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

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?

[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).

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...

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,"

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.

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.