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

Re:You think that's bad...

[BallyHigh]

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

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.

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.

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: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