Vast DNA Bank Pits Policing Vs. Privacy

schwit1 writes "Today a Washington Post story discusses the vast U.S. bank of genetic material it has gathered over the last few years. Already home to the genetic information of almost 3 Million Americans, the database grows by 80,000 citizens a month." From the article: "'This is the single best way to catch bad guys and keep them off the street,' said Chris Asplen, a lawyer with the Washington firm Smith Alling Lane and former executive director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. 'When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on.'"

Comments

Bad guys

[liangzai]

But which people are the bad guys is subject to continuous change. Yesterday it was the rapists and murderers. Today it is the filesharers. Tomorrow it is the occasional book reader.

Re:Bad guys

[vertinox]

Come back when there is a consistent practice of knocking down people's doors just for buying The Anarchist Cookbook.

By then it will be too late to do anything about it.

Much less be able to talk about it on a public forum.

Re:Bad guys

[PatrickThomson]

Spending money on a good lawyer should not be a prequisite of being innocent.

Re:Bad guys

[chriso11]

You know, I saw this written somewhere, and it struck me as appropriate:
Facism is when the efficiency of the government is more imporant than the rights of citizens.

Re:Bad guys

[Nutria]

So then you agree that giant databases that increase the incidence of wrongful accusations disproportionately affect the poor?

Any "thing" that requires more money

• disproportionately affect the poor
  
• raises the bar on what is considered "poor"
  
• makes more poor people

Now, we just have to test the validity of the assertion that giant databases increase the incidence of wrongful accusations.

Bad guys?

[Oldsmobile]

What I find interesting is the term "bad guy". It seems I've been hearing this alot lately. It is like some strange code word, and when that label is applied to someone, they instantly become a target that can be killed, arrested, abused, even tortured without a guilty consciense.

For instance, in numerous television interviews, troops in Iraq talk about bad guys, cops on the street talk about them, inteligence agency agents talk about them etc.

I'm kind of worried, is this the new code word for sub human? For unexplaned threat?

Re:Bad guys?

[Arker]

It's just todays politically correct way of saying untermensch.

Frightening

[l5rfanboy]

'When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on.'

I would be greatly interested in a link to just who has had their data collected, and their collection methods. I do not want (and I am far from alone in this) the government keeping tabs on me or archiving my personal habits into some large database that will be used against me in the future. I have never been indicted nor found guilty of any crime and as such there is no reason for the government to retain such information.

Re:Frightening

[TubeSteak]

I have never been indicted nor found guilty of any crime and as such there is no reason for the government to retain such information.

EXACTLY.

The problem with a DNA database is that everytime they run a search against it, everyone in the database is a suspect.

"Blah blah blah it's no different than fingerprints blah blah blah"

You're wrong. It's nothing like fingerprints. My fingerprints are unique.

With DNA, they can get a partial match based on your relatives. Ontop of that, DNA matching isn't always all that accurate. You can read a lengthy book excerpt that goes in depth.

DNA evidence isn't always all the prosecutors make it out to be.

Well...

[LockeOnLogic]

Frankly this: "you wouldn't even know it was going on." scares me the most of all.

52 digit number

[dpreformer]

Not commenting on whether I think the database is a good or bad idea beyond stating I think it is bad...

I do think that once a profile is done and a unique ID (The 52 digit number mentioned in the article and thread title) is developed that the sample can be destroyed. Concerns about new techniques etc are red herrings - if there is a need to do more with a given individuals DNA in a criminal investigation then the authorities should be able to show probable cause to get a new sample and do the analysis. Keeping a sample in storage is an invitation to abuse of the data.

Re:What a dolt.

[TubeSteak]

If you made it to the end of TFA, there's another disturbing quote from that same guy:

But Asplen of Smith Alling Lane said Congress has been helping states streamline and improve their DNA processing. And he does not think a national database would violate the Constitution.

"We already take blood from every newborn to perform government-mandated tests . . . so the right to take a sample has already been decided," Asplen said. "And we have a precedent for the government to maintain an identifying number of a person."

Translation: If I had my way, we would be doing this now, without any debate, because I think it is justified under existing laws and precedents. And we'd do it from birth.

That really puts his "When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on" statement into another light.

/Insert Gattaca comment here

Land of the free!

[suv4x4]

Requirements for being "land of the free":

* Take thumbprints, photo and install RFID chip on immigrants (check)
* Take DNA and thumbs of every citizen (check)
* Monitor phone calls nation-wide and data transferred over the network (check)
* Big corporation control the government, government controls the people, people control nothing (check) ... ... ...

That's some land of the free you got there, guys.

Finger prints harder to fake

[ebuck]

Finger prints are very hard to fake. Sure, you COULD do it, but DNA is designed to facilitate replication.

A few dollars and a PCR machine, and there's enough DNA to "taint" anything I want. If I already have the DNA, I can frame someone with DNA "evidence" and the current miseducated jury will proclaim the 100% match to be 100% proof.

So you should be worried about databases of DNA. There's no worry about using the DNA itself, just the governmental agencies posessing it. If a court orders I give a DNA sample to test against existing evidence, I can't see the easy ability for abuse (I'm not considering the self-incrimination angle.)

A database is a much different matter.

    Looks like Mr. John Doe has finally gone too far. Pull his DNA file, duplicate it in mass, and
    spread it around the next dead homeless person you find. Who knew he was socially unbalanced and
    liked to kill homeless people? Well, those political activists were always a strange bunch! A
    few years in prison will help him sort is out.

When did it become appropriate for the government to own a piece of you? A fingerprint is an external feature, but DNA is a part of you. Ceratinly it will be put to noble uses, but like anything that is available, sooner or later it will also be put to much less than noble uses. That's just human nature.

Data collection versus data usage

[c0d3h4x0r]

I know all the Slashdot fanboys are violently against anyone collecting personal information about them without their permission. I can't say I disagree (at a gut-feel level). But set your emotional disgust and fear aside and think about it.

Information collection isn't the problem. Information misuse is the problem.

The problem with the data brokerage industry isn't that they collect data about me (and sometimes get it wrong). The problem is that there's no transparency for consumers into the data kept about them, and no efficient process for them to get inaccuracies corrected. The problem is that companies and the government are often using data (sometimes incorrect) in ways they shouldn't be allowed to.

You just can't stop data collection. It's going to happen, it's already happening, it's been happening. Organizations and people need to collect and exchange information in order for the economy and society to function efficiently and smoothly. Law enforcement needs information to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers. These kinds of informational needs aren't going to magically disappear.

What needs to be stopped it the misuse of data. I should be guaranteed by law the right to completely and freely see, without being charged, at any time, any and all information that any organization, business, or the government has on me, and I should be able to challenge the accuracy of the data and get corrections made in a timely manner. It should be illegal for law enforcement or the government to use data about my legal actions or protected opinions as justification for arresting me, harassing me, publicly smearing me, getting a search warrant against me, or suspecting me of criminal activity. It should be illegal for a lender to deny me a loan based on inaccurate information in my credit report; I should be guaranteed by law an opportunity to prove that the information is wrong and the lender should then be forced to reevaluate using the corrected data. It should be illegal for an employer to not hire me based on information in my credit report or medical records. Etc.

What we need are more accurate and good laws to protect people against the misuse of information. Then the mere collection of data becomes a moot point.

RIP - US Consitution

[bpd1069]

What makes me laugh when I see posts SUPPORTING an all out assault on our freedoms, is that they don't realize that by defending the assualt, they are supporting forfeiture of their own rights.

But then I realize I shouldn't get all worked up over the US Government doing this, I need to get worked up over my fellow Citizens who are letting this happen by not voicing Outrage.

Our current Laws, and Judical system (Thanks to the last couple SCOTUS appointments) give the executive branch so much power that they can dismantle our sacred rights.

This isn't a hypothetical, its happening now.

Wake up people.

Death by a 1000 Laws

[redneckHippe]

Last week I went to buy a pack of smokes and the cashier said there was a new law that requires you to show some I.D. when purchasing cigarettes. I'm 55 w/ grey hair. It's obvious I'm old engough (and dumb enough)to smoke. But she was insistent that I show my I.D. After a couple of days of this, I asked her if there was a camera watching her and she said yes, thats why she has to check.
Seems pretty minor (not to mention creepy) but I beleive it's this constant onslought of new laws that is the most dangerous threat to our freedoms and way of life.
The congress (both federal and state) seem to think you can solve any problem just by passing a bill. And with the current culture of lobbyism/activism not unresaonable to think that eventually everybody will be guilty of something.
Right now we have a wannabe facist administration. What do you think will happen if we get a real one? Should someone dare speak out there would certainly be something they could be arrested on.
It's not even really about the impact new laws have on us today, but how they might be used in the future. Isn't kind of odd that people cussing someone out are now charged w/ making a 'Terrorist Threat'? Or have the baby seat pointing in the wrong direction is 'Child Endangerment' (a felony unless you're Britney Sprears). And of course remember Al Capone was eventually brought down with 'Tax Evasion' charges. You might think he might of deserved it but remember you could someday be on their rader.
Not to mention they're taking all our freedoms by protecting everybodys rights.
R.H.

Re:What a dolt.

[orthogonal]

Translation: If I had my way, we would be doing this now, without any debate, because I think it is justified under existing laws and precedents.

This reminds me of a certain Unitary Executive and his henchmen.

Let's understand that the FBI prefers not only to keep the DNA database (which records only thirteen "genes"), but also the original sample, from which the donor's entire genetic code can be recovered.

Nowadays, the government doesn't discriminate against Jews. On May 14th 1940, it would have been perfectly safe for Anne Frank to have her "Jewish DNA" recorded by the Dutch government. On the next day, the Dutch government surrendered to Nazi Germany, and suddenly any Dutch government records were, legally and in fact, German government records.

Someone will shout "Godwin!" at this point, and some other patriotic American will claim, "it can't happen here."

Oh?

Ask your Japanese-American friends what happened to their grandparents in the America West in 1942. Or ask the parents of any your black friends about how, even after World War II, a black man risked his life if he tried to vote and broke the law if he used the wrong water fountain in many of these United States.

Or ask a gay man about how before Bowers, he could be put in prison for what he did with other consenting adults behind the locked doors of his own house.

Plenty of zealots, scientifically correct or not, have claimed to find genes that mark for "Jewishness" or "Negro blood" or even "criminal tendencies" or "homosexuality". Plenty of times, these zealots have gotten their prejudices written into laws: Nuremberg laws, Jim Crow laws, or, in 1927, the U.S Supreme Court's upholding of the forced sterilisation of Americans based on then-prevailing genetic theories:

In 1924, a teenager in Charlottesville, Virginia, Carrie Buck, was chosen as the first person to be sterilized under the state's newly adopted eugenics law. Ms. Buck, whose mother resided in an asylum for the epileptic and feebleminded, was accused of having a child out of wedlock. She was diagnosed as promiscuous and the probable parent of "socially inadequate offspring."

A lawsuit challenging the sterilisation was filed on Ms. Buck's behalf. Harry Laughlin, having never met Ms. Buck, wrote a deposition condemning her and her 7-month old child, Vivian. Scientists from the ERO attended the trial to testify to Vivian's "backwardness." In the end, the judge ruled in the state's favor.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Buck v. Bell (1927), ruled 8-1 to uphold the sterilisation of Ms. Buck on the grounds she was a "deficient" mother. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., an adherent of eugenics, declared "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

According to University of Virginia historian Paul Lombardo, evidence was later revealed that supports the claim that Carrie Buck's child was not the result of promiscuity; Ms. Buck had been raped by the nephew of her foster parents. School records also indicate her daughter Vivian was a solid student and had made the honor roll at age 7. A year later, Vivian died of an intestinal illness.

Then, the zealots' hobbyhorse was eugenics. Today the politicians keep the people worked up by riding the hobbyhorses of "the war against terrorists" and "homosexual marriage". But Big Government has demonstrated time and time again that there are things with which it cannot be trusted. Our genetic codes are clearly one of those things that Government will eventually misuse. Our only defense is to prevent Government from getting it