Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Convicted Hacker Adrian Lamo Refuses to Give Blood

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the not-so-juicy-cases dept.

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?"

11 of 673 comments (clear)

  1. Crossing a line? by E-Rock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Crossing a line? by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

  2. You think that's bad... by Manip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  3. from the article: by seezer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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,"

  4. Some do. Some don't. by leftie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Well by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Business Voyeur
  6. If it's a condition of his probation... by Silverhammer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Retention policy? by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Probation by deanj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a condition of his probation. If he doesn't want to give it, that's up to him: Probation revoked.

  9. Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this. by GoddessOfDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  10. Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this. by armb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    rant