sure you'll comply. The only thing there is to stop them doing so is the government.

No corporation can jail me.
once again the only reason corps don't imprison anyone is trouble from the govemenment

No corporation can force me to give them money.
ditto

I retain my freedom to travel, speak, act, and so on outside the domain of the corporation with complete impunity, regardless of what they might want to do.
so when the roads cartel of america that forms after the privitisation of the road network bans you from using thier roads you think there will be anything you can do about it?

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[fyngyrz]

You are making up events and situations that do not exist in order to create a contrary talking point for yourself. I do not advocate anything that would lead to the imaginary results you are postulating; I am simply describing the problems that we actually have at the present time. Prospective (however unlikely) solutions, such as forbidding the government from taking one's land barring a specific major military, transport infrastructure, or environmental need will in no way empower corporations totake up arms against me, or against you.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[fyngyrz]

You cite actions of corporations in lands where my government is unable to control the actions of those corporations. In those lands, control over the corporation must be exercised by the local government. The reason that corporations are not allowed to be powers unto themselves here is because we have learned that this is not a good strategy. Nigeria, Indonesia, and so forth are suffering from *government* problems because control over these issues has to come from a sensible, well structured government. You cannot easily control a corporation which is doing something that is legal, profitable, and moderately (or more than) sustainable.

Here, a corporation (or a person) spills oil, we give it a fair amount of trouble; see the Exxon Valdez spill, and others. The countries you cite would do well to learn from our example(s) in this area. I cannot imagine thousands of spills would result when each spill results in an immediately payable hundred million dollar penalty, for instance. If such penalties are not in place, I can only conclude that those countries have decided that the good coming from the oil company outweighs the bad under their system of government. I might agree, or not, but I am not interested in enforcing my opinion upon them. I am concerned about my system of government, frankly, and not theirs.

You quote Shell using the local police and/or military for their purposes. Were I a local, I would blame the government here; just as the company that wants my land to build a hotel on is not at fault, the government is at fault if they allow it to be taken. In your example, without a corrupt or compliant government, there would be no problem. You're pointing the finger at the wrong party. Shell isn't the problem. The police are the problem, and underneath that, the legal system that allows or encourages these actions. In other words, the government and its agents.

You quote sexual abuse and bring up Nike in Indonesia. Nike is a corporation. It can't rape anyone, or abuse anyone. People do these things. These people, and the things they do, are subject to the laws of the land, whatever they are. So, what are the laws? What does the government do, and what are they supposed to do?

Let me give you an example. Here, smoking pot is illegal. You, in your wisdom, may truly believe that smoking pot is a Bad Thing. So, some US citizen goes off to some other country where smoking pot is legal. Do you blame:

• The citizen, for smoking where it is legal?
• The corporation, for selling pot?
• The country, for permitting such acts?

Considering the premise that you think pot does harm, who is at fault here? Is anyone? If not, why not? (If you can't wrap your head around pot as harmful substance, substitute something else forbidden here and allowed elsewhere... there are thousands of examples from sexual favors to drugs to polygamy and polyandry.)

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

Libertarian dude sed:

"You quote Shell using the local police and/or military for their purposes. Were I a local, I would blame the government here; just as the company that wants my land to build a hotel on is not at fault, the government is at fault if they allow it to be taken."

And do you honestly think that Shell wouldn't have hired mercenaries to do the same thing if that had been cheaper or easier? As the record obviously shows Shell as a company is quite willing to do ANYTHING to continue their operations in the Niger delta. The point is, is that Shell is quite willing to kill innocent people to continue it's oil drilling operation in Nigeria. It is exactly this sort of case that makes me mistrust Libertarians despite their excellent well honed admirable contempt they hold towards the state. When it comes to HORRIBLE deeds committed by corporations suddenly Libertarians are as slippery as Bill Clinton talking about what the meaning of is, is... Lets see some more honesty here, BOTH corporations and governments will commit horrible deeds when they think they can get away with it, only by holding BOTH corporations and governments to merciless scrutiny and calling them on their bad deeds will we see any decency, liberty, and a sustainable way of life. Making apologetics for the owners of Nike's production facilities quite literally raping their own employees only makes you look like an asshole, which is really too bad because your original post about not trusting the government not to misuse DNA data was quite excellent. I no more trust Nike to subcontract to other private shoe making corporations that will respect human rights than I do the government to hold my DNA data or my phone records. NEITHER the government, nor Shell, Nike, Haliburton, Bechtel, Microsoft, Monsanto, Maxxam, Wal-Mart, Exxon, etc have earned my trust by engaging in consistent ethical behavior. If you wern't blinded by your Libertarian ideology you would be more honest and admit that, yet for you suddenly crimes become non crimes when committed by private corporations. THAT is why I have some respect for Libertarians outspokenness about the evils of government but do not consider myself to be a Libertarian.

Please apply the same high standards to the conduct to private organizations that you apply to governments, thank you.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[fyngyrz]

And do you honestly think that Shell wouldn't have hired mercenaries to do the same thing if that had been cheaper or easier?

I think that the mercenaries would be destroyed by the armed forces of the government, Shell would be ousted, and another company more to the liking of the locals would obtain the privilege of going after those natural resources. In your imaginary "Shell is the devil" scenario, you must remember that Shell, no matter how evil you think they are, is not alone here. Exxon and a hundred others wait in the wings to take their place. If that can be accomplished by being a bit nicer, do you think they won't jump at the chance? On the one hand, you presume that the local resources are so valuable that Shell will literally do anything to get them (you base this on the fact that they're doing things you don't like already.) Do you not see that if you are correct and such resources exist with such value, that the motivation for any other company is equally strong, and that if the local government is not in control, they could hire mercenaries to, for instance, decapitate Shell's local (or even global) leadership? This is only one of many reasons that your imaginary paramilitary view of corporations is nonsense, but it is sufficient to destroy your entire line of reasoning.

The bottom line is that all actions of individuals that are not forbidden or punished by the government are the result of permission by the government, implicit or explicit. If Shell is acting in a way you don't like here, you can be absolutely dead certain it is with the co-operation of the local government. Otherwise, it would not be Shell you would be complaining about. They'd be out, and someone else would be in. The responsibility is squarely in the local government's lap. Period.

...if you wern't blinded by your Libertarian ideology you would be more honest and admit that, yet for you suddenly crimes become non crimes when committed by private corporations.

I did not in any way endorse rape; I simply pointed out that it is the responsibility of the government to police such acts, and that Nike wasn't raping anyone, people were. This means that people, not Nike, are to be held accountable for this. I rather doubt you'll find that Nike's corporate charter includes the specific or indirect authority for their officers or employees to rape subordinates or co-workers. You may, in your rush to villify them, indeed think that is the case. I highly doubt it, and therefore, I lay the problem at the feet of the local government. Unless it is legal in their country, in which case, no crime has technically transpired. There are many examples of highly distasteful (to us) behaviors along these lines: the Chinese execute newborns, the Vietnamese eat cats and dogs, the indians cut off female genitals, and various muslim cultures work from legal structures I would argue are not even out of the caves. You can (as can we all) decide that a corporation is acting in such a way as to make you decide that supporting it by using its products is too distasteful, and in that case, you should make sure you tell them so they know what you're doing as well as why. Otherwise, you're a drop in the dark and will have no effect. However, you cannot make what is a crime here, a crime somewhere else. Perhaps you love cats (I do); the Vietnamese would kill it without a thought. Quite cruelly. Here, such an act would result in jail time. There, it simply results in lunch or dinner.

You have to separate your sensibilities from reality and act rationally. Will you go off to Vietnam and kill every cat-eater you see? How do you think that'll work out for you? Now, will you go to Nigeria and set fire to the nearest Shell platform? Will you be surprised if the local government executes you for it? Somehow, I get the impression that you would be. Because you don't understand the forces invol

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[Firehed]

Sure they can, just get thier staff to point loaded rifles at you and i'm sure you'll comply. The only thing there is to stop them doing so is the government.

They don't need to go that far. A cotton swabbing around your desk is more than enough, unless you show up to work in an airtight rubber suit.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

Of course if it wasn't Shell exploiting the people of Nigeria it would be Exxon doing the exploiting or some other corporation dumbass that's exactly my point that corporations as a large powerful organization aren't trustworthy. Your fishy red herring tactics when talking of corporate malfeasance compared to the clarity of your denunciations of government malfeasance shows you are stretching. And yes if it's the corporation engaging in the horrible action it's their responsibility don't try to pawn off actions ordered directly by the head people on the ground in Nigeria of Shell off on someone else like the local government. That argument makes as much sense as me saying if I murder someone that it's the responsibility of the cop (local government) to stop it and that I bear no responsibility for the murder which is clearly absurd. After all as a Libertarian I'm sure you'd scream like a stuck pig if a welfare recipient tried to pawn off their responsibility for their status on "society." Buck up and be a man and admit Shell is the responsible party and is wrong to pursue the murder of innocent people in Nigeria. Responsibility doesn't magically disappear because the person who ordered it is high in the hierarchy of a corporation and is pursing the murder for corporate profit. Again it's this sort of weasly Bill Clintonesque style of argument when Libertarians are confronted with the corrosive consequences of unchecked greed that make it so that I will never call myself a Libertarian despite my respect for Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts and other Libertarian thinkers.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[zeno_2]

I did not in any way endorse rape; I simply pointed out that it is the responsibility of the government to police such acts, and that Nike wasn't raping anyone, people were. This means that people, not Nike, are to be held accountable for this.

My question is, lets say if Nike did know about this, would they act differently because its being done in a country that has more lax laws then lets say the U.S.?

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they can, just get thier staff to point loaded rifles at you and i'm sure you'll comply. The only thing there is to stop them doing so is the government.

They don't need to go that far. A cotton swabbing around your desk is more than enough, unless you show up to work in an airtight rubber suit.

Only on causual Friday's.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

Why is everyone a relativist about local laws? Rape is wrong period, end of story and the rapists themselves, the owners of the subcontracted factories and Nike for slipshod human rights monitoring of the contractors they chose ALL ought to be held responsible for it happening. In the same way that Rumsfeld, the commander at Abu Gharib, and the individual soldiers who did the torturing ought to be held responsible for the torture that took place there. That case probably seems pretty clear to Libertarians, why does the moral clarity suddenly slip when private entities are involved? Could it be your vaunted defense of freedom is mere raw rank self interest and cheap labor conservatism? Please tell me it's not so and that you have consistent principles you apply to both public and private organizations.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

P.S. To Zeno I know you are actually probably trying to confront Nike's hypocrisies of exploiting looser local laws, my response was just to make it clear that we should be focusing on the individuals doing the acts and not the culture they do them in. If we focus on the culture they do them then relativism comes into play and people can use that to try to slip out of responsibility for their actions and I don't want to see that happen.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[Alsee]

In the Niger Delta, there were 2,976 oil spills between 1976 and 199111

That works out to one spill every 66 years. Sounds like a damn good safety record to me :D

-

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

That's 1991 footnote 11 dumbass.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mvdwege]

You are making up events and situations that do not exist in order to create a contrary talking point for yourself.

No, he is not. Two words: Company Town.

Go read some history books. Then come back and be considered something more than "-1, Naive" at best.

Mart

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

P.S. Sorry to jump on you for a joke I just don't find people getting hung, shot and having their lives ruined by oil spills in Nigeria all that funny. Still a jokes, a joke my bad.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mrraven]

Ding, ding, ding... Give this human a cigar. Most Libertarians would like nothing better than to be the OWNER of a company town if they could. If they could CONTROL the lives of their workers and extract maximum profit from them throughout their lives you would see their "liberty" rhetoric fly right out the window. And no Libertarians this isn't some failure of the government, most company towns were in the wild west where the influence of the state was nill.

Note also the USSR was in essence one giant company town as well. As I said in the original great, great, great, great grandfather post any large organization whether it's fundamental basis of organization is the greed engendered by the possibility of unlimited property ownership, or the power that a large state gives itself cannot be trusted. The goal should be dencentralization and breaking power relationships, not supporting states or "private enterprise," just because.

As a bonus breaking down large organizations would lead to a more sustainable way of life. We are not going to be able to continue to grow our use of resources forever on a finite planet. To think that's possible is a fantasy dreamed up by economists, whose charts expand forever, an infinity that does not exist in our bounded physical world.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[fyngyrz]

Look here. Company towns, in the sense that you are referring to them (laws unto themselves), no longer exist within our borders. They are no more relevant to this discussion than are the determinations of the Roman senate or some group of dominant neanderthals in caves.

I am talking about the current situation. No more, no less. If you can't focus on the relevant, you're going to be ignored, at least, by me.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

[mvdwege]

Company towns, in the sense that you are referring to them (laws unto themselves), no longer exist within our borders.

Yet they once existed in the United States. They still exist (or something close to it) in the 'Free Trade Zones' in the Phillipines and Indonesia. They prove that it is possible to wield power equal to that of the state, without being a state. All that is needed to force someone to do your bidding is power, and power is more than just state-sanctioned force; power is essentially the capability to end someone's life, the way in which this is exercised or what justification is given is irrelevant.

If you can't focus on the relevant, you're going to be ignored, at least, by me.

Since obviously stopped thinking for yourself and merely stick to Randian dogma, I think you are virtually ignoring me anyway. No skin off my nose. Just remember that if you persist in being naive, chances are good that it is you who will end up being screwed.

Mart

Most Crimes by Same Crooks

[syckpuppi]

Don't let anyone fool you. Every study done since the early 1960's show the same thing: Most crimes are committed by the same small group of carrer criminals. This remains true even in the poorest, crime ridden areas. Most people in prison are repeat offenders, not first time offenders who stole a loaf of bread. If you commit a felony, you will go to prison, not jail. Convicted felons are the most likely to do the same crimes, or worse, after release. These are the facts, not opinion. To not do DNA testing with every convicted felon is losing an opportunity to not only solve crimes, protect the public, but also maybe protect the wrongly convicted.

self-incrimination

[conureman]

This is another example of the fact that all of us are merely out on our "own recognizance" until some thug with a badge and a gun decides otherwise. I think most slashdot readers already know this. Our cultural mythology includes a document called "The Constitution of the United States" which is, as we all know, fictional. Appended to this work of fiction are amendments, the first ten of which we laughingly call "The Bill of Rights". This list of privileges provides employment for needy lawyers, primarily, as it certainly does not actually extend any "rights" to ordinary citizens. Anyway, perhaps I just don't know what the definition of "is" is, since I mistakenly believe that the fifth amendment extends the privilege of not being compelled to testify against one's self. As better qualified people interpret this, it does not prevent your blood or breath from being compelled to testify on one's behalf. Thanks to "democracy" we have only ourselves to blame.

Good for him...

[moxley]

I applaud him for standing up and refusing this.

I think that the only time the government, authorities, whatever should be permitted to request a blood sample is when there has been a violent crime committed or the blood/DNA is central to proving the charge.

As far as asking whether DNA should be collected and put into a db like fingerprints - I would like to ask anyone who supports this - Are you fucking crazy?

This government cannot be trusted, period. They are a tyrannical abusive machine that views the public like cattle, and regardless of what reason they give for collecting biometric or actual biological information now, (whether it's for ID or any other purpose) you can bet that if it isn't put to ddevious use now it will be in the future. We don't even know what the future holds in regard to how this sort of information could be used.

If you'd like an example I can pull out my Social Security card - it's the original one from the early 70s, and it says in big letters at the bottom "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES."

Punishment

[t_allardyce]

This is retarded, what do they need blood for they can get DNA without blood and besides what has he done or what do they suspect him of doing that would have anything to do with matching his DNA, is he a rapist now? No, this is basically a punishment, they want to show him who's boss, they know he'll have a problem with it so they're doing it to piss him off - cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional and they are fucking morons who should go and find some murders instead of eating donuts.

You can't fight braindead government procedures

[dtfinch]

Just give the blood or spend two years in jail. Like most branches of government, the judicial system is incapable of common sense, and corruption aside, will enforce every law and follow every procedure to the letter without fail, right or wrong.

How about a DNA checksum?

[mark_osmd]

Ok, the legal services say DNA profiles are needed for ID'ing suspects and there's some validity to that point. But the privacy people have a point to that the full DNA of a person can cause problems with privacy about possible diseases that person will get and so on. In computer science, it's possible to very strongly identify a file via a long enough MD5 or SHA1 checksum, but the checksum itself doesn't deterministically allow you to recreate the actual file from just the checksum. Why can't the persons DNA be sent to a disinterested third party (a testing center), which would read the DNA (or even better a unique set of DNA sections that are known not to transcribe proteins related to known diseases but transcribe mostly boring things like hair color, etc), translate the GCTA's into a standard data representation (say 00,01,10, 11 in bits) and then checksum that. That checksum would then go to the court to ID the suspect in the case. The odds that any two random people would have the same DNA checksum would be tiny value like 0.000000001% but privacy dangerous info would ever be in the hands of the police. The main problem would be making sure the original sample wasn't stolen and retained under the covers.

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[John Newman]

I'm not sure about current practice, but awhile back the protocol only called for a comparison at 10 point. each of those 10 points could have only a very few choices. Call it four, but I'm not certain. So after there are 10^4 samples in the databse you can expect to start getting LOTS of false matches.

That's not how DNA "fingerprinting" works. I assume by "10 points with four choices each" you're referring to ten nucleotides that can each be one of the four bases. But DNA fingerprinting doesn't involve actual sequencing, i.e. the identification of individual nucleotides. That would be too expensive, and largely futile because we are all 99.9+% identical.

Instead, you look a small number of repetitive DNA regions that are known to be highly variable between people as to the number of repeats. For example, a region that contains "CAG" repeated over and over again. Some people have 2 repeats, some people have 10, some people have 30. Thus, for each such region, there is a huge number of possible choices. There are hundreds of such regions in our genomes, and it's very quick and cheap to examine a dozen or so at once. 12 repeat regions, each with 10 possible repeat lengths, quickly gets you into the "1 in 100 million" territory that's typical for DNA fingerprinting. If you need even more discriminatory power, just look at more repeat regions.

DNA fingerprinting is ubiquitous precisely because it *doesn't* require expensive sequencing, and has enormous power to easily discriminiate between essentially infinite numbers of people. Identical twins excluded.

Re: felon rights

[ThePub2000]

Maybe you need to think again. Just because someone gets a 'free' meal everyday doesn't mean they have rights. If all you equate to rights is the fact that someone survives and they don't pay for it, then you are sorely mistaken. At the end of the day where does that felon have to go? Unless you consider going home to Brun, your 6'10" boyfriend is something so wonderful. Hey, maybe it is.. I don't swing that way, and very happy to have that choice. Even if it means I have to work 70hrs/weekly.

Finger print vs. blood sample

[fbg111]

"Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

The difference is, it will be a lot easier in a few years to clone him from a blood sample than from a fingerprint, better enabling the government to create a secret, genetically-programmed clone army of brilliant, amoral hackers with which to better spy on the citizenry.

I don't know whether I'm being funny or serious. Mod me as you see fit.

Just become a johova's witness

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious liberties of criminals already have been tried and won

For anybody who doubts, yes, the Feds do this

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm getting off five years Supervised Release in a couple weeks. I was asked last year, I think it was, to do this. It's a new requirement for anyone on Federal probation or supervised release.

And yes, they do take a blood sample.

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[EZLeeAmused]

"If you've ever handled a penny, the government's got your DNA. Why do you think they keep 'em in circulation?"

normally I would agree...

[YesIAmAScript]

Because that is how probation works.

But the problem is that his DNA will be stored forever. If he gives up his DNA to end his probation, they should dispose of their sample and delete any data related to it when his probation ends.

But the problme is, they won't.

So I do see a gray area here, where there wouldn't be on in a similar situation involving tracking anklets or something.

It's really quite simple

[CharlieG]

In some ways - it's quite simple. He can refuse the terms of the probabtion (other criminals have done so) - the down side is you get to stay in the pen - BUT if you stay your full term, and walk out - there IS no probabtion terms

Does the Gov. have a right to do this?

[MasterThis]

IIRC the gov. only has the privileges it is given in the Constitution. It isn't 'allowed' to just take any actions it wants to, although it has done so in the past, and sometimes got called on this. The question should be: "Where in the Constitution does it give the Government the right to do this?". And even if they do have the right, have they shown sufficient need? IANAL by the way.

Historical purpose of a FINGERPRINT is collateral

[NRAdude]

Collateral, such as pledging one's physique for the performance of someone else's debt. For example, in trust law...

A boy was born from his true parents, and among the family to honor him was Quincy; so the boy, John, was given the name "John Quincy" of a Doe family; after born, the hospital physician and an executive administrator engauged the surprise and exaustion of the joyful event to utilize an erroneous conviction that the manner of a child being born is that of an admiralty pursuit...somthing about "living water" was spilled on the hospital-room floor. As the boy was born, his feet were immediatly directed as a STAMP onto a pre-tendered peice of paper held by a nurse, claiming the boy made an appearance for "John Quincy Doe." Thereby, that paper was certified with witness from a physician and executive administrator to Certify as being BIRTHED.

Birth is not the same as being born; one is the landing or expulsion of cargo or passengers, while the other is a physical use of force to carve by some motion or letters pat-ent. Considering this fact of a boy being born as opposed to birth; that Certificate now could claim him to be chattel to a person in an artificial world. This process is known as induction, and has destroyed more countries than you can believe imaginable. The boy made foot-tresspass on another world's paper/person, the appearance cured the implications of intent, and thereby he can be deprived of his right to life for using colorable money of that fictitious world and rather than imbursing in lawful money of the United States (as exhibited in the Constitution as gold or silver coin). Comprehend the most common form of bearing children are to be born head-first; thereby to force the child's feet as to be born in a foreign country by contract is a criminal act, and the superstitions of the deceived true parents is compounded by threat and duress and coercion of the false witness of their servants.

Who are the true parents to not argue against their servants threatening them, to pledge their child as collateral for the national debt? That Certificate is worth no less than $600 thousand US dollars (not US Dollars lawful, silver or gold). That first birth certificate is taken by libel to the contract de-facto State of a state/de-dejure, and enfranchised and incorporated as JOHN QUINCY DOE to be used as a receivership for the earlier transmitting utility: misnomer in commerce.

There are two ways to rebut these instruments of that foreign legislatures FIRST MIDDLE LAST form of Name; that is by standing in judiciary as a court of competent jurisdiction, true name to invalidate the legislated/artificial person a foreigner created to induct one's lawful standing dormant.

All "signatures", including SSN and Driver's License would abate the nature of the cause as

with power of attorny over John Quincy Doe,
John Quincy dba JOHN QUINCY DOE

All "sign", in any pursuit, would abate the matter of interest as trademark or reladed product of Doe in commerce;

  twenty-five pounds of carrots
  20 silver Dollars
  John Quincy ^ Doe

Blood sample not like fingerprints

[tuxlove]

Last time I checked they don't have to jam a needle into your arm to take your fingerprints.

Show of hands: who has an idiot ex-con relative?

[NIckGorton]

Unfortunately its not only Lamo, but any close relatives who will be influenced by his inclusion in the DNA database. As was published this month in the journal Science, it is possible to identify the DNA of 'close matches' to crime scene DNA if a criminal's relatives' DNA was in the database. With this evidence in hand it is pretty simple to then get a warrant for a suspect's DNA. The question then arises, who is most likely to have relatives in any criminal database? Well, the poor and disenfranchised for one. Racial minorities for another. About one in six black men is in the US criminal justice system in his lifetime. That compares with about 1/35 in the overall US population. So if you are a black person who commits a crime, it would be statistically more likely that a close relative would be included in a DNA database than it would be for a white person. So while it seems like there is nothing wrong with establishing a database if it is only used to find 'the bad guys', that view ignores the fact that this would result in disproportionately detecting people based on race as well as other socioeconomic determinants of kinship that are pertinent but not as easy to use in my example. ;) In a moral system, justice should be meted out equally at all stages of the game - which is why we have laws against racial profiling. Nick

Free Lamo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Lamo clone with every purchase!

Surrender of rights with surrender of punnishment.

[NRAdude]

All the remedy for certain tresspass and alleged "crime" is being slowly shadowed by a foreign legislature and its attempts to surrender rights in favor of surrendering the already-existing more clever and effective punnishments.

As your trademark incentive to solve rape by surrendering blood and all rights to that blood, there is more rape. Prison and jail is being mis-used; they are originally intended to house the people that are under threat from the avenger of blood. According to your merit, giving information of one's flesh satisfies the unconcionable tresspass and crime sought by the one's heart and mind. Bullpie!

Historically, pederasts have been hanged; rapists have been castrated or completely gutted of their genitals; thieves have been recorded to the purchase of the goods they took or will eventually pay for its reimbursement of value greater to the owner's deprivation, and killing has been awarded a lifetime of repentance in pledge to church service in God; liars lose fingers they enjoy to pledge in trust (think fingerprint).

I am not amused to any transient authentication that can neither determine one's future or one's health in any matter not yet caused. I'll continue to keeping the young ways from growing to your old ways.

Of course, you don't even know that CALIFORNIA is a federal State unlike the de-jure state known as California (libeled by that foreign Congress to be a Territory). You don't know where you stand. I have no patent on that private legislation/code; I speak plain English, common, public.

punishment. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I imagine as eternal punishment, Microsoft will clone his DNA and make a clone army of code monkeys that will do M$'s bidding for all eternity.

His punnishment and remedy are disproportionate!

[NRAdude]

If he can easily gain access to computers not intended to him, then his remedy would be to enter commerce on an account of him trying to improve the situation.

If a man stole a cow, is he not expected to return that cow and include the value the original owner was deprived of; cow, milk, life-span, labor, etc?

I don't want his blood, that didn't offen me; It's his mind that offended, and thendirected his hand to commit an offense. I'm not here to put a mark or record on his hand or mind, but let him repent and restore the property and value deprived -- let him try. If the damaged or deprived property is exponential in comparison to the effort at his issue, then he is owing to improve and reprove the property he tresspassed.

I wonder what Operating System gave him proper authentication...he same that de-facto Government of a government wanted irregular bipass of security for its own measures?

Then he's free to go.

[NRAdude]

Must be great to be a free man, even if that freedom is confined to 10 cubic feet.

Its exactly like a fingerprint...

[shaitand]

And like fingerprints the government has no damn business having them. Privacy and free speech should trump catching bad guys everytime.

a word from our sponsor ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to take a moment to say a few things. Not many. Just a few.

I'm Adrian Lamo. I don't think anyone has all the facts here. Not me, not the feds, and not the media. I don't usually comment in Internet threads about me, but here goes,

There's been a lot of speculation abut my motives, their motives, etc. All I can say to that is that the truth will tend to itself, and I will have my day in court to speak to the questions that many of you have.

If Slashdot would like to be on the distribution list should I issue a press release in re. this matter after my hearing, please e-mail me at adrian@adrian.org.

I have done, and am doing, the best I can, in good faith, in my given time. I've made mistakes along the way, but never out of malice or self-service.

Thank you, to everyone who reads, thinks, and cares.

And it'd be really neat if slashdot could answer my support requests in re. changing the damn password to user "Adrian Lamo" :)

Good day, and Godspeed.

-- A

Re:a word from our sponsor ...

[EmoryBrighton]

Just to verify that the parent comment was left by the real Adrian:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_tal k:Adrian&diff=53093061&oldid=53092637

Re:Something everyone should provide to government

[johnMG]

Here are two particular movies the submitter urgently ought to get for the weekend:

1. GATTACA
2. Minority Report

I'd throw Brazil in there too for good measure.

DNA vs. Fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, collect DNA from sex offenders since DNA is what they tend to leave at the crime scene. but unless he's jacking off on the keyboards, DNA is useless. take his fingerprints since that's what will be left on the keyboard.

One last jab at propertarians and I'm outta here

[mrraven]

Libertarian dude sed: "they lie to take our property" in an excellent post about government lies and liberty. And I do mean that with genuine respect, you are on, clear, and to the point when you talk about the government.

But here is the dirty little secret of Libertarians, property is their central organizing principle and given a hypothetical choice between more property and less freedom, or less property and more freedom (say a native American society without a formal government and no property ownership) I dread that they would chose property over freedom. Remember that boys and girls the next time you see a Libertarian talking bout freedom, they love it, but they love material things more.

That "they lie to take our property" was the key that immediately identified you to me as a "Libertarian", but the problem as this dialog has shown is that you are really more properly called propertarians and this propertarians philosophy distorts your thinking when it comes to assigning responsibility to actors within private corporations. You are so wedded to your property that you cannot fathom property owners EVER doing wrong, this is an achieles heel that will come back to haunt you again and again.

Anarchists are the people who come the closest to respecting your freedom both from governments and from abusive corporations. Perhaps we will never have a truly anarchist society, but the closer we get to minarchism combined with the people actively checking the power of corporations the closer we will get to true freedom.

Agreed, but the issue to me is scoping

[einhverfr]

If this was a guy convicted of rape, I would support keeping his DNA on file.

However, this is a computer crime. I am not really sure what DNA will tell you if he breaks into another computer. And I am hardly convinced that this conviction makes him a dangerous criminal which is likely to offend in ways where the DNA will be of help.

So basically, I think it ought to require a conviction of a crime where DNA might actually help solve future similar crimes. One person, convicted of one felony ought not to be considered to be at risk to commit arbitrary felonies in the future.

Holy leading question, Batman!

[mvdwege]

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA?

Why ask if you know the answer already? Just stirring up shit?

Mart

Lessons learned

[sshore]

perhaps you should learn from my personal experience.

Ah yes. "Don't hang around with people who have casual attitudes towards other people's property while you're tripping out of your mind on a collection of illicit substances." Got it.

This tends to support the notion suggested by a family member who did several years' time: Some guys in jail are innocent of their charges, but that sure don't mean they're innocent.

Re:Lessons learned

[Anonymous Coward]

And that saying applies to everyone everywhere. So should you be locked up doing life for murder when all you did was burn a couple of cds. It is a stupid thing to say. Should everyone be in prison? Are all laws just?

Re:Lessons learned

[dfjghsk]

hey, I know.. how about this: don't take illicit substances, and maybe you'll remember wtf you were doing when the crime happened.. then you could actually defend yourself.

Re:Lessons learned

[Khyber]

BTW, under substances like LSD/LSA/other fundamentally mind-altering substances - You are LEGALLY INSANE. Just a fair advance warning for you before you get modded down for not paying attention to many other murders/burglary cases across the USA involving hallucinogens - insanity is a nice plea - but I didn't want those drugs constantly pumped thru me - just now and then, illegally, since they're far too dangerous to even be used on inmates. Well, in my firm beliefs, anyway.

the real question is : WHO ARE THEY?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the fundamental cycle in america revolves around the following :

1) Say/do anything to get elected once.
2) Once in office, sell favors to the highest bidder. Build a war chest for the next election.
3) In all subsequent elections, say whatever the current audience wants to hear.
4) Become an incumbent forever.

The last real challenge to this cycle was an attempt by the courts to discover the answer to the following question : "Is money a valid form of free speech?"

The answer came back "yes". In other words, it is money that is the real vote, and a rich person can casts thousands upon thousands of these "votes". It is not "1 american, 1 vote".

Like many things in life : "Who's your daddy?" If a politician wants the job, they play by the rules, and the rules are dirty.

Case in point : NPR/PBS used to run a number of linux articles. Terri Gross/Fresh Air was interviewing people about free software a lot. Shortly after the Gates Foundation started donating hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to them, they stopped the linux items and now have a skew towards Microsoft. You don't have to search hard or listen long to find the trend. One NPR pundit keeps harping on "look at all the benefits of Microsoft, are their crimes really so bad?" Another was somewhat critical of the MIT hand cranked device.

If PBS/NPR are that easily manipulated, everything else is just cake.

Broken link in my post fixed

[Circlotron]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoca ust/markings.html

Re:Something everyone should provide to government

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully he'll be able to do so while neither a blood sample nor a fingerprint are considered "something that everyone should provide at video rental" just yet.

But if he realises that after watching his films it's already too late!

A rather pointless act...

[edward.virtually@pob]

Since obtaining DNA samples does not require blood. Just cleaning his jail cell would provide hundreds of samples from skn flakes, loose hair, et.

DNA use in cyber crime.

[Nowhere.Men]

Well, some people may want to use another access to the internet than his own. like an open wifi access from a suburb house. If he smokes. he may throw the cigarette butts without thinking.

A geek's religion

[Heipi]

By the way, what is his religion? A hacker being a witness of Jehova? That might be quite shocking.

draq

Learn well, grasshopper...

[Khyber]

When you're under the influence of something as fundementally mind-altering as LSD, Salvia, DMT, Pscilocybin, Datura, Safrole, etc., - YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CHOICE IN WHAT YOU DO. Learn from that voice of experience well, young, foolish grasshopper. You do not understand what you CAN do until your mind has been freed of all societal inhibitions, such as when you take LSD, or worse. There is NO control, unless you are mentally prepared. Most hallucinogenic trips depend on your own mood - enter one with a bad mood, or a bad frame of mind, and you're going to lose your sanity. Erowid and the Lycaeum are your pals to learn from - I suggest you learn thru them, instead of sheer blind, STUPID experience like I chose in my path of learning. There are vaults of experiences on those sites - Learn well from them.

How dare you!

[Gothmolly]

Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?
What foreign fucking country are you from where this question is even posed? Talk about a smuggled premise. Oh wait, you're from California.

Re:Something everyone should provide to government

[thesandtiger]

Y'know, I can certainly see why giving DNA to the government is ungood - there's a LOT of information in DNA that can be used for all kinds of stuff, and that information could be used in many bad ways.

With fingerprints... Enh, I just don't see it. How's knowing the pattern of whorls and swirls on my fingertips going to do *anything* but... well, help track down actual criminals?

Dusting for prints is a huge pain in the ass - it's not some simple task where, say, the police could go to a "known hangout of subversive types" and just dust the whole place, then hunt down anyone who's a match. It just doesn't work that way.

From a positive standpoint, wouldn't having fingerprints enable more effective enforcement of real laws?

So, with fingerprints... I am unable to think of a negative side of just fingerprinting kids at birth or at various points in their lives. Nobody in this thread has been able to provide any kind of negative side to that either. I mean, really, a fingerprint just isn't all THAT useful unless you're talking about a VERY limited set of circumstances. So, can someone give me any kind of plausible scenario in which the government will use the crushing power of fingerprints to destroy freedom?

With DNA - yeah, that's fucked. "Oh, this person has gene XYZ - that can lead to certain problems if she has kids, so we won't provide any obstetric coverage in her insurance" and so on.

I've had my prints taken 2x in my life - once when I was getting a security clearance, and once when doing a bonded/licensed thing. I remember, at the time, making jokes that I would have to remember to wear gloves if I ever committed a crime, but I *never* even once thought "Gosh, I sure hope this data about me doesn't fall into the wrong hands!" and I have read nothing in this thread to convince me otherwise about fingerprints.

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[HiThere]

I was a bit vague about specifying that, because I'm not certain of the procedure. At one point it was done by anealing proteins, but I don't thing that's the technique any longer. I'm not supposing that we're talking about single nucleotides, but rather about alleles. Even with this, there won't be many variations at any one spot, as lots of the changes are likely to be lethal.

I would presume that they aren't counting repetitions of sequences in variable areas, because the current techniques are subject to lots of error in those places. Counting the number of CAG repetitions is quite error prone.

If you pick a selection of 10 spots that each have four (yes, I originally said four because of the nucleotides...but that was also a WAG at the number of alleles any particular "gene" was likely to have) variations, you get 1 in 10^4, which is 10 thousand, not 10 million. If you want to get 1 in 100 million, i.e. 1 in 10^8, you are assuming that the average number of variations at each point are 8. This feels much on the high side to me, but ok, as we haven't defined exactly what they are measuring. We also haven't specified whether "silent differences" are counted as identical, which they will be if the dna is transcribed before it's sequence is examined. And we haven't discussed whether exons have been snipped out before the comparison either. I'm using a simple model where what's being compared is the nucleotides...and I agree that this is probably not what they're doing. But I don't KNOW what they're doing, so I'm using your estimate for the duration of the examination.

Now, given that for any particular comparison the odds of matching by chance are 1 in 10^8 (an estimate I don't believe) how large does your database need to be before you should start expecting there to be a chance match? I'd start expecting a chance match at sqrt(10^8) == 10,000 samples, and wouldn't be surprised if it came much earlier. And with each sample they add, the odds of a match occuring purely by chance increase.

And then how far are we from Secret Police?

[theshowmecanuck]

What would worry me even more is if they started moving towards a bastardized old school "inquisitorial system", and start keeping people in remand for a long periods of time for trivial matters. Say they catch you j-walking (or something equally trivial): you are arrested, your DNA is taken, and then they start fishing to see what else they can charge you with. Things start to get blurry and you end up with some sort of Guantanamo Bay situation. Don't get me wrong, I don't like terrororists. But I also don't like secret police and secret trials... that gets too close to Nazi Germany, and Soviet (and some might increasingly say the new Putin-ized) Russia.

Them

[umbrellasd]

I don't think this is limited to voting, and I am not speaking about individuals. There are good apples and bad apples in every bunch. My point is that as a group, we do elect officials. In a company we support the appointment of leaders as well by choosing to work under them.

Agreed, those in the minority did not support an offical that is elected by a vote, but that does not mean that they have to accept the result in the long-term. You can fight for what you believe in or work toward greater understanding of your opinions by people that will support you. Or you can go entirely non-interactive and not participate in the process at all because everything seems futile and every option seems like a bad one.

But in any case, you do have a choice. Voting and not voting both effect the result of an election.

Re:Them

[fyngyrz]

There are good apples and bad apples in every bunch. My point is that as a group, we do elect officials. In a company we support the appointment of leaders as well by choosing to work under them.

Here's the problem in a nutshell. I want to live until I die naturally.

The system gives me precisely these two choices:

• Elect a good apple, who promises death in 4 years by gunshot to the head
• Elect a bad apple, who promises death in 4 years by knife to the heart

Once elected, both can be utterly counted on to deliver death immediately, by poison.

Now, what was it you were saying about there being a point in fighting for greater "understanding" of my position? Also, how exactly did I "choose" to "work under" either of these clowns?

Even were I to vote, no question about it, I'd be choosing not to work under the worst of them, should I actually be able to determine who is worse, which has never been obvious to me, considering that every election I have ever seen in my 50-odd years has been a choice between several people I am utterly appalled to think might have even the tiniest possible fraction of decision making authority over me.

At least, by not voting, it can honestly be said that I am not attempting to delegate decision making authority over me to anyone. That puts all politicians and other participating citizens in the position of attempting to be my slavemasters, a position they are willing and able to enforce by coercion, theft, and violence.

A position, by the way, that I entirely deny the validity of, though not its power. I never signed off on the constitution as a contract obligating me to its terms, nor would I today if that choice were offered. It is a terribly unclear, unfair, and ill-conceived document. No imaginable court of law would hold me to your claim I owed you five dollars without both of our signatures on a contract; how is it then, exactly, that I am legally beholden to the elected officials and the decisions they make, or the framers of the constitution, people long dead and obviously not well informed about my situation? Neither the framers nor today's politicians are my representives, for they do not represent me, and they are not my delegated masters, for I have never signed over that authority to them.

Voting and not voting both effect(sic) the result of an election.

Let's examine the facts of the matter. I'm handing over my very, very tiny fraction of the choice between the crap from the one party and the dung from the other that are offered me, to others. And this is significant, exactly how?

To say my choice "affects an election" certainly sounds very important. But when the choice is between eating crap and eating dung, one can confidently disregard the entire process. It is all the same in the end. The system has taken almost every right and liberty its slaves might have had at any one point, and all they are doing now is figuring out how to divide up the rest of them. I decline to participate in the process. I do not support coercion, theft, or violence until "done unto me." At that point, I still claim the rights of discretion and patience.

Re:Them

[umbrellasd]

Now, what was it you were saying about there being a point in fighting for greater "understanding" of my position? Also, how exactly did I "choose" to "work under" either of these clowns?

Well, the option I was thinking of was not "pick your poison". What I was thinking of was making the decision to get involved in the political arena at least locally by running for a public office and going out there and getting support for your views.

That may seem futile, but the person I would really like to talk to is the one that went out there and tried just that and encountered obstacles. What are those obstacles? Which ones were avoidable? Which ones weren't? What good were they able to accomplish?

It's a real mistake to think that just because you vote represents 1/250millionth of the total voting power that it is irrelevant. If you really believe that, then any individual person is irrelevant to existence since there are billions of them, in which case, you, as such an individual are irrelevant and then spending time expressing your opinion is likewise utterly irrelevant.

So I would say that the fact that you state your position carefully indicates that you do think you are important. Well, I agree with that. And because you are important, so are your actions, whether they involve voting, not voting, or running for an office. Whatever you do, it makes a difference. Sometimes the difference seems insignificantly small, but how can you really have any idea? Catalysts are small things, but sometimes they start chain reactions. Unless you are omniscient, it is very hard to predict which of your tiny actions will have a huge effect.

If you really know the value of all of your actions and the effect that they have into the endless future, then there's not much point in talking to anyone about it, because pretty much no one else around has that degree of omniscience. I certainly don't. But I have seen a lot of situations--maybe they would seem small and insignificant to you--where one person made a big different just because they cared to actions that indicated it.

Constitutionally-recognized rights aren't all lost

[nikanj]

Unless, of course, you are declared a terrorist.

So they can track his relatives...

[Maximum Prophet]

I submitted this story http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/science/12dna.ht ml?_r=1&oref=slogin last week. rejected (:-( Basically, if he submittes his DNA, they will be able to track his (future) children, as well as any siblings and possibly cousins that he may have. (As well as his parents)

Which leads to a possible out for him. His parents should claim trade secret on their DNA, and thus his. You could argue that his parents rights to privacy are being trampled, because they commited no crime, but share DNA with him.

Holy "Demolition Man" Batman!!!, in the future, the goverment needing the services of a 1337 hacker, could recreate Adrian from his DNA. Of course, when they were done with him, they'd destroy his body until it was needed again.

Re:Something everyone should provide to government

[j-beda]

I've had my prints taken 2x in my life - once when I was getting a security clearance, and once when doing a bonded/licensed thing. I remember, at the time, making jokes that I would have to remember to wear gloves if I ever committed a crime, but I *never* even once thought "Gosh, I sure hope this data about me doesn't fall into the wrong hands!" and I have read nothing in this thread to convince me otherwise about fingerprints.

One thing of concern is the lack of knowledge about how accurate fingerprint analysis is - see this article for example. Without your fingerprint in the database, they can't make an error and pull you in for something. (Although, if the database is large enough, maybe it would help show the accuracy of the system. Get data for the whole world and you might find that all of the murders in NYC are seemingly being committed by peasants in central China...)

Another possible concern for the "innocent" is the possiblity of being framed by the state for somthing. If you want to get paranoid about "the man", giving "him" tools to make it easier to set you up might not be wise.

Re:Something everyone should provide to government

[thesandtiger]

I think both of those kind of answer themselves, honestly. If the prints of one crime scene where I was nowhere near (and can prove - I mean, think about it: the liklihood that a crime that I *could* have committed would be committed by someone with "close enough" prints to mine is pretty staggering. Most likely it would be the equivalent of the Chinese peasant thing) I've got no worries. And, if I'm so paranoid that I think the government would need to bother with any kind of ruse in order to pluck me off of the street... Well, at that point, I think I need to worry more about finding a good anti-psychotic medication, than I do about my fingerprints.

Re:"DNA dragnet" on the cape, cops watched decline

[Anonymous Coward]

What is frightening is that 5-10% of the population of Truro apparently felt it was OK for the police to just ask for their DNA- and gave it!

I'm surprised that it was only 5-10%.
To explain my perspective, let's see the results for the next round of "What's your password/pin#?" survey.

Why are you conflating military and corporate law?

[beer_maker]

...the rapists themselves, the owners of the subcontracted factories and Nike for slipshod human rights monitoring of the contractors they chose ALL ought to be held responsible for it happening. In the same way that Rumsfeld, the commander at Abu Gharib, and the individual soldiers who did the torturing ought to be held responsible ...

You seem to be pretty quick off the mark with your opinions, hoss ... let's consider a few of them.

Your first, restated: Criminals, AND the OWNERS of the company where they work, AND the ENTIRE COMPANY that contracted the work "ought to be held responsible". Seems a bit draconian, unless you can show some proof that they were all in it together. Or are you saying that merely because [person A] hires [person B] who subsequently commits a crime that [person A] is guilty too?

Your second, restated: The soldiers (criminals), AND the commander of the prison (NOT the soldier's commander, BTW, and one of the people who pushed the investigation), AND the civilan boss of the entire Defense Department "ought to be held responsible". Again, it seems a bit much to indict the supervisor who attempted to put things right, and the many level higher supervisor who had never been to the site - but if you've got proof they were involved in the crime they should have been charged. In fact, the military does espouse the "chain of authority" concept - and they did charge the immediate supervisors who did not stop the crimes, and did censure the supervisors of those supervisors for not catching them slacking off.

It's your third assumption that really scares me, though: That Corporate Law should be the same as Military Law. Are you planning to treat soldiers like corporations, or corporations like soldiers? Neither idea sounds very inviting.

Actually company towns do exist in the U.S.

[mrraven]

I've personally had experience with Scotia California where the houses are owned by Pacific Lumber. This makes it very hard for loggers who would like to get a more ethical job than cutting old growth Redwoods from leaving, because their house is owned by their employer and their are few jobs available in Scotia that aren't Pacfic Lumber related. THAT is the "freedom" you get under the unbridled greed engendered by a pure Libertarian mentality. And Scotia is not the only one here is a list of other company towns in the U.S.

"List of present company towns

        * Bagdad, Arizona, owned by Phelps Dodge Corporation
        * Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Bay Lake, Florida, and the Reedy Creek Improvement District located within Walt Disney World and owned by The Walt Disney Company
        * Morenci, Arizona, owned by Phelps Dodge Corporation
        * Newhalem, Washington, owned by Seattle City Light
        * Scotia, California, largely owned by the Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO)
        * Port Gamble, Washington, owned by Pope Resources
        * Irvine, California, largely owned by The Irvine Company"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#List_of_ present_company_towns

Put that in your Libertarian pipe and smoke it... grand parent post.

Re:Why are you conflating military and corporate l

[mrraven]

I'm talking about justice for rape victims and punishing those responsible for the environment where rape occurs, is that so difficult to understand? Apparently so for apologists for wrong doing within private organizations. I say to Libertarians, keep denouncing the government you do a good job at that, and shut your pie hole when it comes to corporations, your squiring around with sophistry about RAPE that has occurred on the factory floors of Nike production facilities only makes you look like incredibly big assholes. THAT's what I mean by the "corrosive effect of greed." Greed is corrosive on peoples morality, it makes greedy people have fundamental double standards regarding responsibility when it comes to public v.s. private actors.

That's what Jesus meant when he said (paraphrasing) that it's easier to drive a camel through a needles eye than for a rich man to get to heaven. You don't have to be religious to realize that Jesus guy had some good ideas. He saw through both the large war mongering state of Rome with it's half crazed tin pot emperors that threw "lesser" people to the lions based on childish whims (sound familiar) and it's rich inhabitants that benefited from that power and corruption. Yes Bush and oil companies I'm talking about you.

Re:One last jab at propertarians and I'm outta her

[Garrett Fox]

I'm a Republican swinging towards libertarianism, so this was an interesting debate. A libertarian response, I think, to your comments would be that since government's purpose is to protect individual rights, it is government's job to stop any abuses that corporations are committing. Preventing Shell and the like from killing people seems fully compatible with the notion of protecting individual rights. In contrast, "restraining the power of corporations" is usually the sort of talk heard not from "minarchists" but from the socialists we've got now, who want laws restricting people's freedom to make their own economic decisions. Eg., look at the flap over such a little thing as Microsoft including a search bar in the next IE. "We've got to stop this lawfully organized group from offering people a product that gives them the option of using a tool that will make the same organization money!"

Re:One last jab at propertarians and I'm outta her

[mrraven]

Who said restraining cooperations has to be done by the state? I would say the state far from restraining cooperations worst excesses often acts like the corporations protection service keeping protesters and direct action people from stopping corporations worst abuses. I am far more interested in the people directly checking the power of corporations through boycotts, education and direct action blockades like the 1999 anti WTO protests in Seattle. And no I don't care about Explorers search bar or, whatever, either I think there are far bigger fish to fry like corporations killing innocent people discharging serious pollutants into the water where they think they can get away with it, and clear cutting old growth forests here and in Canada which not only does tremendous ecological damage but often leads to flooding and landslides that do serious damage to peoples houses. Serious damage that would be a big oh well, just try to prove causality and make me pay damages or stop cutting in a Libertarian system which would leave individuals at an extreme disadvantage compared to the vast resources of corporations.

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

[John Newman]

If you pick a selection of 10 spots that each have four (yes, I originally said four because of the nucleotides...but that was also a WAG at the number of alleles any particular "gene" was likely to have) variations, you get 1 in 10^4, which is 10 thousand

Swap the base and exponent. If I flip a coin once, the number of possible outcomes is 2^1, not 1^2. If you look at ten loci with four alleles each, the number of (theoretically) possible combinations is 4^10 (>1,000,000), not 10^4. If each loci has more than four alleles (and variable repeats have many possible lengths) the higher base causes the value of the equation to go up *very* fast.

As for technique, what's typically done *is* to PCR across sites with variable-length repeats and run the results on a gel to visualize the length. Yes, polymerases sometimes have problems "slipping" on repeats - this is why the repeats are variable to begin with. But the freqency of slippage is very, very low, which is why measuring the repeats lengths from a cheek swab can confirm identitiy and paternity. They are identical is almost all of our cells, and are passed on almost identically to our kids. The laboratory reactions use specialized enzymes that are even more reliable.

Transcription, exons, silent changes, etc. are important if you're looking at proteins or protein levels, usually in the context of diagnosing genetic disease. Here, we're simply examining genomic sequence - they don't apply.

(IAAB)