Washington State Wants DNA From All Arrestees

An anonymous reader writes in to say that "Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting would have to give a DNA sample before they are even charged with a crime if a controversial proposal is approved by the Legislature. "It is good technology. It solves crimes," claims Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned. Others believe that this is just another step in the process to build a national DNA database with everyone in it."

Comments

There's no way they'll abuse this

[muellerr1]

Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned.

Allow me to be the first to say, "Yeah, right."

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[BadAnalogyGuy]

They fingerprint kids in elementary school.

This is just a more efficient implementation of that.

There really isn't anything wrong with the practice, any more so than putting a police station every mile or two.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[spacerog]

Yup, just like they did in Massachusetts

State hits crime lab on DNA cache, Some files improperly kept, IG says
The State Police crime laboratory is storing the DNA profiles of hundreds of people whose crimes do not warrant it, according to an investigation of the historically troubled lab, raising the specter of what one civil libertarian called a "shadow DNA database."

- SR

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Slippery]

They fingerprint kids in elementary school.

Citation, please. I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory.

There really isn't anything wrong with the practice

There is everything wrong with a government that thinks it is entitled to take flesh - no matter how small the amount - from its citizens.

The sovereignty of the state ends at my surface of skin. That's a boundary I am willing to protect with force if necessary.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

My kids will never be fingerprinted in school.

I don't want their fingerprint being scanned for a match every time they get a fingerprint at a crime scene. Eventually you'll get a false positive.

We forget that minors and students are still people with the same constitutional rights as adults. Just because we force them to go to school, doesn't mean their other rights are negated at the door.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[von_rick]

The dilemma involved in balancing "security vs. freedoms". Its a very non-linear problem, and at this point it looks like freedoms are on the downward slope.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hork_Monkey]

It's alot harder to plant fingerprints at a crime scene than it is to drop some random hair that you find (Long haired people shed worse than dogs).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[pmarini]

or wait until a leaked bunch of these ends-up on BitTorrent...

or wait until a stolen bunch of these ends-up on the black market

or wait until a government really does the wish of the electoral body... oh wait !

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Jason Levine]

Here's how I see it playing out:

Step 1: They pass this law. Perhaps they "forget" to destroy the DNA samples. Perhaps they do destroy it.
Step 2: They complain about the "destruction" requirement impeding law enforcement. A high profile case is brought up where keeping the DNA evidence would have helped solve the case quicker. (Bonus points if they can claim a life would have been saved.)
Step 3: The law will be amended to allow police to keep the samples for as long as they deem it needed.

It seems to be a popular method of getting 1984-style laws passed. Pass an innocuous sounding law backed by a rallying cry ("Think of the Children!" "Protect against Terrorism!"). Now, expand that law as quietly as possible until it matches your original intent.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[easyTree]

It makes a change. We (in the UK) exporting our stupid ideas to you...

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Dishevel]

We forget that minors and students are still people with the same constitutional rights as adults. Just because we force them to go to school, doesn't mean their other rights are negated at the door.

Umm. No. While maybe you think that children should have the same rights under the constitution as adults they actually do not have the same rights as an adult.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Incubusion]

You're right. We do shed worse than dogs. But it takes more than one hair, especially one hair if your hair goes everywhere in the first place, to convict.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[BCW2]

Except that when they do the kids they take the prints in front of, and give the cards back to the parents to keep. This is only given back to the police to help find missing kids.

Amazing that this is happening in Washington, one of the most liberal states of all. Could the left want the police state they accused Bush of trying to build?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[mcgrew]

There is no dilemma nor need to balance. There is only an excuse (NOT a reason) for power grabs.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Seems to me that includes children (and yes, women). Our implementation may not be perfect, but that's a problem to correct, not something to point to as evidence.

That fucker up there said it very simply over two centuries ago.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Walkingshark]

The powerful want the police state. They use the left and right to control the two largest blocks of the population. They write off everyone else (libertarians, singularitians, whatever) as being too small and unimportant to bother with.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I'm innocent, etc, they'll destroy the finger prints too and any record that
one was arrested forever?????

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hork_Monkey]

But it if I committed the crime, it would probably provide reasonable doubt.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Changa_MC]

Women are NOT men, so really they have no rights at all.
/just sayin'

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hognoxious]

Can they vote? Can they drink alcohol? Can they run for president, or other major offices of state? Then may I humbly beseech you to shut the fuck verily up and actually read the document you're quoting?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[An ominous Cow art]

An organization to which I belong sponsors something called "CHIP" (Child Identification Program). Parents bring their children to be fingerprinted, have a DNA (saliva) sample taken, and a short video interview (all for no cost to them). All materials are sealed in a box and given to the parents, to be kept in case the child goes missing - then they can be given to the police. Apparently, it's made a difference a few times.

(don't take this as any kind of opinion on how frequent children go missing, or whether the article's DNA sampling is desirable)

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation, please. I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory.

When I was in first grade (about 25 years ago) they just did it. I'm pretty sure it was at least "opt-out". It definitely wasn't "opt-in".

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[QuantumRiff]

Step 2 is especially effective when the victim that could have been saved is a young, blonde haired, blue eyed white girl from an upper middle class family!

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[CodeBuster]

I distinctly remember being fingerprinted in primary school when I was nine years old. If I had known then what I know now then I would have refused, of course, but how can a nine year old be expected to fully appreciate the possible consequences? The answer is they cannot and the state takes advantage of that to trick them while they are still young and impressionable with all sorts of propaganda, indoctrination, and anti-drug scare mongering (and now extreme environmental, but that hadn't caught on yet when I was going through the system). I have a real problem with lying to children in order to "scare them for their own good". Eventually children figure out that their parents, the police, or the authorities have lied to them consistently and never blindly trust authority again (which is itself a valuable lesson, but one which can be learned without the pain of betrayal).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hognoxious]

Of course yes. Though in that case you might ask: why don't they wait until after you're convicted to take the sample? After all, it'd be less waste.

Well I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Like, they ordered too many kits and they're worried the ink will go all lumpy. A clerical error. Or, they just need to keep in practice. Something 100% innocent like that.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[furby076]

When someone gets arrested, don't they have their fingerprints/pictures taken when they are brought in? If that is the case this is just the next step...DNA another fingerprinting method. If it helps them catch criminals (e.g. rapists who were never identified/caught) then great.

They do need to keep the info secure and not give it to such organizations as health insurance companies.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[furby076]

You get finger/foot printed at birth. The FBI recommends it. Not sure if it is mandated by law, but it could be on a state/local level - if not on a fed level. Great if your kid gets kidnapped.

As long as the police are not giving this to my insurance company so they can deny me insurance then I am down for it. I don't break the law.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sootman]

"It is good technology. It solves crimes."

So do warrantless searches. Let's allow them, too!

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[kalirion]

The dilemma involved in balancing "security vs. freedoms". Its a very non-linear problem, and at this point it looks like freedoms are on the downward slope.

And yet I do not feel any more secure. I wonder why that is....

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[curmudgeous]

"Citation, please. I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory."

I remember being fingerprinted in elementary school 40 YEARS AGO. They lined us up like good little drones and marched us down the line. We all thought the ink on our fingers was downright funny.

I don't recall my parents being asked for permission either, but I was just kid at the time.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[The Moof]

You're forgetting about the backups. If I'm arrested and convicted, and later overturned, I doubt they'd go through all of the backups and destroy that DNA data as well. Hell, even a weekly backup would keep you forever even if you're not convicted. How often do you see a trial go from arrest to conviction in under 7 days?)

I think it'll be held indefinitely, via "oversight" or intentionally. Once you're in the system, there's no leaving.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

That fucker up there said it very simply over two centuries ago.
Just to put that into perspective, the man credited with drafting that phrase also owned slaves, and many of the signers of the document quoted also owned slaves, and/or supported child labor, indentured servitude and a whole host of other non-liberty things. Please get some perspective.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[furby076]

So, do tell, how will your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness be stopped if law enforcement has your DNA?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

The sovereignty of the state ends at my surface of skin. That's a boundary I am willing to protect with force if necessary.

Then quit leaving your goddamn DNA everywhere you go.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were all beyond redemption already?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[somenickname]

Speaking of crime labs, I'm sometimes forced to watch CSI: New York. I sometimes wonder if I'd rather throw myself out the window every time a cut scene of "science" is accompanied by some techno music but, I do recall an episode where there was a murder in a night club. In that episode they detained all the people in the night club and took DNA samples from them. I remember thinking, "If they tried to do that to me, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves and fight the obstruction of justice charge in court".

Shows like this desensitize the public to things like "DNA sample" to the point where they think it's normal and that their information will be treated with care by beautiful and smart people who know a lot about "science". The truth couldn't be further from that.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Aphoxema]

I don't know, if they didn't follow the conditions the evidence then it could probably be held as inadmissible. This thing seems like such a strikingly bad idea but I can't help but see the benefits, especially with this stipulation.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -- Jefferson

"When Government undertakes a repressive policy, the innocent are not safe. Men like me would not be considered innocent. The innocent then is he who forswears politics, who takes no part in the public movements of the times, who retires into his house, mumbles his prayers, pays his taxes, and salaams all the government officials all round. The man who interferes in politics, the man who goes about collecting money for any public purpose, the man who addresses a public meeting, then becomes a suspect. I am always on the borderland and I, therefore, for personal reasons, if for nothing else, undertake to say that the possession, in the hands of the Executive, of powers of this drastic nature will not hurt only the wicked. It will hurt the good as well as the bad, and there will be such a lowering of public spirit, there will be such a lowering of the political tone in the country, that all your talk of responsible government will be mere mockery... "Much better that a few rascals should walk abroad than that the honest man should be obliged for fear of the law of the land to remain shut up in his house, to refrain from the activities which it is in his nature to indulge in, to abstain from all political and public work merely because there is a dreadful law in the land."

--Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council, at the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill, Feb 7, 1919
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-35.htm

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[mathwhiz99atucb]

Yup, just like they did in Massachusetts

State hits crime lab on DNA cache, Some files improperly kept, IG says
The State Police crime laboratory is storing the DNA profiles of hundreds of people whose crimes do not warrant it, according to an investigation of the historically troubled lab, raising the specter of what one civil libertarian called a "shadow DNA database."

- SR

Or in California in 2004. Stupid voters passed Prop 69!

(Winston Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy was "a five-minute conversation with the average voter." I could not agree more.)

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Znork]

I've considered the business plan of collecting vacuum cleaner bags from public transport, hospitals and hairdressers and then packaging a bunch of the mixed crap in a box with a compressed air canister, which one could then sell at, eh, hardware stores or some place where criminals get their gear.

Poof. Instant demonstration of why having everyone on file is a bad idea.

Of course, with stories about labs first sticking the sampler needle in the suspects sample, then using the same uncleaned needle to sample the crime scene DNA (thus guaranteeing a match), they may not need any further confusion.

"She said that if such a law had been in place when her daughter was murdered"

Spoken like the mother of a crime victim. Of course, had such a law been in place when her daughter was murdered, then her daughter might very well have been in jail for a crime she hadn't committed because her DNA had happened to be there, or a lab had made a mistake, etc. Then she would have been teary eyed in the newspaper about the evil DNA laws that got her daughter jailed and killed (or, well, she wouldn't, as nobody gives a shit about criminals, wether they're guilty or not).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be statistically dead in 15 years.
I'm glad I won't be around to see the result
of these nazi's yet again.

They are gonna deserve all they get.

Pixxing away a great country.
I hope they have many children to suffer
hourly from their arrogance.

jr

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[niko9]

It's alot harder to plant fingerprints at a crime scene than it is to drop some random hair that you find (Long haired people shed worse than dogs).

I have a buzz cut but I'm a hairy Greek you insensitive clod!

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[MiniMike]

There is everything wrong with a government that thinks it is entitled to take flesh - no matter how small the amount - from its citizens.

I bet many people in that situation would be willing to offer a small sample of saliva instead...

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[abelenky17]

Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.

Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".

Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.

Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.

Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.

Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.

Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[drinkypoo]

Except that when they do the kids they take the prints in front of, and give the cards back to the parents to keep. This is only given back to the police to help find missing kids.

I was fingerprinted in elementary school as a child. I don't know who kept the prints, but my mom didn't get them.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[BK425]

WASPC is known in Washington for also supporting every nutty gun control proposal to get dropped in the bin. For those who don't see the (it's freedom) parallel they also were okey dokey when the BATF was keeping background check information on gun buyers in the 80's. BATF did this for years, while federal legislator after legislator declared the action a violation of the background check law (in peasant speak this means a CRIME). BATF kept doing that until Congres threatened to defund them. Suddenly they found the reference to "30 day limit" in the law and started destroying these "backup" records as they'd always been required to do. These are not the everyday cop on the street but the (often appointed) top of the command chain. This particular velvet glove on the iron hand is beginning to chafe a bit.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Daravon]

"Hey, turns out you didn't steal that car! Grats. Oh...by the way...we scanned your DNA in our database while we legally had it in our database, and we think you shot a man in Reno. Might as well call your lawyer back."

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Thaelon]

The best way to fight this might to be to find a way to get the DNA of senators, representatives, governors, and high ranking executives in there as quickly and as publicly as possible.

Then see how long it sticks around.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Arthur Grumbine]

Here's how I see it playing out:

Step 1: They pass this law. Perhaps they "forget" to destroy the DNA samples. Perhaps they do destroy it. Step 2: They complain about the "destruction" requirement impeding law enforcement. A high profile case is brought up where keeping the DNA evidence would have helped solve the case quicker. (Bonus points if they can claim a life would have been saved.) Step 3: The law will be amended to allow police to keep the samples for as long as they deem it needed.

It seems to be a popular method of getting 1984-style laws passed. Pass an innocuous sounding law backed by a rallying cry ("Think of the Children!" "Protect against Terrorism!"). Now, expand that law as quietly as possible until it matches your original intent.

Step 4: ????
Step 5: Society Profits!!

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Dysan2k]

Now that is an excellent idea! I'll have to look into that for my kids.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[cexshun]

Just as the police can "accidentally" serve a warrant to the wrong person and find evidence to charge this person with a crime. Since the warrant was issued "in good faith", it can then be upheld in court.

Under this new legislation, I can already see the number of "we thought we destroyed the DNA, but evidentially we forgot." Since it is in "good faith" that the police destroy DNA, I assume that old DNA will be able to be used as evidence?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[JesseMcDonald]

At the very least, being required to provide a DNA sample before you've been convicted of a crime is a loss of both liberty and property.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[korbin_dallas]

Wow, do you really have no idea how you life could be made miserable to tortuous by this?
I suggest you wake up.

Its information tied directly to you. Any mistake(not to mention malice) may tie you to a crime you didn't do. Of course government computers are never cracked, or abused.
Maybe you can't get a job if you are in there.
Maybe you can't get a job if you aren't in there.

There is precedence for that scenario.
Think about your credit score. Think its good? Think it only applies to getting a car loan? 3 companies run your entire life. Need a job? You may not get one if Equifax says you are a bad credit risk. Even if Equifax is WRONG, you still won't get that job.

No, all this information centralized is bad. Besides its the first attack vector of the next world war.

I also think its hilariously funny that people can spot the 'slippery slope' of dna info, but deny or ignore the same thing in terms of firearm ownership.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

This mindset serves as a sled for a slippery slope. Indeed, it is the same as "If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide." The fact is that your DNA is your own property, and mandatory sampling of it by the state is a gross overstepping of personal boundary. Positing that unless you can think of examples of how it will negatively affect your life, then it must be ok is . . . well, interesting. For me it comes down to the idea of what police should be for in a society. Are they there to "maintain control", as they now claim to be, or are they there to serve the public? Would you rather be controlled, or assisted?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[hesiod]

I bet many people in that situation would be willing to offer a small sample of saliva instead...

As long as they don't mind me giving my sample by spitting in their face, no problem.

Hell no, they can't have my DNA, even though I've done nothing wrong.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[crispin_bollocks]

When I was a kid the cops came in and fingerprinted every student in our elementary school (Stamford, CT). I think the rationale was corpse identification, since about the same time parents had to submit a form saying whether they wanted their child to stay at school or run for home in the event of an impending Russian attack.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[nyvalbanat]

A corrupt government can intimidate people using "if you don't obey, we will commit a crime and plant your DNA" while wiping your spit off their face.
Think of journalists, whistleblowers...

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Nihixul]

Your forgot the part where they name the bill after the person whose life "could have been saved". You will hear, "A vote against this bill is a vote against little Timmy!" I've found that nearly every bill/law referred to by a person's name is horrible.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[coolsnowmen]

If my parents get this information incase of kidnapping or identifying a body that is one thing. They can keep this private.

If the police collect this information on me to put in their database for no reason, that is quite another.

I don't trust people I don't know. The police collecting information about people who they don't need to is a waste of time and resources. If the police have data about me, it is data that someone can abuse. If they don't have it, then they can't.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[HellYeahAutomaton]

It invades my liberty by directly violating my right which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Taking any cell from me without my consent is a form of seizure, and taken to the extreme is conceptually an imprisonment.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite simple. If a cop has a grudge against you, or is simply overzealous, whatever, all he has to do is have you brought in on some charge. Then, he can just plant some of the DNA he takes from you at a crime scene.

Next thing you know, you are sitting in prison for something you did not do.

I'm sure there are a large number of corrupt cops just salivating over the possibilities this brings.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[BK425]

May not be the thing to say on slashdot but technolody does not -solve- crimes. Human investigators may use tools to help solve crimes but ultimately it is people who solve crime. Not a small distinction.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

You are the one who has failed to read.

Even if you could prove that the constitution sets children apart from adults in relation to your unalienable rights (you can't), you're left with the obvious problem of different states assigning different age restrictions for the same rights (some of which are certainly unalienable).

The constituion is right, the implementation is wrong. If you can find where the constitution contradicts itself, then you've got a point. If you can convince the supreme court or a constitutional convention that running for office is an unalienable right, then the constitution must be amended to correct the error.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[ckaminski]

I remember being fingerprinted too, and it was a nice way to interact with the police without it being scary, but we got to take the fingerprint cards home to our parents, the schools/police didn't keep them.

If you're going to be kidnapped, before the age of instant computer retrieval, the best place to put these things is with the parents. Still is, in my opinion.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sleigher]

If they are going to spend the time and money to destroy the sample afterwards, then why not save it and only take a sample if there is a conviction. They are lying! Or they just really like to waste money. Likely both.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[jellomizer]

This shows more further abuse of the Bush administration... Oh Wait... Never mind.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[cayenne8]

"I remember being fingerprinted in elementary school 40 YEARS AGO. They lined us up like good little drones and marched us down the line. We all thought the ink on our fingers was downright funny."

Interesting...I"m probably only a little younger than you maybe...and they never did such a thing to us.

Heck, I was shocked the other day to hear that newborn babies are NOW pretty much always issued a SSN at birth???

I remember signing up for mine in like 9th grade in typing class.

Wish I'd opted out back then....*sigh*

But, do they really try to force parents to sign their kids up for SSN at the hospital at birth?!?! Why?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[thpr]

"Pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" is irrelevant. You're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is not binding law.

The relevant context is Amendment 4 of the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Dr.Zong]

Good to meet you in our travels, brother.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[QRDeNameland]

I bet many people in that situation would be willing to offer a small sample of saliva instead...

Or give them a stool sample. Chimpanzee-style.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

You should note that the law explicitly states they can't do those things. 4th Amendment protections, on the other hand, have no minimum age.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Lord Jester]

Yes, but the printing was done to a card and not to a national database. It was a reference piece in case you were kidnapped.

I see the pros and cons of the DNA as well as the fingerprinting. Being in the tech sector, I can respect just to what level it can be abused.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of a false positive or planted evidence? Yeah, call me when you're at least willing to acknowledge the other side.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

As I said, it's something to work toward to achieve.

It doesn't matter who the fuck wrote it, or what they did in their lives. It's an ideal, and a damned good one at that. If you can come up with an argument against the ideal that all people are equal and have rights that should NEVER be breached, by all means, go for it. (Note: bitching about "men" instead of people is asinine, as is bitching about "Creator".)

Any "perspective" you have on it is your own, and from what you said, you're coming from a pretty hateful (or is it just white guilt?) perspective.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[lee1026]

The likelihood of false positive goes DOWN with additional information assuming the rate of false negative is held constant.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[TinoMNYY24]

By allowing law enforcement to have a global databank of the DNA of anyone arrested for any reason (even falsely) you're allowing innocent people to be linked to crime scenes that they simply passed through. Do you know what the odds are of leaving your DNA in a place where a crime would be committed? Have you ever scratched your head in a motel room or a convenience store? Have you ever used a public toilet (or a tree on the side of the road)? The situation where the police take DNA from anyone arrested for any reason and keep it indefinitely (which, I agree with Jason, is the eventual end-game for this law) means that any shoplifter, speeder, or protester can be linked to much more serious crimes they had nothing to do with, arrested and held for the extent of the investigation, or even convicted. That's where your liberty goes. Though, as stated by other posters, that's the declaration of independence and non-binding.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Fulcrum of Evil]

While maybe you think that children should have the same rights under the constitution as adults they actually do not have the same rights as an adult.

The only difference between kids and adults is that the adult doesn't have anyone who can tell them when to go to bed. 4th ammendment still applies.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA evidence is dangerous, because if you are from the area and someone with a near enough match commits a crime, the chances are, you will be a suspect.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Firethorn]

Heck, I was shocked the other day to hear that newborn babies are NOW pretty much always issued a SSN at birth???

How old are you? Where have you been hiding? I'm over 30 and got my number at birth.

Wish I'd opted out back then....*sigh*

You'd have still had to pay the taxes, and wouldn't get the benefits you'll theoretically get now.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[An ominous Cow art]

Same to you :-).

Yes indeed, the organization I mentioned is the Freemasons.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

In my ethos, an overriding principle is "don't get caught." It doesn't matter whether you are doing something that law or society deems "right" or "wrong." It is simply incumbent on you to avoid putting yourself in a position where you are subject to the authority of others. Once under it, assume any authority will be abused against you.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Dr.Zong]

Toronto, Ontario, Canada - District 3 here. You?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep mine in a dixie cup. It keeps the seat on the bus from getting sticky.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Firewall]

But, do they really try to force parents to sign their kids up for SSN at the hospital at birth?!?! Why?

One word: Reagan

He foisted it upon us to combat welfare fraud. At least, that's what he SAID the reason was.

So much for "getting Government off our backs" (for those too young to remember, that was the theme of his campaign).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[IndustrialComplex]

Just to put that into perspective, the man credited with drafting that phrase also owned slaves, and many of the signers of the document quoted also owned slaves, and/or supported child labor, indentured servitude and a whole host of other non-liberty things. Please get some perspective.

There are lawmakers today that violate the same laws that they worked to have enacted. That doesn't mean that the law is wrong, but that the lawmaker is hypocritical. For example, if I say killing is wrong, and then go murder someone, that doesn't invalidate my original statement.

That Jefferson owned slaves doesn't make what he said wrong, it means that he couldn't live up to his own ideals.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[rahlquist]

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/151106_fingerprint_lunch.html

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Good work i wish i have the time to read all news here
arabic songs

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Please supply a citation to a SINGLE time it's made any difference.

The hard part about a missing child is finding the child, not identifying the child if there is a body found. If the body is in good enough condition that fingerprints are useful, then almost certainly so would a photograph of their face. If not, then the parent's DNA can be used to identify the child.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[furby076]

So one big response to the ten who responded:

At the very least, being required to provide a DNA sample before you've been convicted of a crime is a loss of both liberty and property.

They already do this when you arrested...finger printing. Some states also mandate this if you want a drivers license/state ID. Don't recall if you need this for a passport, but I don't think you do.

Its information tied directly to you. Any mistake(not to mention malice) may tie you to a crime you didn't do. Of course government computers are never cracked, or abused.

Mistakes (including malicious ones) can be made, but it is rare and can be rectified. You can also be proactive about this by getting access to your information (read only) to view whats going on. So if there is a warrant for your arrest you can be proactive and head to a police station (with a lawyer) and say "hey this is crap", which is much better then them knocking on your door.

No, all this information centralized is bad. Besides its the first attack vector of the next world war.

Opinion, and tin-foil one.

I also think its hilariously funny that people can spot the 'slippery slope' of dna info, but deny or ignore the same thing in terms of firearm ownership.

This is completely false. Since you do not know me you can't know what I "spot" and what I "Ignore" or "deny". Same thing goes for the rest of the populace. To know this information you have to ask and get a truthful answer. I honestly believe this is OK - just like fingerprinting... precedence.

A corrupt government can intimidate people using "if you don't obey, we will commit a crime and plant your DNA" while wiping your spit off their face

GOv't can do this anyhow. You think if the gov't wanted to convict you of a crime, with DNA, they can't do something as simple as breaking into your house, take the fork you used at a restaurant and grab the saliva sample, use hair gained from the hair salon you just walked out of? Really if they want you they can get you, and this won't matter.

It invades my liberty by directly violating my right which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

When you are arrested you get finger-printed...this is another type of finger printing. It is no longer considered unreasonable once you are being processed. Also if they want they can make it part of the drivers license process - which is NOT a constitutional right.

You're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is not binding law.

Never said it was law - but that is what people go back to and rightfully so. It is also a concise way of what people are looking for.

The relevant context is Amendment 4 of the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Once you've been arrested it is no longer unreasonable to search you by your finger prints, DNA is the next step in the process. Finger printing is a unique signature of you, provided by you. DNA is a unique signature of you, provided by you.

By allowing law enforcement to have a global databank of the DNA of anyone arrested for any reason (even falsely) you're allowing innocent people to be linked to crime scenes that they simply passed through.

This statement is illogical. The gov't has a record of my finger prints. I have never been arrested, or convicted. I have never been processed by police. They got my finger prints when I went to get my drivers license the first time. So there is a database with my fingerprint (a unique signature like DNA)...I have never been linked to a crime - no company has ever denied me work, or a loan.

Do you

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Firewall]

I bet many people in that situation would be willing to offer a small sample of saliva instead...

I'll give a semen sample! As long as I get some "help" from the girl collecting it....

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hyppy]

A 20 year old man cannot run for president. Does that mean he has no Constitutional rights whatsoever? Then may I humbly beseech you to shut the fuck verily up.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[cayenne8]

"Can they vote? Can they drink alcohol? Can they run for president, or other major offices of state? Then may I humbly beseech you to shut the fuck verily up and actually read the document you're quoting?"

Yep, and the country has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since....

LOL

Just joking....too hard to resist that one...

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[ultranova]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We certainly do. Now what the Hell is keeping that slave who was supposed to bring the pencil? I want to finish this and go rape his sister already!

Seems to me that includes children (and yes, women). Our implementation may not be perfect, but that's a problem to correct, not something to point to as evidence.

But it didn't include women. Nor children, nor even most men. It included rich landowners, since they were the only ones who held power, on the account of controlling resources. Power; that's what it has always been about. You have all the rights you can and will back with force, no more and no less. No piece of paper can ever change that, no matter how grandiose statements it holds.

That fucker up there said it very simply over two centuries ago.

Even the fuckers who signed the fucker didn't believe a single word they wrote. They simply didn't want to pay taxes on their tea, and wanted to give a veneer of nobility on their conflict of interests.

Not that it matters. The paper exists, no matter whether the people who wrote it were sincere or hypocrites; now all you need to do is convince enough people to actually believe it to get to that "backed by force" point, without having it FUBARed in the process. No one has ever managed that for any document, except perhaps The Communist Manifest, and we all know how that turned out, so good luck.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[supernova_hq]

I totally agree, except for your observation about all "named" laws being bad. Please look into "Grant's Law" if you want an example. The kid got dragged 7.5 km when trying to stop a gas and go. Now there is a law stating that all gas must be paid for ahead of time.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[logjon]

"Others believe that this is just another step in the process to build a national DNA database with everyone in it."

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is apparently "Others." I've seen the plans even. The name of the database is "Potential Criminals."

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[cayenne8]

"You'd have still had to pay the taxes, and wouldn't get the benefits you'll theoretically get now."

From what I understood...if you opted out, say for like religious reasons. You didn't have to pay SS taxes nor could you collect them.

You get a tax ID instead of a SSN...which is used for other tax tracking, but, if you are lucky enough to never sign on to the program, you don't have to pay I don't think.

Hell, as old as I am...if they would let me QUIT today, I'd sign away all potential benefits I can coming to me...

Even with the market down, I'd trust my money going into some kind of investment rather than SS.

Sadly, though...once you sign into the program, you apparently can't get out of it.

"You can check out any time you like, but, you can never leave....."

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Slippery]

Then quit leaving your goddamn DNA everywhere you go.

If I am leaving it everywhere I go, then they don't need to violate my body by sticking a swab into my bodily orifices to collect some.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[ArsonSmith]

A really fat person once told me I should eat better. Guess since he was fat it's not true.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that many people would be thrown into prison for non-violent crimes because of this (which in many places have unfair sentences). And without a time limit there's no reason they can't hold onto the information indefinitely.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hyppy]

They do need to keep the info secure

Fat chance.

and not give it to such organizations as health insurance companies.

That's not going to happen. Florida just got smacked down for selling its DMV database to companies for extra cash. Yeah, that includes full SSNs, identifying info, etc. If the insurance companies pay enough, they'll get everything they want.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Firewall]

We forget that minors and students are still people with the same constitutional rights as adults. Just because we force them to go to school, doesn't mean their other rights are negated at the door.

Umm. No. While maybe you think that children should have the same rights under the constitution as adults they actually do not have the same rights as an adult.

[quote that isn't even in the Constitution snipped] Seems to me that includes children (and yes, women).

Seems to me that you haven't been keeping up on Court decisions. While I disagree with the Courts on this issue, the GP is correct in asserting that children do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[russotto]

Step 2 is especially effective when the victim that could have been saved is a young, blonde haired, blue eyed white girl from an upper middle class family!

Please. We live in more enlightened times. Nobody would care any less if she was dark haired and dark skinned, provided she was still as hot as e.g. Halle Berry.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[russotto]

I totally agree, except for your observation about all "named" laws being bad. Please look into "Grant's Law" if you want an example. The kid got dragged 7.5 km when trying to stop a gas and go. Now there is a law stating that all gas must be paid for ahead of time.

Perfect example of a bad "named" law.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[mog007]

Why waste money getting the DNA, then DESTROYING the DNA, when it would be a lot cheaper, and much less scary if they would just gather DNA from people after they're convicted?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[An ominous Cow art]

New Hampshire, USA, District #2. One of our members is Past Master of a lodge in Ontario... I believe it was Friendship Lodge.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Slippery]

You get finger/foot printed at birth. The FBI recommends it. Not sure if it is mandated by law, but it could be on a state/local level - if not on a fed level. Great if your kid gets kidnapped.

This reference is over 20 years old, but at that time only New York state required footprinting for newborns. Hospitals often take footprints so they can identify babies if they get mixed up, but the efficacy is questionable. If you have a new source showing that finger- or foot-printing of newborns is required in any other state, please, present it.

Certainly if a permanent record of an infant's fingerprints is made and given to the police or FBI, that would be a significant incentive toward home birth.

As long as the police are not giving this to my insurance company so they can deny me insurance then I am down for it. I don't break the law.

You never break the speed limit? Never had a beer before the age of 21? Never made love in an unsanctioned way (better check your local laws on that!)? Never made a copy of a CD for a friend? Never "forgot" to mention that $20 gift on your income tax forms?

We all break the law.

And the law can change tomorrow. If a law were passed that required all Americans of Iraqi ancestry to report to concentration camps tomorrow - as it did for Japanese Americans in the 1940s - I hope that you would resist it in every way that you could.

Never, never, never, never confuse following that law with doing what's right.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[BCW2]

We did the fingerprint deal in the early 90s. They didn't do video or DNA then. The youngest of my three daughters is now 20.

Damn I feel old! :(

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[calmofthestorm]

If they are to take a pound of my flesh, then they must do so without spilling a drop of my blood.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[DavidTC]

See, that's the real problem. It's not a DNA database, most of us wouldn't have actual problems with that, if one thing were true:

Under no circumstances, should DNA evidence be used to locate criminals unless there's a high probability that such DNA is actually from the criminal.

They shouldn't be able to take a hair from the crime scene, which could have come from anyone at any time, and run the DNA on it.

Now, blood samples, sure. Semen in a rape case, sure. Piece of skin caught inside the safety of the murder weapon, sure. Something that has a high priority of being of the criminals. (Or at least left during the crime, by someone not know to be there.) They should be able to run that against the whole database.

But everything else, they should have to get suspects beforehand, and compare their DNA, and only their DNA, to all evidence found at the crime scene. I.e., they don't get to say 'Here's the evidence, find me a list of matches', they'd have to say 'Here's some suspects, compare their DNA to the evidence found at the scene.'.

I don't know what standard of evidence it would be, to ask for a check, but think 'probable cause' is the right one. They need to be able to state some sort of logical reason that such a person is a suspect, and only then should they be able to check that person's DNA.

The danger of having large quantities of DNA in databases is that that cops could, and some of them would, simply run any DNA found at the scene against everyone on the planet, take the matches and find the first few who live nearby, and construct a flimsy case against one of them. Probably the one who's been in trouble with the law the most, and doesn't have an alibi.

Also there's the fact that no one's bothered to update DNA matching. They're still comparing to 14 points or something like they were two decades ago, and claiming '1 out of a million' matches. There's absolutely no excuse for not checking hundreds of points.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Dr.Zong]

No way! I was on the board at Friendship's installation last month of the new WM. I'm the WT go-to guy it would seem ;) Actually, having said that, there's a Friendship up in Sudbury, ON too. Could be either one I suppose. Crazy if it's the one in Pickering/Toronto... that would be a small world.

Instead of saying "District 3" I should have said "East District" - they redrew the boundaries a few years ago. I always forget. My bad.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Sylver Dragon]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

While that's a wonderfully poetic phrase, and a great concept, you do realize that it appears nowhere in our Constitution, right?

It's from the Declaration of Independence, a document which is really just a letter to King George III telling him to go fuck himself, and which has no binding, legal, power in our country. When you really get down to brass tacks our Constitution is pretty sketchy about what rights we do have, mostly because the intention was for Citizens to have rights and grant powers to the government, not the other way around as it is now. The question, "does the Consitution protect such and such a right?" was not ever supposed to be asked, the question was supposed to be, "does the federal government have the power to pass such a law?" Absent a grant of such a power, by the people, via the Constitution such laws were not supposed to be allowed.

Unfortunately, that idea has been pretty thoroughly eroded over the past two-hundred-odd years and we are now stuck in a position that the Constitution is being used to shield the rights of the people from the government, and not as a cage for the government to exist in.

So, whether such a poetic phrase includes women/children/amputee midget hermaphrodite porn actors is immaterial. The question is whether the Constitution grants the government the power to pass such laws at all? And I don't see a "Collect DNA from citizens" power listed anywhere in it.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[davester666]

I make sure to only leave my DNA in dead hookers...

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[TinoMNYY24]

Unfortunately, that's exactly what they do. They find fingerprints and hair at a scene, and then run them through "the system" to see if they can find a match. Any matches are immediately suspects.

For certain crime scenes (like a single woman's bathroom) random bits of hair and skin from a stranger is a decent indicator that the stranger was involved with the victim in the recent past. For others, like the aforementioned convenience store, all it means is that you're a person who lives on this planet.

I would be ok with these national database if there were rules as to who could access them and for what purpose. Like you said, they need to be locked down so that only a detective who has convinced a judge that the hair or blood found at the scene of the crime is likely to belong to the suspect can push the DNA through the database and proceed to harass the 300,000 Americans that DNA will "match."

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Tenebrousedge]

The 'inalienable rights' text is from the US Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is not the Supreme Law of the Land, and that the Constitution (which is) does place age-based restrictions on some rights.

You're also confused in your thinking (or having communication difficulties) with regard to the Supreme Court; they have nothing to do with changing the Constitution.

If your main premise is that there are 'inalienable rights' being denied to the People, you should do what that document urges and overthrow the government responsible for perpetrating these tyrannies.

Let's be really clear on this point. If you believe that your government is depriving its citizens of fundamental liberty, it is your duty as a citizen of your country to replace that government with one more fit to "...secure the blessings of liberty...". If you are not willing to pledge your life to that cause, then do not claim that rights are being trampled. Do not come waving a document of rebellion in our faces. Do not sound a battle cry you are unable to answer.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sckeener]

no need to drop a hair...all the have to do is have a crime lab that makes the DNA fit the accused...

Just do a search for the Houston Crime Lab DNA...you'll get a ton of hits for all its woes.

admittedly that is nothing new...just watch the thin blue line documentary...

If there is one thing we do in Texas well, it is catching criminals whether they are guilty or not.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Tenebrousedge]

(Note: bitching about "men" instead of people is asinine, as is bitching about "Creator".)

Any "perspective" you have on it is your own, and from what you said, you're coming from a pretty hateful (or is it just white guilt?) perspective.

The irony here is overwhelming. Your casual dismissal of the text of that document is, of course, your perspective, and equally as valid as any other man's opinion.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[An ominous Cow art]

Pretty funny :-). I *think* it was Sudbury, though - that sounds familiar. I'm not sure what year... he's lived in the US for a fair number of years, so I'm guessing it would have been in the 80s. I'll ask him on Sunday; we're installing our new officers then. He's going in as SW, and I as Marshal and GL Rep this time.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[gurps_npc]

Problems with DNA. 1. If they don't have your DNA, they won't do a false positive. (i.e. they can't think they match you when they really don't.) Right now, DNA is done almost exclusively when they have restricted the potential criminals to a few. Then they test those few to see who really did it. What this policy would do is to reverse that situation. Let them test EVERYONE till they find the right guy. Despite myth, DNA is rarely a 99.9999% guarantee. Often it can be as little as an 85% match. But try telling that to a jury. 2. MONEY. DNA tests are NOT free. They cost cash. As in thousands of dollars, not hundreds. To do the entire country would cost probably cost around 80 billion dollars. Generally this would not be worth it.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget mandatory selective service enrollment. I put off the SSN and SS registration as long as I could.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Zenaku]

Just for the record, the document you are arguing about isn't the Constitution. The line you quoted is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

While I agree with you (mostly) regarding the rights of minors, the created-equal-pursuit-of-happiness bit is just an inspirational line from a "Fuck you" letter to King George, and has no bearing on actual constitutional law. In fact, the constitution (as written) specifically states that black people count as 3/5ths of a person. Not very true to the ideals put forth in the Declaration.

Fortunately, the Constitution has been amended to bring it closer to that ideal, but as is stands, right or wrong, the Supreme Court (to which the Constitution gives all authority to interpret the Constitution) has ruled that minors don't have full rights.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

It's an ideal.
The implementation (then, as well as now) is broken, not the ideal.
Learn to read.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[davester666]

Now, they can just place the whole class under arrest for theft, take all the kids DNA, then go "oops, sorry, we were mistaken", you're all released. The kids will think it's a game, and the teacher should be able to be convinced not to question it.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

It's an ideal (and the law!).
The implementation and enforcement (then, as well as now) is broken, not the ideal.
Learn to read.

filterlameness

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

It's an ideal.
The implementation and enforcement (then, as well as now) is broken, not the ideal.
Learn to read.

filterlameness

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[supernova_hq]

Could you pleas explain your reasoning behind not agreeing with this law. I personally know gas station attendants and they say that this law makes them feel much safer and secure in their workplace. The only people that seem to be at a disadvantage (other than gas and go committers) are companies paying for upgrades and drivers changing their habits.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

Amendments 9 and 10 would like to have a word with you.

The supreme court interprets laws, and often decides on their constitutionality. Whether that law happens to be within the constitution (contradicting with other language in the constitution) itself does not matter.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

It's called a natural language, and it's ambiguous, dipshit.

"Men" was, and still is, used to refer to the species as a whole.
The word "Creator" was chosen SPECIFICALLY to avoid any tie-ins with any specific religion.

You may as well bitch that they said "equal" instead of "equally".

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

I know where it's from people.
I never said it was from the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled incorrectly in many cases. Amendments 9 & 10 reserve rights NOT specifically mentioned in the Constitution for people and states.

Keep in mind this does not mean a state has the right to further limit the rights of people (although it is obviously implemented as such).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give a semen sample! As long as I get some "help" from the girl collecting it....

Whoa there cowboy! Let's try to fix your use of quotation marks there.

I'll give a semen sample! As long as I get some help from the "girl" collecting it....

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

"We (in the UK) exporting our stupid ideas to you..."

When it comes to Big Brother methods and ways to sell it to a largely uniformed public, the UK leads the world in developments which are getting exported to the rest of the world. Ironic as that was the home country of George Orwell. He must have seen something in the UK leadership, back in his time, which still applies now, for them to be leading the world now into the kind of nightmare he foresaw.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Zenaku]

I know where it's from people.
I never said it was from the Constitution.

Indeed you did not, directly, nor did I say that you did. But the Troll who replied to you seemed to think it was the Constitution, as he was referencing things that are laid down therein.

Can they vote? Can they drink alcohol? Can they run for president, or other major offices of state? Then may I humbly beseech you to shut the fuck verily up and actually read the document you're quoting?

And in your response to him you continue to talk of the Constitution.

Even if you could prove that the constitution sets children apart

The constituion is right, the implementation is wrong. If you can find where the constitution contradicts itself, then you've got a point

I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't know what you were quoting. I was just trying to make it clear to all, since you did not, that it wasn't the Constitution you quoted, and point out to you that quoting the Declaration doesn't support your contention about who has Constitutional rights.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sa1lnr]

Mod parent informative.

This is exactly what is happening in the UK, yes I'm afraid it's us leading the way with this sort of thing again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5285340.ece

The authorities were dragged kicking and screaming all the way to the European Court of Human rights.

I despair at what my home country is turning into.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[RufusFish]

"forgot" to mention that $20 gift on your income tax forms?

Which isn't breaking the law in the US unless you've exceeded $13,000 annually to the donee, or $1M over their lifetime (3 states have state gift tax laws, but they all have exemptions for very low amounts that closely if not exactly mirror the federal laws).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[isaac]

I posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge here (not enough slashdotters with kids):

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org]

Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.

-Isaac

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

They've already done the same thing with another database: firearms sales. They first claimed they needed the data for "software testing" even though the law required them to discard all records after a few months, and another separate law forbade development of a database of firearms ownership among lawful purchasers.

So, here in the U.S. anyway, government officials have proven they can't be trusted to destroy records that they are required to destroy.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hognoxious]

But the Troll who replied to you seemed to think it was the Constitution

Troll? Speaking the truth is a troll? The constitution does allow discrimination on the basis of age. Just for starters, Article 1, sec 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years

Really, it amazes me how fat trailer park idiots think the constitution is gospel, and yet they've clearly never read it.

And in your response to him you continue to talk of the Constitution.

By him you mean me? Is it, or is it not, a legally established and accepted principle, both in civilised countries and the one where you live, that minors clearly do not have the same rights as adults, irrespective of where it's written?

The answer is yes. Kids have less rights than adults. They also have less responsibilities. Think that's unfair? Call a waaaaghmbulance, fatty.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hognoxious]

"Men" was, and still is, used to refer to the species as a whole.

Bullshit. At the time it was written, it meant adult males. White ones.

If it didn't, then please provide contemporary evidence of how many women and blacks voted for the first four US presidents.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Cowpat]

what I despair at is that fact that the ECHR gave them a round drubbing, and told them to scrub the database, and within 24 hours some government talking-head was on the airwaves saying that they weren't going to do it.
Not only do the people of this country continue to have their rights violated, but the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the government's inevitable fine from the court.

They did it when they were told that they had to let prisoners vote as well.

Personally, I reckon the Human Rights Act was just a cunning ploy. Now the human rights question is tested in the British courts, they find in favour of the government, the ECHR rules against the government, the government gains some legitimacy in ignoring the ECHR because there was been judgements on the case in the highest court in the UK (the Law Lords) which gave a contrary result.
In the past, people had to go to the hassle of going straight to Europe, but at least the government had no leg to stand on for disputing the ECHR's judgement.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Zenaku]

No, being deliberately insulting is a troll, which is why you were moderated that way. I pointed out that his argument was not valid, since some principles stated in the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with what rights the Constitution grants, and pointed out that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to rule on the issue, which is has.

I was backing up your point, for crying out loud. But you're comment was still trollish. I will now stop feeding you.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Tenebrousedge]

Yes, it's ambiguous. That would be the point. You are deciding on what the text means, and then dismissing other interpretations as being mere opinion. This is hypocritical, regardless of whether or not your interpretation of the text is accurate.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[mdwh2]

I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory.

Even if it requires parental permission, it's still mandatory for the kids. The kids haven't consented to it. Kids grow up to be adults, and some of them may not want their fingerprints to have been taken.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Ortega-Starfire]

That would be the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

It should be noted that the Declaration is not considered a legal document within the USA, for obvious reasons (reasons obvious to a government entity that does not want states declaring independence anymore, at least).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Fear the Clam]

This reference is over 20 years old, but at that time only New York state required footprinting for newborns.

And that's why I had to lean how to shoot people holding a gun in my hand.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

and that their information will be treated with care by beautiful and smart people

Damn those information abusing, uncaring stupid ugly people! :P

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, a black woman has been "missing" for three years. I think the police have pretty much put it on the back burner, and the local newspaper does something about it every now and again. My bet is that her husband killer her and the body is long gone, but the police either can't get enough evidence, or the husband is friends with a cop.

If she were white, blonde, blue-eyed, and upper-middle class, the police would have an entire squad on it, and it would be permanent front-page news.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[paulgrant]

>Never, never, never, never confuse following that law with doing what's right.

AMEN BROTHER!

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[painehope]

While I agree in principle (strongly, I might add), unless you are willing to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights to their fullest (meaning you draw the line at your person and at your property line), you're pretty much fucked until you and I are not the only ones willing to do this.

Which brings up the fundamental question that this country was allegedly founded upon - are you willing to die for your freedom?

Once you are disarmed, alone, or in the open, the police will get you. If the locals can't stop you, then they'll bring in a SWAT team. From there it only escalates. But I can tell you (from living in Harris County, TX - that's right, they execute people all the time here, and that's if they live to see a trial; I can't recall the exact details, but recently the cops here shot a man, on his property, who was unarmed, after family members warned the police that he was mentally unstable but unarmed, 14 or 15 times in the back) that police can and will kill you with little or no justification, with almost no repercussions.

I won't get into the details, but I've been in quite a few incidents with the police. They're thugs with guns and badges, no more. And if you think you can stop them from taking a DNA sample once you're in custody any more than you can stop them from fingerprinting you, you're dead wrong. They'll get it if they have to beat you unconscious to do it, or manipulate other prisoners into doing it for them.

Ask anyone who's been in Harris County Jail about "elevator rides" (a cuffed prisoner gets in an elevator with 3-4 sheriffs, comes out the elevator ready for the infirmary...of course, they generally strip you and leave you bleeding in a cold concrete cell for a few hours first). Or how the sheriffs manipulate prisoners against each other ("no one moves until this asshole does such-and-such" - yeah, try having anywhere from 30 to 200 people, some of which are headed straight to prison for a long fucking time, others who are just getting released, pissed off at you in an unsupervised cell...you'll wake up in a puddle of blood by the toilet and no one will have seen a damn thing) or play petty power trips on you (I've sat in an over-populated cell for over 18 hours with no food, 3 days after my bond was posted, one door and a staircase away from the free world, watching everyone else come in and then be released, just because one sheriff thought I sounded off too loud when he called my name...nothing like sitting through two shift changes because of one asshole who is accountable to no one; even worse if a judge decides that you're not eligible for bond just because he doesn't like you...I spent two weeks floating from holding tank to holding tank, never hit a quad and got a mattress or a proper meal, because it took so many trips to court to get a bond set that the grand jury threw the case out by the time I had one).

So, my friend, until you are willing to wash away blood with blood, and so are a whole lot of other people (who currently would rather watch "reality" TV and eat Doritos) get seriously pissed and actually do something, then your fingerprints, mugshots, and DNA they shall have. Regardless of whether you're innocent or not.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[painehope]

Never, never, never, never confuse following that law with doing what's right.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself (actually I think I have said almost the same thing many times, but no one appears to be listening).

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[HungryHobo]

De Patie was killed in March 2005 while trying to stop a fleeing motorist from stealing $12 worth of gas from a service station in Maple Ridge, B.C. He was struck and dragged to his death.

A report by WorkSafeBC said the station wasn't enforcing its policy requiring attendants to remain inside at night.

De Patie's parents, Doug and Corinne, said they're confident the new regulation will help prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Seems pretty damn retarded to me.
How many similar tragedies have there been in the past? 1? 2? most aren't stupid enough to die for 12 bucks.

Making it illegal for employers to subtract money from employees paychecks for merchandise stolen by customers perhaps would have been a sensible solution.
Some fool gets himself killed over 12 dollars and suddenly it needs a special law.
This is utterly utterly useless.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[HungryHobo]

"this law makes them feel much safer and secure in their workplace"

I don't know about where you live but here gas station attendants are not expected to risk their lives to stop theft.
The norm for all night gas stations here is that the clerk stays inside with thick glass and one of those trays which slide to pass cash and merchandise back and forth between them and the customer.
If someone steals gas then it's a matter of getting their plates from the security camera.

Are people expected to try to stop robbers where you live???

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Hognoxious]

And fuck YOU too.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[russotto]

I personally know gas station attendants and they say that this law makes them feel much safer and secure in their workplace. The only people that seem to be at a disadvantage (other than gas and go committers) are companies paying for upgrades and drivers changing their habits.

Hundreds of thousands of drivers are inconvenienced and hundreds of stations are made to pay for upgrades, so a few hundred gas station attendants can "feel" safer, all thanks to one incident which could have been resolved by the station in question following its own policy about the attendant staying in the booth.

What next, making restaurant patrons pre-pay for their meals so no employee is hurt if they get in the way of a dine-and-dash?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[nbauman]

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org]

Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.

Hold on. These laws save infants from death and mental retardation. These DNA tests are useless for police or identification purposes. The same information will go into their medical records (or their death certificate) anyway. I think they're a good policy.

If an infant has one of those diseases, and it isn't treated, the infant will die, and if it isn't treated quickly, the infant will wind up with mental retardation and other serious damage.

These tests don't identify the same DNA sequences that are used in criminal databases, and they can't be used to identify people. If an infant does have one of those diseases, that fact eventually goes into their medical record when the parents bring their (dying) child to the pediatrician or emergency room.

It's politically expedient to give parental exceptions to the laws, because anti-testing and anti-vaccination lobbys have enough political power to be obstructive, and only a few children die as a result. But why would a new parent want to risk having their child die of a preventable disease?

What's wrong with the tests?

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[supernova_hq]

Gas-and-goes are VERY different from dine-and-dashes. With a dine-and-dash, there is normally an entire restaurant full of people. The only exception being possibly fast food (where you DO pay ahead of time). With a gas-and-go, it usually happens at night, when there is no-one else around.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[supernova_hq]

It IS illegal for employees to do that. The problem is that not everyone is as non-chalant as you and feel the need to do something when someone tries to break the law

And just because employers can't do something doesn't mean they will. Retail and fast food places constantly expect employees to work overtime with no pay, and unless an employee complains, nothing happens. On the other hand, things like paying before you gas up are noticed by every person that shops there, so finding and prosecuting the bad employers is much easier.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[supernova_hq]

It IS illegal for employees to pass theft charges to employees (they are a business expense). The problem is that not everyone is as non-chalant as you and feel the need to do something when someone tries to break the law

And just because employers can't do something doesn't mean they will. Retail and fast food places constantly expect employees to work overtime with no pay, and unless an employee complains, nothing happens. On the other hand, things like paying before you gas up are noticed by every person that shops there, so finding and prosecuting the bad employers is much easier.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[lord sibn]

While I agree with you completely, I would argue that this is actually a legal feature, not a bug.

Of course, you can very well end up with the conditions the original law wanted to impose. -OR- you might not. If there are some useful things in very bad laws (as is often the case), we can, as a society, try implementing these features piecemeal and see how they work out before making them all mandatory.

Although again, I do agree wholly, and I do not think this idea has any redeeming qualities whatever. Especially since it is essentially a "foot in the door," and from there is likely to only get worse.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[makomk]

I think something similar was happening in the UK. You know what the Government did? They retrospectively legalised it, allowing the police to keep indefinitely the DNA of individuals who have never been charged with anything. As a result, over 7% of the UK population are now on the DNA register.

The justification the Government gave? If they stopped the police from doing it, it'd result in criminals getting away. They accompanied it with dubious claims, based on really bad statistics, that if the police hadn't had this ability, (some number) of rapists and murderers would've escaped justice.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[isaac]

These tests don't identify the same DNA sequences that are used in criminal databases, and they can't be used to identify people. If an infant does have one of those diseases, that fact eventually goes into their medical record when the parents bring their (dying) child to the pediatrician or emergency room.

Of course it's not the tests for diseases that are at issue - it's the retention of the blood specimens obtained to perform these tests.

Retention policies vary by state - in Washington State, the policy is to retain specimens until age 21, though as far as I know there's no way to verify destruction of the samples (it's not as though they're returned to the parents, for example.) See http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehsphl/PHL/Newborn/privacy.htm.

When I had my child in Washington, I had the tests performed - but subsequently contacted WA DOH to have the sample destroyed pursuant to WAC 246-650-050.

-Isaac

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[CharlieKotan]

Too bad this post got crushed by the Mod Squad.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[painehope]

I found it humorous that both my posts were modded "Interesting" or "Informative", and then "Troll". Nothing but providing an opinion, backed by real world experience.

Probably the same dickhead that didn't like what I had to say. Oh well...he'll get his in the end and it will probably be in county jail, while he's yelling "you can't do this, I have rights!".

evil chuckle...

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[Mr. Firewall]

It's an ideal (and the law!).

It is NOT the law. The Law is whatever the Courts say it is, and the Courts have been very clear on this one.

Now, you can disagree with the Courts (as I do), but it's still The Law -- and at this point in time minors do NOT have the same Constitutional rights as adults. It has been discussed by people far more learned than you, and decided. Just get over it, OK?

End of discussion.

Re:There's no way they'll abuse this

[sexconker]

Judge Dredd much?
The law is not what the courts say.
The courts have the power to interpret.

Doesn't make them right.

If the supreme court rules that a tomato is a vegetable (and they did!), it doesn't make it so.

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[hattig]

"Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned."

This is not what happens in the UK.

So far it takes a lot of pressure to get entries deleted once you are on there, and you don't even need to be arrested to be on there.

The European Courts have said that this is not right and that they should remove entries that don't pertain to criminals, but I don't think there is any rush.

Too much "think of the children" and "think of the raped woman" going on for privacy and human rights to get a look in.

Even if they did, we all know these databases are hives of incorrect data anyway.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[auric_dude]

What happens in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_National_DNA_Database

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Changa_MC]

I find saying "think of the women and children" is inefficient when "think of the subhumans" covers the same people without having to list as many groups.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Duradin]

I would have considered women and children as uberhuman since they always get a special listing and treatment.

If you have a headline of "200 killed in the attack" you know that no one important enough mention specifically was killed, that only adult males were killed. If you have "200 killed in the attack, including one woman and two children" you know there were three people important enough to actually mention as people, the woman and two children while once again the 197 adult males don't even get to qualify as human.

Then you have the rights of the subhumans (adult males) being continually trampled in favor of the uberhumans (women and children).

To paraphrase Stalin, killing a woman or child is a tragedy, killing men is a statistic.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

"think of the raped woman"

fap fap fap

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[shutdown -p now]

The reason why we value women' and children' lives above those of adult human males are instinctive and should be obvious to any reasonable human being. Women are valuable because they are less replaceable - a man can easily substitute for another man for purposes of reproduction (though genetic diversity is still lost), but you need women to carry the babies. Children are important because they didn't have a chance to reproduce yet, and so a death of a child represents a unique, and possibly beneficious, mix of genes forever lost for the species. Adult males are likely to have reproduced already, which is why it is less of a concern there.

I'm an adult male, and I don't see any problems with the anything of the above. It's really all basic ethology.

And yes, if it comes to a classic "sinking ship" situation, and you'll try to claim your place on the lifeboat at the expense of a woman or a child, I will do my best to prevent you from doing so, using violence if needed.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

Women aren't going to save the children from the wolves and bears where they get beached. Men can. I can. Ditch the bitches I say. The kids will grow up sooner or later...

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Duradin]

Fortunately for me, civilization has moved past the point where the survival of reproductive females determines the survival of the clan/tribe/community/city-state.

For the society, losing an adult male, who is a productive member, is a bigger blow than losing a child, which is nothing more than a consumer and hasn't yet had massive amounts of resources sunk into training and professional experience. Lose a kid, you wait nine months and you've got a replacement. Lose a doctor and you're out more than just time.

Also, if you're bringing genetics and animal behavior into it I'd advise you to watch the documentary Idiocracy.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, if it comes to a classic "sinking ship" situation, and you'll try to claim your place on the lifeboat at the expense of a woman or a child, I will do my best to prevent you from doing so, using violence if needed.

Well, yes, it is my place as you say. Are you going to come on the lifeboat to drag me back to the ship? Good luck. I squirm a lot more than a baby. Knock me into the frigid water without a summary on the spot execuation as a murderer? Think not. What you know and understand as morality is indeed nothing of the sort. Something given has value. Something stolen... not so much.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[dbIII]

You are reading far more into it than exists IMHO. If a tragedy involves women and children the story is seen as rarer and more interesting, it sells newspapers. If a lot of men die it's just seen as another hohum day of war despite the fact that it is still a tragedy. The everyday nature of it cheapens the story and people are not as interested.

I suggest getting out more, rejection happens but women certainly do not have disproportionate power in western societies, some observation will show that the opposite is the case. The rhetoric of the political opportunist is "think of the children" with some attempts to stir up parental feelings but society as a whole does not run that way. Look at how single mothers are treated in your society for an example of what people really think of women and children. An amusing t-shirt that sums it up well had a silhouette of a pole dancer with the caption "I support single mothers".

Interesting argument of the worth of people which I don't see how we can measure but it's not really relevant - I don't think western societies actually care more about women and children.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

In a classic sinking ship situation, you will claim your place on a life boat at the expense of a woman or child. You will do what is necessary to survive.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

And if your wife tries to have an abortion, I will do my best to prevent her from doing so, using violence if needed.
(After all, the life of a child is worth more than the life of a woman, because "the death of a child represents a unique, and possibly beneficious [sic], mix of genes forever lost for the species")

How about this one:

If it comes to a classic "sinking ship" situation and you try to claim your place on the lifeboat at the expense of a rich person, I will do my best to prevent you from doing so using violence if necessary.
(After all, the rich obviously contribute more to society than the poor as evidenced by their wealth. Therefore the loss of a rich man is much more a blow to society than the loss of a poor man)

This sure is fun!

If it comes to a classic "sinking ship" situation and a gay person tries to claim a place on the lifeboat at the expense of a straight person, I will do my best to prevent him from doing so using violence if necessary.
(after all gay people contribute little to the gene pool!)

Just wondering, are you going to use violence if a lesbian tries to get on your lifeboat?

Or how about this, your boat is sinking and you've got only women and children on it besides yourself. another boat is floating past full of men with no more room. Do you "use violence if needed" to kick the men off the boat to make room for the women and children?

One final question, are little old ladies allowed on your imaginary lifeboat or are you going to kick their asses too?

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[MutantEnemy]

Women are valuable because they are less replaceable [...] you need women to carry the babies.

Ridiculous. The human race currently has over 6 billion members. It's not some endangered species where females of breeding age are to be preserved above everything else. If a man and a women of equal age have to choose between them who gets rescued, they should flip a coin.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck You.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

You not only got Stalin's quote wrong, but you missed the intent of what he was saying. You might be doing this intentionally to try and bolster your point, but it is still wrong.

The actual quote is "The death of one is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic."

The point he was trying to make was that people's compassion and grief has its limits. People can cry and make a big deal when just a few people die, because it is easier to relate with. When that number reaches heights such as the holocaust (~11 million) people no long can relate the comparable empathy for all the millions killed. Emotionally feeling for the death of 1 person is not scalable to 11 million. People brush it off and it just becomes a number.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yes, if it comes to a classic "sinking ship" situation, and you'll try to claim your place on the lifeboat at the expense of a woman or a child, I will do my best to prevent you from doing so, using violence if needed."

Sounds like you need to jerk off more, and get rid of some of those macho fantasies, boy.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, infertility makes you disposable.

And gay people shouldn't be allowed on lifeboats.

Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah man white middle class man and proud of it! rage on.

dumbshoe.

The slippery slope

[Kuroji]

What happened to only getting DNA evidence from felons? This seems insane, there's no reason at all that someone ACCUSED of a misdemeanor crime should have to submit (and, most likely, pay for!) DNA samples unless it was important to the court case. If this goes through, I can only wonder what they'll be asking for next. Getting DNA from children to put into a database, like they've done with fingerprints in some places?

Re:The slippery slope

[Yvanhoe]

Don't get so uppity, in France the proposal included to take DNA samples even of all witnesses involved in a case.

Re:The slippery slope

[zappepcs]

Yes, and that database amounts to illegal search of the populace for every crime when they use a database to find a match to some DNA found at a crime scene. The same goes for finger prints.

There are arguments both ways, but in the end having a database of identifying information on huge portions of the citizenry is the same as stores checking your bag when you leave: you are guilty until proven innocent by way of not matching the evidence. This goes against the intent of the law.

This is not a slippery slope, it's a roller coaster drop off .... but I'm not sure there is a smooth curved set of rails to stop the impending crash.

Re:The slippery slope

[MozeeToby]

At first I had the same reaction that many slashdotters probably had: This is way overstepping, you are assigning a penalty to even being accused of a crime (the penalty being an invasion of privacy and a chance of being falsely accused of a crime later).

Then I thought about the fact that people are fingerprinted upon arrest, and have been for decades. When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA. If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

Finally, I thought about statistics. We always here in cases how the DNA evidence shows a 99.9% chance that the person is the guilty party. The problem is when you have a few million entries in the database, 99.9% isn't all that good. You could easily end up with a half dozen people fitting the DNA evidence in a large city. DNA analysis should be the end of a good investigation, not the starting off point.

Re:The slippery slope

[meist3r]

Welcome to the New World Order ... where security means everyone's a suspect and constant supervision is the only way to achieve true freedom. Way to go.

The Terrorists have already won. Being terrorized means losing to terror, suspecting everyone and subjecting them to criminal prosecution no matter what they did ... that's paranoia and being terrified right there. Terrorists Win. Let Osama bin Laden slip ... we don't need him anymore to errect our own Panopticon of terror.

Pardon ... Highly Secure Freedom Detention Center.

Re:The slippery slope

[SirGeek]

What happened to only getting DNA evidence from felons? This seems insane, there's no reason at all that someone ACCUSED of a misdemeanor crime should have to submit (and, most likely, pay for!) DNA samples unless it was important to the court case. If this goes through, I can only wonder what they'll be asking for next. Getting DNA from children to put into a database, like they've done with fingerprints in some places?

Next it will be, "I'm sorry, I believe you were speeding. Please give me a blood, urine, hair and DNA sample."

Re:The slippery slope

[Hatta]

If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

I disagree with both. I don't see how compelling someone to give you their DNA, or their fingerprints can be anything other than forcing them to testify against themselves.

Re:The slippery slope

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If using DNA can reduce the number of suspects to a half dozen, it's much more advantageous to use it at the outset to focus the investigation on a few matching people. Why would you waste time investigating a crime when you can isolate the suspects up front?

Re:The slippery slope

[Duradin]

I think there's some quote by some dead guy that goes on about essential liberties and temporary safety that might answer your question.

Re:The slippery slope

[brouski]

Going with the "checking the bags when you leave" analogy, it's not the fact that the bags are being checked that annoys me, it's the act of having to queue at this final gatekeeper and wait for their OK before I can walk past.

If the stores could transparently scan these bags as I walk out with RFID tags or some such, inconvenience is gone and so are my complaints.

I don't think the act of merely having the database is the same as rifling through your stuff when you walk out the door

Re:The slippery slope

[Mr. Slippery]

When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA.

Of course there is - DNA collection involves the government taking a piece of my living flesh. That's a rather bright line for them to try to cross.

Then there's the problem that DNA isn't so reliable after all - but then, neither are fingerprints.

Re:The slippery slope

[gnick]

If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

I think that's taking it a little far. There are sometimes very good reasons to take prints/DNA. If you're accused of a crime and you claim that you've never been to the scene, prints or DNA could potentially (in)validate your story and effect your conviction/release.

However, if you're caught shoplifting or even if you're accused of something more serious and admit your guilt openly, I see no reason why either should need to be taken.

Re:The slippery slope

[meleespamingzombies]

Then I thought about the fact that people are fingerprinted upon arrest, and have been for decades. When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA. If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

Except DNA gives evidence about your entire bloodline. So DNA evidence from my brother could be used against me, even though I have never been introduced to the system.

Re:The slippery slope

[oneTheory]

Laws must be evaluated not primarily on the basis of what good they attempt to do but on the possible abuses they would allow. Just off the top of my head for this law: It's a lot easier to frame someone by putting some DNA evidence of them (i.e. a few strands of hair) at a crime scene than lifting their fingerprints and convincingly planting them.

Now I'm no lawyer, but the thing about the cases mentioned in this article is that you can still get DNA from ANYONE you want with a court ordered search warrant. And I'd think that would be pretty easy if someone is arrested under suspicion of rape, burglary, etc.

The problem with the current system is you have to go fill out paperwork, talk to a judge, all that WORK that apparently our police and detectives don't feel like doing. The current system allows for collecting DNA in a responsible fashion.

The proponents of this bill as with every bill of this type will bring in tear soaked mothers talking about their children in order to sway you with emotion. They know that your primitive emotional response will trump your intellect basically guaranteeing you make an unreasoned decision. Not cool.

Re:The slippery slope

[Seraphim_72]

I think it is Unreasonable Search for both. That it is easy to do is half of the problem. If anyone walked up to you and said 'Let me examine your hand with this magnifying glass and these chemicals' you would think them insane. My fingerprints and my DNA are my own thank you. They are part of what makes me ME. You have no right to part of me upon accusation. Conviction maybe, but not upon accusation.

Re:The slippery slope

[philspear]

Also, when have government agencies ever restrained themselves in favor of privacy among citizens? The government in 1936 said that social security numbers were never supposed to be used for identification*...

Oops.

(* http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm not a good source, so take it with a grain of salt, could be an urban myth)

We also had a few constitutional provisions that seem to say you can't spy on innocent civilians. Hard to believe now I know. And of course the FBI wildly overstepped it's bounds from day one.

We really need to start drilling "Protecting public privacy is the most important thing for your job" into the heads of law enforcement types for a few generations, and making sure it sticks, before we start tearing down what few barriers they respect. Otherwise we may as well cut to the chase and put RFID chips under our skin.

Re:The slippery slope

[mbruns]

Then I thought about the fact that people are fingerprinted upon arrest, and have been for decades. When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA. If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

You're right, authorities initially said fingerprints would only be kept for those convicted of a crime. How did that work out?

Re:The slippery slope

[abbyful]

I agree.

USA is supposed to be a free country. Why then is the government wanting to treat citizens like criminals?

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

It's never really discussed how self-contradictory that actual quote is. You see, Ben Franklin was using irony to get a laugh. It's not some deep political or philosophical statement, any more than "Fart proudly" is.

Re:The slippery slope

[zappepcs]

History has shown us that if there is a database to check the fingerprints or DNA against for a match, it will be done. This is the same thing as getting all those people to donate their DNA and fingerprints for every crime that is committed. Another way, all the people in the database are assumed to be guilty until their DNA/fingerprints are shown to not match those found at the crime scene.

How long before a crime is committed where DNA is planted? How will law enforcement teams solve a crime when the only DNA found is that of the governor; who happens to have a solid alibi? Will they keep searching the database looking for someone that is a close match, or simply decide it was planted evidence?

The database is worse than rifling through bags. The bag checker doesn't know who you are. The database does. The bag checker is assuming your guilty and only letting you go when you are proven innocent. The database is the same thing as police coming to your door 14 times a month to collect your DNA for use in solving a crime. Bio-identification is not secure, it is not foolproof, and it necessarily makes you guilty until proven innocent if the police have it in their database.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the tangent but for those who don't know, you don't have to show your receipt to those guys at the door. When I go to Fry's I walk right past the line and when they ask for my receipt I just say "no" and keep walking. They can't and won't stop you. This is because if they lay a hand on you they can be charged with assault. I know this because I work in a grocery store and we see people walk right out the door with cartloads of liquor every day. It's been made very clear that we will be fired if we stop them. I'm sure the rules are different if a cop stops a shoplifter, though.

Re:The slippery slope

[oneTheory]

Because too many of us have demonstrated a willingness to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.

And as we deserve, we are getting neither liberty nor safety.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because trying to investigate a potential 10000 people makes a lot more sense than initially narrowing your search down to a dozen. It may well be true that these dozen don't fit, and THEN it would make sense to expend the dozens/hundreds of man-hours to eliminate the thousands of potential suspects.

But no, no... it makes significantly more sense to immediately ignore DNA evidence until you've spent months searching other dead-ends on thousands of people.

Re:The slippery slope

[oneTheory]

Ok, then let's discuss it. I've never seen it explained how that is self-contradictory so if you have knowledge to share, please share.

Re:The slippery slope

[mcgrew]

I don't think the act of merely having the database is the same as rifling through your stuff when you walk out the door

Your DNA is your stuff.

Re:The slippery slope

[Sancho]

If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned.

1) It's easier to plant DNA evidence than it is to plant fingerprints (though it's easier to recreate a fingerprint from a sample than it is to recreate DNA.)

2) DNA gets leaked everywhere. A hair falls out? Some skin cells scrape off? Urine or feces in the toilet? Not only are samples of your DNA everywhere, but this means that thousands of people could be implicated at a crime scene.

3) Because of (2) above, this technology can be used to track anyone in the database. That said, we may not know the path they've taken (unless we're eventually able to date DNA samples in a similar manner to radioactive dating.)

4) (the biggie) DNA is known to change during one's lifetime. For example: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090116/hl_afp/healthaustraliageneticssugar;_ylt=At8juaZrV2AoHEmOvom1Hj4PLBIF Right now, we just don't know enough about it to guarantee a high accuracy.

Finally, I thought about statistics. We always here in cases how the DNA evidence shows a 99.9% chance that the person is the guilty party.

The fact that people think like this is a huge problem. Neither DNA nor fingerprints prove guilt. For non-rape cases, at best, they prove that a person was at the scene at some point in their lives. In rape cases, they can prove that the person was party to intercourse, but not whether or not it was consensual.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you won't mind the cameras watching you in the house. There is no waiting. But at least you are safe.

Re:The slippery slope

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the difference is that DNA is a recording of all the code used to make a person, it's not just a means of identification. I'm not saying that the state is going to use it to make clones, but I wonder what else they're going to try to use the information for.

But I suppose I should be against just fingerprinting all arrestees unless convicted or it needs to be campared against evidence that exists, rather than taking it "just in case". The intent of many of our laws is to try to minimize the number of innocent people being treated as criminals.

Re:The slippery slope

[Hijacked Public]

How about if you'd like a license to carry a handgun?

More states than not will print you for one.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

You bring up the topic of having to pay for this.

That's an attack vector. Use it.

Patent/copyright/trademark your DNA now (whatever IP laws you can get away with slapping on there, go for it).

When it comes time for them to index your DNA, comply, but send them a HORRENDOUSLY overpriced (think 9-10 figures here) invoice for your intellectual property. If they pay, you win. If they refuse to pay, you sue them, then you win. Be sure to get companies that have a vested interest in IP laws on your side to fight your battles for you via lobbyists and legal support. Hey, it's their ass too if IP laws get struck down.

And after all is said and done, there are a few outcomes.

1) You're a fuckton richer at the government's expense, and the government's accounting offices are licking their wounds and remembering not to fight that fight again. You win.

2) The court finds the DNA law illegal/unconstitutional/absurd/whatever and throws it out, releasing you from your "duty" to give a sample for "safe keeping". You win.

3) The court finds the IP laws used to protect your DNA illegal/unconstitutional/absurd/whatever and throws it out, weakening the major media contributors' influence in government and causing them to very likely air some dirty laundry that the DNA collectors would rather keep quiet. Turning media against the government causes more attention on civil liberties issues and may even cause the DNA laws to go away. You win.

4) "They" "disappear" you. I'd like to think this is unlikely, but honestly, it's not out of the realm of possibility. You lose.

Re:The slippery slope

[Walkingshark]

Well, most likely they'd do it by cheek swab, so not exactly as dramatic as your "take a piece of my living flesh" makes it out to be. And honestly, they could always scrape a few dead skin cells, thus protecting your precious "living flesh."

Re:The slippery slope

[kalirion]

I don't think the act of merely having the database is the same as rifling through your stuff when you walk out the door

You're right, it's more like them giving you a cavity search.

Re:The slippery slope

[DerekLyons]

If the stores could transparently scan these bags as I walk out with RFID tags or some such, inconvenience is gone and so are my complaints.

If the technology existed to reasonably do so, and the stores simply weren't implementing it. You'd have a reason to complain.
 
The technology doesn't so exist.

Re:The slippery slope

[FrozenFOXX]

If using DNA can reduce the number of suspects to a half dozen, it's much more advantageous to use it at the outset to focus the investigation on a few matching people. Why would you waste time investigating a crime when you can isolate the suspects up front?

I'd imagine because of false positives and the rate of that. As has been discussed numerous times here, if it's only a one in a thousand rate after you have a few million people you start getting a lot of false positives. Chances are good there's also a false negative rate.

So, why would I "waste time" actually doing investigation? Most likely because that's more reliable. The crime scene, surrounding circumstances, and all other evidence will fit together a much better picture of what happened than simply starting at something I know for a fact stands a good chance of sending me on a wild goose chase.

Call me nuts but I'd rather police actually bother doing tried-and-true work that (hopefully) gets pretty good results rather than doing something they know for certain is going to screw up at a certain rate.

Re:The slippery slope

[necro81]

When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA.

Yes, there is a huge difference between fingerprints and DNA.

Fingerprints tell you nothing about a person other than what strange wavy patterns happen to be on their fingertips. Whatever palm-readers might say, fingerprints don't give insight into the person they belong to. DNA, on the other hand, can tell you nearly infinite amounts about a person: sex, ethnicity, eye color, whether they are prone to depression, schizophrenia, cancer, violent tendencies, etc. And whereas fingerprints are not hereditary (your fingerprints have essentially no correlation to your parents' or siblings'), DNA is all about inheritance.

The potential for abuse here is incalculably greater than with fingerprints. Haven't you seen Gattaca ? How much would a genocidal dictator love to have such a DNA database? He'd be able to figure out exactly who belongs to the race/ethnicity/tribe you despise most. Hitler is the prime example, but there are any number of other, more recent, genocides that it could apply to. One needn't go to the extreme of genocide to start getting the willies about the government having such comprehensive information about its people. And that's just what is available with what we know about DNA today - who can say what will be possible in a generation?

Re:The slippery slope

[mcgrew]

We always here in cases how the DNA evidence shows a 99.9% chance that the person is the guilty party

One of the books my daughter bought me for Christmas is titled 100 things you're not supposed to know. One of them is that DNA isn't anywhere near that good.

It cited a study of testing labs where DNA was submitted to labs used by law enforcement, supposedly for rape. The DNA was actually from volunteers. There was almost a 50% rate of false positives, the lab getting samples mixed up, samples getting mixed together, some times they got the "victim's" and "suspect's" DNA confused.

Re:The slippery slope

[Aphoxema]

MY DEAD FLESH IS MY OWN! Wherever I go, I'm constantly sweeping and vacuuming up my natural debris! I got so tired of all the work now I just wear a wetsuit all the time. It's worth the wrinkly skin and the strange looks I get all the time. I'll kill that grocery bagger if he calls me Scuba Steve one more time... and then no one will know it's me because I KNOW HOW TO COVER MY TRACKS! AHHAHAHAH! No one will know, I, John Doe, was behind it all along!

Re:The slippery slope

[spire3661]

YOur DNA is a compelte record of YOU. A fingerprint is a simple pattern impression. You can garner TRUCKLOADS of data about who you are by your DNA. Not the same at all, not even close.

Re:The slippery slope

[furby076]

Another way, all the people in the database are assumed to be guilty until their DNA/fingerprints are shown to not match those found at the crime scene.

ORLY? Let's say there are 10 million people in the database. So they are all guilty until proven innocent? Can you see the subpeona list? More likely they take the DNA found and cross-reference it with the DB. Then when it is matched they have grounds to subpeona the person and haul the person in for questioning (with a lawyer if he asks for it) and court. Then it is up to a court-of-law to decide if you are guilty. This is no different then finger print DBs which have been in place for MANY years.

As for your corruption claim - sure this can hapepn. It can also happen with finger printing. That doesn't make this new crime-fighting tool bad it just means that we need to regulate it in a way so it is tamper-proof. So, for example, once they collect your DNA they cannot look for your DNA by typing your name in. They have to put the sample DNA found at the crime scene and it searches the records. If there is a match then it pops the persons name up. Utilize a read only database/archive structure. There are such devices that are read-only by nature. And obviously - as always - put in dual saftey controls.

Re:The slippery slope

[AK Marc]

in the end having a database of identifying information on huge portions of the citizenry is the same as stores checking your bag when you leave:

Asking to look in your bags in Sams or Costco or such is legal. You've signed an agreement to let them do it. At Wal-Mart, you can walk right past them. If they tell you that you must stop (under implied threat of violence) then they've committed kidnapping. If you continue walking and they restrain you by touching you, then they've committed assault and kidnapping. Though, depending on local laws, there are other crimes rather than "kidnapping" that they could be charged with. But in no circumstances is a random store allowed to stop you on the way out to check your bags, your receipt, or anything else. Just keep walking, and if there's trouble, call the cops and they will be the ones going to jail.

The DNA thing is giving up a huge portion of freedom for ease of police work. And with shows like CSI being so popular, a misplaced strand of DNA (planted, innocently dropped, or such) found at a crime scene is much more likely to end in a conviction. The juries try to think like the show "follow the evidence" and ignore things like an alibi or motive, or the possibility of lab error or innocent DNA deposits. My DNA is everywhere I've been. Most likely it won't be collected, but who's to say that a convenience store robbery/murder won't be at a place I shopped and they find a hair of mine? Even worse, what if I went in to use the bathroom or ask directions, so without proof I bought something, they can say I was there casing the joint or it could only have gotten there if I was the robber?

Re:The slippery slope

[91degrees]

You can't get that information from a DNA fingerprint!

And if you want that information, it's quite readily available anyway.

Re:The slippery slope

[Rary]

First, just a note about stores that check your bags as you leave -- I personally refuse to shop at any store that automatically assumes that I've robbed them until I can prove otherwise. It boggles my mind that consumers let companies get away with this. Out of curiosity, what happens if you refuse to show your bags and insist on leaving? Assuming you're not stealing anything, you haven't committed a crime, so they can't really do anything. If they prevent you from leaving, wouldn't that be forcible confinement or something? What will they do, call the police, in which case you can probably have them charged?

Anyway, I wonder if this shouldn't fall under the realm of Miranda rights. I mean, upon being arrested, you have the right to remain silent -- essentially, the right not to give up any information. Well, your DNA is information. It should fall under that same right. The police should have to ask you for a DNA sample, and after being informed of exactly how it will be collected, stored, and used, you should have the right to allow or disallow that collection.

Re:The slippery slope

[91degrees]

Then I thought about the fact that people are fingerprinted upon arrest, and have been for decades. When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA. If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.

Quite true. Fingerprints shouldn't be taken unless there are fingerprints at the crime scene. If you're innocent they should be destroyed. It's a matter of presumption of innocence.

The problem is when you have a few million entries in the database, 99.9% isn't all that good.

It depends what that 99.9% actually means. If it means that there is a 0.1% chance that my DNA matches with an arbitrary other DNA sample, then you don't need millions. In a database of 1000 there will be, on average, 1 person with a match to my DNA. In a sample of 14 people, there is a 10% chance that two people will match each other's DNA. The birthday paradox makes these high probabilities worthless.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's necessary for the investigation of a crime, a warrant can be obtained to take the sample. Otherwise, why do it automatically unless its to engage in a fishing expedition?

Re:The slippery slope

[Menkhaf]

Well, that one is easy. Kill you brother and be done with it!

Re:The slippery slope

[SpecBear]

The CompUSA near my office went out of business too quickly for me to execute this plan, but perhaps someone else can try it at a store that that's either going under or that you never ever want to return to:

1. Buy several live snakes.
2. Place snakes in backpack.
3. Go to store, eagerly await the search upon exit.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

the same as stores checking your bag when you leave: you are guilty until proven innocent by way of not matching the evidence. This goes against the intent of the law.

What are you talking about? Once you pay, you can leave. You can tell the security guy, "I've paid." and walk out. It's not just the intent of the law, it's the actual law. I don't mind letting them check if they don't slow me down, but if they're goofing off or checking someone else, I'm not waiting. I've walked by dozens of times and they don't even seem to care.

Re:The slippery slope

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If the stores could transparently scan these bags as I walk out with RFID tags or some such, inconvenience is gone and so are my complaints.

You can just walk past the line and let them work on the RFID thing on their own time.

Re:The slippery slope

[azenpunk]

you don't have to stop and let them look through your bags. assuming you aren't stealing anything you own everything inside your bags and have no legal obligation to let them look inside. the worst they can legally do is ban you from coming back to the store, but they can do that for any reason at all if they want.

at least in california to be arrested or detained by store personnel (citizens arrest) they have to see you take something off of their shelves, keep visual contact to make sure you don't put it back, and then see you make an attempt to leave without paying for it.

in my opinion instead of looking through my stuff they should just not have crap i can buy past the point i've already paid at. anyone familiar with fry's knows what i mean.

and yes, i've done my fair share of dive tackles on shoplifters in the parking lot; the manager said i was totally parallel to the ground.

there is an off chance some of the laws have changed in recent years but i doubt it. although it wouldn't surprise me too much.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse is we may see a return of the mentality that was behind craniometry. In fact this is exactly what is going to happen. Except now, say, they look up your family history and discover that some ancestor was a thief or committed a crime, even if you never have, nor have your parents, it will be put on you. Sounds crazy? hell, many black groups still accuse whites of being slave owners and that we, as a modern generation still have to "pay" for what our ancestors did to their ancestors. There's the sentiment still that all Germans are nazis, it's used jokingly, but it still sticks. even though it's been several generations and most of the original nazis are dead.

Will they start putting you on police watch lists and harass you once they find that you have a less than perfect family history? will you be arrested and treated worse because of it? Yes, you better fucking believe it. That's the even scarier aspect to this.

Re:The slippery slope

[PMuse]

When you come down to it, there really isn't any significant difference between recording fingerprints and recording DNA.

I was fingerprinted for my job long ago. Much as I hate the notion, I can't see any meaningful difference between fingerprinting and DNA collection. A full, population-wide database is coming. It's just a matter of when.

Re:The slippery slope

[skeeto]

it's the act of having to queue at this final gatekeeper and wait for their OK before I can walk past.

As a couple others said, don't even acknowledge the employee at the exit. Just walk out confidently. If they say something, ignore it and keep walking. They don't want to deal with an awkward encounter, so they'll let you go. I do this myself and have not yet had a problem.

Re:The slippery slope

[burroughsj1]

Going with the "checking the bags when you leave" analogy, it's not the fact that the bags are being checked that annoys me, it's the act of having to queue at this final gatekeeper and wait for their OK before I can walk past.

If it really bothers you to wait, then don't. The store employee has no arrest powers, especially given that he has no knowledge that you have committed any crime. They cannot detain you without opening themselves to lawsuits and criminal prosecution. You have every right to put your receipt in your wallet, tie your bag, and head out the door. They can't stop you or force you to show them anything before you can leave. On the other hand, they can tell you not to come back, and have you arrested the moment you step back inside the door. Note that this is not legal advice, and I base this solely upon knowledge of the laws in my own state. Things might be different where you live, but I doubt it.

Re:The slippery slope

[isaac]

What happened to only getting DNA evidence from felons? This seems insane, there's no reason at all that someone ACCUSED of a misdemeanor crime should have to submit (and, most likely, pay for!) DNA samples unless it was important to the court case. If this goes through, I can only wonder what they'll be asking for next. Getting DNA from children to put into a database, like they've done with fingerprints in some places?

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm which is unfortunately from 2002.

So, yes, the state has the DNA of virtually every person born in the US in the last decade (albeit not necessarily in a form usable by law enforcement agencies, say.)

-Isaac

Re:The slippery slope

[shutdown -p now]

History has shown us that if there is a database to check the fingerprints or DNA against for a match, it will be done.

Furthermore, history has also shown that if such a database is technologically feasible, it will be created, with or without your knowledge or consent, either by government, or some commercial entities (which will then happily trade that information). So sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride: your privacy is already long out of the window.

Re:The slippery slope

[DavidTC]

In most states, people can detain people they actually witness committing crimes. It's called 'citizen's arrest'. You can restrain them and call the police.

However, in most stores, the store would not only be legally liable for being sued for false arrest, kidnapping, or assault, if you did that wrongly, but could be sued by you if you were injured while attempting that.

Hence they have specially trained people to do it. People who they have insurance on.

Although this 'special people' comes at a cost. You can only detain people if you witnessed them committing a crime. Not if other people saw it and told you, if you, specifically, in person, witnessed it.

Ergo, the security people can't be told by you that someone is shoplifting and do anything about it except watch the person closely.

It's interesting to note that a lot of actual security guards are now being told not to attempt to detain people, even ones where it's fairly obvious someone is committing a crime. (Like someone wandering around a warehouse at night is obviously trespassing at a minimum, even if they weren't observed breaking and entering.) They have been told just to call the police, simply because the security company doesn't want to pay to insure their actions.

Re:The slippery slope

[zappepcs]

That is true, but I don't have to be happy about it... sigh

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the DNA would point to your brother, not you, since they have your brother's DNA and not yours. A better example would be if they have your brother's DNA and YOU commit some crime. They'd go after your brother.

Re:The slippery slope

[DavidTC]

Asking to look in your bags in Sams or Costco or such is legal. You've signed an agreement to let them do it.

Asking to look in your bags anywhere is legal. I can walk up to random people on the street and ask to look in their bags. (This sounds like a job for the Chaser's War on Everything, wandering up to random people on the street and asking to look in their bags to make sure they aren't stealing things.)

However, no one has to consent. Even at Sams or Costco. Even if you signed a contract to do so. If the store feels you have violated the terms of the contract, they are welcome to notify you that you have done so, and consider the contract canceled. They are even able to sue you for damages if they wish.

But they don't get to look in the bag even if you previously agreed they could. They could sue to look in your bag, I guess. But it doesn't matter until a judge hears a case and decides against you and issues a court order requiring you to show them the contents of your bag.

But in no circumstances is a random store allowed to stop you on the way out to check your bags, your receipt, or anything else.

They aren't allowed to check your bags, but they are allowed, if they witness you committing a crime, to detain you and call the police. Just like anyone else. (And you are allowed to sue them if they're wrong.)

But that's not what stores are doing, of course. And even then they wouldn't be allowed to look in your bags. (It's a 'citizen's arrest', there's no such thing as a 'citizen's search and seizure'.)

Re:The slippery slope

[NiteShaed]

License to carry, hell, Jersey will take your prints for a "Firearms Purchasers" card, used to buy long-guns. I think they take your spleen if you want a carry-permit for a handgun.

Re:The slippery slope

[Walkingshark]

Its good to know I'm not the only one who thought Mark Whalburg was just trying to set a new fashion trend in the end of The Departed.

Re:The slippery slope

[DavidTC]

Exactly. DNA evidence should work the other way around. It should be 'We have a suspect, check and see if his DNA matches any DNA found at the crime scene'.

The only exception should be when the DNA clearly and unequivocally came from the criminal, like semen from a rapist or blood from a fight. Then, and only then, should be able to run it through a search of all collected DNA.

Until there are rules keeping police from picking up a hair near a murder victim, and running through the entire DNA database, to come up with someone who lives nearby, has no alibi, and whose crime was walking by the front door of the building two months earlier and having his hair tracked in, I have to say 'No' to any sort of national DNA database.

Doing it the other way around is going to result in a huge list of suspects who have to 'prove' they didn't do it.

Yes, yes, I know that most cases would fall through, but innocent people shouldn't be made suspects in the first place. Motive first, and then means and opportunity.

Re:The slippery slope

[brouski]

This is true, but since my time is of value, and there are usually no stolen goods in my possession, it's generally more time-efficient to let the lady do her thing then explain myself to the cops.

I'm selfish like that.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, at least with the bag checking, you can walk out the store right past them. If you've paid you've paid, just because it's what the store wants doesn't mean you have to stop for them. (at least here you don't)

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've paid for it, the stuff in your bags is too.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

If every man is deserving of liberties, then it is exactly the oppression of a tyrant to declare one of those men undeserving of such liberties for simply holding a belief contrary to the speaker. In essence, the tyrant has been deposed only to be replaced with another tyrant who cloaks himself in the grand causes of Freedom and Liberty.

It was a meant to be a joke told at 18th century cocktail parties, not a rallying cry for the pale basement-dwellers of the 21st century.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Your DNA is your stuff.

There are biotech companies who would dispute that...

Re:The slippery slope

[burroughsj1]

Actually, it isn't. Testimony is different from biological facts about a person's body. Logically, under that interpretation, one could not be placed in a lineup, photographed, etc., even with a court order or a warrant. Like it or not, in the eyes of the law, there is a balance between our individual rights and the interests of justice. Under this definition of testimony, there would be virtually no possibility of convicting anyone of any crime. No fingerprints, no blood, no DNA- even cameras and eyewitnesses couldn't be used, since the appearance of the suspect for identification purposes could not be compelled under any circumstances. The issue is one of whether the evidence is testimonial or physical, and DNA and fingerprints are physical. That is not to say I support the idea of mandatory DNA gathering for those arrested, however. I think that it should be treated like any other search, and that a judge should decide in each case whether or not it is proper to compel the test.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

the same as stores checking your bag

Maybe if that bag told them everything about you from your hair, eyes, and skin color to whether or not you have arthritis, ADHD, impulsive tendencies, diseases, etc. and was stored away indefinitely in an easily searchable database.

Re:The slippery slope

[Hatta]

Testimony is different from biological facts about a person's body

Information in my brain is encoded as neurons in various states. If you understand that, it's clear that all testimony is nothing more than biological facts about a person's body. If we allow them to compel us to reveal biological facts about our bodies, the only thing standing between us and forced testimony is a suitably sensitive brain scanner.

Re:The slippery slope

[Anonymous Cowpat]

how about navy-surplus artillery?

Re:The slippery slope

[burroughsj1]

The information within your brain may be encoded in a physical state, but the information in your brain isn't testimony. Testimony is making statements. The the privilege protects you from being compelled to make a choice that is against your own interest. It doesn't protect the information, but rather your liberty to not act against your own interest. For example, the information in your brain regarding a crime can be sought by interrogating others who have the same knowledge. The difference is important. Giving testimony is an act, and that is what is protected. The goal is to preserve your freedom to not take actions that go against your own interest. Consider further the nature of privilege. You do not simply have a right to keep private any incriminating facts- your right extends to your action only. You have the right to not speak. That is all. The right is not purely against divulging damaging facts. The right preserves your freedom to remain totally silent. If you give that up, you give it up completely. You cannot, for example, give testimony in your defense, and then refuse to answer questions that are incriminating. At that point, you would be compelled to answer them, even if you didn't want to. It's the action itself that is protected, not the information. Keep in mind, however that testimonial privilege is not one's sole protection against intrusion on privacy. The right to privacy is rooted in the fourth, not fifth amendment.

Re:The slippery slope

[krondell]

I don't know how fast DNA changes now, but 10 years from now, with advances in gene therapy and delivery techniques, I'd bet lots of people's DNA will change regularly.

Re:The slippery slope

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You also don't have to stay in the store - they aren't going to tackle you in the parking lot.

Re:The slippery slope

[Hatta]

The the privilege protects you from being compelled to make a choice that is against your own interest.

So, if I'm compelled to make a choice to give someone DNA or fingerprint evidence, and that is against my own interest, I should be protected right?

Re:The slippery slope

[burroughsj1]

That's the whole point. Collection of information such as fingerprints, photos, DNA, etc. isn't a choice or an action on your part. They can and do take it by physical force if necessary.

Re:The slippery slope

[burroughsj1]

Again, don't take this as a defense of the idea of mandatory universal DNA testing... it isn't. I feel it's a violation of privacy, and that it's another step along our path to a very liberty-free existence. It just isn't affected by the fifth amendment.

Re:The slippery slope

[arbitraryaardvark]

it's probably constitutional as a search incident to arrest,a long recognized category.
i'm a civil liberties fanatic, currently suing over unconstitutional searches called voter ID, and looking for a lawyer over the recent search of my trunk that was beyond the scope of search incident to arrest, but i think this one's probably constitutional as to both the us and state constitution.
arbitrary aardvark

Re:The slippery slope

[Soulfader]

I could have swore that law enforcement was the most important part of their jobs... Do you honestly believe that safeguarding the right to privacy is more important than protecting lives and property, or did you just get caught up in your self-righteous hyperbole?

Re:The slippery slope

[jamstar7]

Your DNA is your stuff.

There are biotech companies who would dispute that...

I'm wondering how long it'll be before those biotech companies start charging me to use my own born-with DNA...

Re:The slippery slope

[professorguy]

we need to regulate it in a way so it is tamper-proof

I agree. Of course, that means it cannot be done.

Re:The slippery slope

[nasor]

FYI, you can refuse to allow stores to look in your bag. There's nothing they can do about it, other then possibly telling you not to come back - which is pretty unlikely.

Re:The slippery slope

[zappepcs]

I'd like to be able to tell them that they need my permission each and every time they want to try to match my DNA or fingerprints to a crime scene too.

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It solves crimes..."

No it doesn't. Good, old fashioned detective work solves crimes. DNA is only a very small part of that.

Re:Wait, what?

[oneTheory]

South Park - Cartman's Incredible Gift

Kyle: Excuse me, sir? I think I know who did this. We saw this guy at the last crime scene, and, and you know how serial killers sometimes return to the scene of the crime? Well, I followed this guy to his house, and when he left again, I collected some fingerprints and did a blood-sample analysis. [holds out his findings] I'm pretty sure he's your man.

Lou (detective): [coolly] How do you know?? Are you psychic??

Kyle: No.

Lou: Look, kid, don't waste my time with your blood-sampling fingerprinty hocus-pocus! I have to find this new killer now! I owe it to that victim over there! I know she hadn't been in any recent episodes, but DAMNIT she deserved better than this! Come on, Murph, we've gotta talk to Eric Cartman again!

Ha!

[Vectronic]

I'll just laugh, and spit in their faces!... wait... damnit.

So... if I say 'no'

[dmomo]

Does that mean they cannot charge me? Sweet.

When are they going to destroy these samples?

[elrous0]

What happens when someone is arrested and released later, only to have the prosecutor "sleep" on their case indefinitely? After all, it's very rare for prosecutors to send out "I've decided not to prosecute you" letters. Hell, I've seen prosecutors let people sit in DETENTION for years without a trial (one famous case in my state involved a teenage girl who was held in detention for 6 years without trial, before the prosecutor admitted he had no case and she was released). Sometimes a person is arrested and never gets an actual trial (whether they're held in detention or released).

Without some sort of time limit clause that says "If this person is not tried within X number of months after the sample is taken, it must be destroyed" then the sample could be held indefinitely, without the person ever getting a trial to exonerate themselves.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[!coward]

I get what you're saying but that kind of already exists.. It's called 'Statute of Limitations' and has a limited scope (as in, in some countries a murder case never expires). If this comes into play, I don't think you'll be able to limit the admissibility of that DNA sample beneath the time limit imposed by that offense's Statute of Limitation.

I think this is totally bogus, but if it does go forward, then we'd probably be better off limiting the scope of application of that sample. What I mean is, your DNA collected in connection to any given case cannot be used outside of the scope of that particular case. You shouldn't be able to use it to check for possible matches in outstanding cases (a CLEAR violation of the presumption of innocence and would lead to a "fishing expedition"-gallore).

If it turns out you're guilty, then by all means, if your law allows you to, include it in some national DB.. Until then, you're off the grid. This provides no incentive to keep the data beyond what's strictly needed, and might mean they destroy your sample sooner, rather than later, if you're cleared.

It's funny, you know? In my country we do have a national DB for fingerprints.. We do have a national ID card (that's where you get your fingerprints taken) but the law clearly forbids using THAT database for any sort of criminal investigation purposes. It's assumed it'd mean presuming guilt on the part of the _whole_ population everytime you'd run a search through it. Can't imagine why any other country would proceed differently.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[Hatta]

Hell, I've seen prosecutors let people sit in DETENTION for years without a trial (one famous case in my state involved a teenage girl who was held in detention for 6 years without trial, before the prosecutor admitted he had no case and she was released). Sometimes a person is arrested and never gets an actual trial (whether they're held in detention or released).

We need much, much stronger laws to deal with prosecutors who commit unjust acts. If you are unjustly kidnapped and held in a cell for years, it doesn't matter to you whether your captor is the state or a psychotic madman. Both are equally traumatic, and both aggressors should be punished as harshly.

I heard a story on NPR this morning about a black man who was falsely accused of rape and died in prison. The real rapist sent letters to the prosecutors admitting to the rape. Not one of the prosecutors responded to those letters. By any reasonable code of justice, every one of those prosecutors would be guilty of a crime. IMO, a crime much worse than rape.

I don't know how to do it though. You're never going to get a prosecutor to prosecute another prosecutor for prosecuting.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[Nimey]

Please tell me that prosecutor served hard time for misconduct.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[Muad'Dave]

You shouldn't be able to use it to check for possible matches in outstanding cases (a CLEAR violation of the presumption of innocence and would lead to a "fishing expedition"-gallore).

You mean like they do now when they run your license for outstanding "wants and warrants", and run your fingerprints when arrested for hits in the unsolved crime database? They're already doing it; with DNA they'll be able to not only check to see if you're in the database, but whether any of your close relatives are in the database. Chilling, no? The cops come knocking on your door because a relative of yours commits a crime, and you're arrested as an accomplice if you don't roll over on them.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[hairyfeet]

You just hit the nail on the head without even knowing it. The problem with these "shadow databases" is how would you KNOW that the sample was destroyed? Just like that girl they "lost" for 6 years they can just keep it in the database until they need to bust you. After all, after they used it to bust you for something in the future they could always say "Oh, that sample? We took a sample of him from a coke can." and you would have NO way of telling whether they are telling the truth or not. So unless they are willing to let you or your lawyer stand there and watch it be disposed of I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.

What is sad is I used to think those guys living up in the hills of Northwest AR in their little compounds were nuts. That all their talk of us sliding into a police state was pure craziness. And yet every time we turn around these days we are seeing more and more Big Brother style BS from the local, state, and federal governments. How sad is it when the government can actually make the survival loonies look sane with their jackbooted BS?

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[Walkingshark]

You set up a group who have no job other than to find and punish people who abuse their authority. Prosecutors who are hired specifically to only prosecute other prosecutors, basically.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[Dorkmaster Flek]

You set up a group who have no job other than to find and punish people who abuse their authority. Prosecutors who are hired specifically to only prosecute other prosecutors, basically.

And who makes sure that those people are doing their jobs/not abusing their positions? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[!coward]

Like I said, this is totally bogus. What I said after that was just an idea to mitigate the impact if this kind of thing can't be prevented (or until it gets overthrown).

Yeah, what you said is indeed creepy. I mean, the whole checking the license plates I can get.. It's YOUR jacket they're looking up, and it might help a cop approach a potentially dangerous individual with added caution. But where in this situation they'd be checking information that pertains to you, every other example mentioned consists of putting you up against every possible outstanding case and see what they can come up with. It's a complete perversion of the presumption of guilt.

I dunno how accurate the cop shows are (any of the CSI series, for example) but it always pissed me off whenever they took a suspect's prints or DNA and used it to check any DB.. I mean, even in the situations where they got a warrant to obtain that information (I don't think they should be able to bully or brow-beat compliance out of you, much less trick you to give up your right to keep that information to yourself -- the tactic of giving you a drink so that they can later attempt to extract DNA or fingerprints from the can is completely underhanded.. if you can't get a judge to sign the order, than you've got no business getting that information), even then, the scope of ANY comparison should be limited to whatever crime you're suspected of, period.

That they can take DNA or fingerprints obtained from a crime scene and check them against a national DB, well, that's honest police work. To subject samples obtained from a suspect to the same treatment is a perversion of the fundamentals of the judicial system (at least in a free, democratic country).

To expand the law so that it allows police and other law enforcement agencies to massively collect data from anyone who just happens to piss them off, is ludicrous and very, very scary.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[ShooterNeo]

Mathematical probability.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[Walkingshark]

Robots. Or maybe sharks with frickin laser beams.

Seriously though, there IS a limit and you have to accept that as long as technology can't give us the ability to scan people's brains and tell if they are trustworthy (and as long as we don't have a good definition on what "trustworthy" means) you have to accept some amount of corruption is going to slip through. In my opinion, there is more that could currently be done to catch corruption, but beyond a certain point you just have to wait for technology and science to catch up with your needs.

I think another good one would be to make public servants wear video/audio recording devices (kind of like whats on a cop car) that continually stream a feed to a secure and redundant storage solution. It is a lot harder to cheat when we can go back and watch everything you've said and done while on the job for the entire time you were doing the job.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[elrous0]

Nope. There is no law against a prosecutor holding a person in detention as long as they like (not in my state anyway). If the detainee doesn't have a lawyer to file a complaint about it and the prosecutor doesn't like them or forgets them, there is nothing to keep them from sitting in detention forever.

Re:When are they going to destroy these samples?

[visible.frylock]

Remove their monopoly on prosecuting criminal offenses? Why shouldn't they be charged with kidnapping? Why shouldn't cops be charged with murder when someone is shot in a middle-of-the-night-no-knock-raid from some anonymous tip?

Yes, I am insane. But you know, would it really be worse than what we have? Probably be good just to put the fear of the mob into them, if only for a year or so.

Article IV?

[weston]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

If my DNA isn't part of my person, I don't know what is. If you find it at a crime scene, that's one thing, but the bar for compelling the collection of a DNA sample should be at least as high (and probably higher) than the bar for a warrant for a home search.

Re:Article IV?

[SirGeek]

If my DNA isn't part of my person, I don't know what is. If you find it at a crime scene, that's one thing, but the bar for compelling the collection of a DNA sample should be at least as high (and probably higher) than the bar for a warrant for a home search.

What about the 5th amendment (the right to not self incriminate) ? Isn't taking your DNA without any other proof a violation of that ? Or taking it without a court order ?

However if they start requiring a court order, they'll just get a judge who'll rubber stamp the requests.

Re:Article IV?

[Rogerborg]

If you find it at a crime scene, that's one thing

Uh... you are at a crime scene. You seem to be confusing a search of your person with a process that will identify your person.

Do you believe that you retain a right to anonymity when arrested? If not, then what's your specific objection to being identified through your DNA?

Re:Article IV?

[nizo]

Though people should be secure, how about elected officials? This law may be on to something here; it seems reasonable to have elected officials submit a DNA sample to run against various databases to make sure they aren't criminals, right? Once they are willing to pass this law and submit their own samples to serve the public, they can get back to me about trampling down my rights.

Re:Article IV?

[operagost]

Uh... you are at a crime scene.

Really? You mean police only arrest people if they're at the crime scene?

Do you believe that you retain a right to anonymity when arrested? If not, then what's your specific objection to being identified through your DNA?

Red herring. I don't want anyone touching me without just cause because of my right to personal liberty.

Re:Article IV?

[EGenius007]

Say I'm picked up a couple of blocks away from a crime scene shortly after a murder was committed, before one or more eyewitnesses, by someone matching my physical description. If I lack a credible alibi for the exact time of the murders it's not unreasonable to have me stand in a line-up. If I am incorrectly identified there will be an opportunity in court to discredit the witness.

On the other hand, imagine I'm charged with something like drunk and disorderly and a DNA sample is taken. Then 32 years later a hair matching my DNA is found at a murder scene--or, worse yet, if I have children with someone else who has had a DNA sample taken and a hair which could match our child(ren)'s DNA is found. There is no longer circumstantial evidence for my suspicion, or the suspicion of my progeny. But if the case is sufficiently high-profile (a la JonBennet Ramsey) you know that the investigators will have me/my offspring hauled in for questioning anyways.

Does that count as a specific objection?

Re:Article IV?

[AK Marc]

Do you believe that you retain a right to anonymity when arrested? If not, then what's your specific objection to being identified through your DNA?

Because it's not identifying me. It's matching me. Identification is asking me my name and address, seeing that in the DMV database those match a person with my general description. They have just ID'd me for low cost and great ease. If they run across me again, they can ask my name again. DNA doesn't "identify" anyone. The identification must be done elsewhere from some match in a database. If I've never had DNA taken before, how will they know who I am with taking some from me? They won't. Because it does nothing to identify a person. That's my objection to being identified through DNA: It's not an identification tool.

Re:Article IV?

[nasch]

Getting arrested does not imply being at a crime scene. The police can arrest you anywhere.

Re:Article IV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that you have to do anything wrong in order to be arrested? Hint, anyone can be arrested at any time.

Re:Article IV?

[Anonymous Coward]

THOUGHTCRIME!

Re:Article IV?

[Rogerborg]

Do you believe that you retain a right to anonymity when arrested? If not, then what's your specific objection to being identified through your DNA?

Red herring. I don't want anyone touching me without just cause because of my right to personal liberty.

Yerrrs, well good luck with that, Mr I-know-my-rights. You know that in practice, you have fuck-all rights to remain un-"touched" once law enforcement decides to process you, yes? Your only choice is whether to shriek "Don't tase me, bro!", or to take it like a man.

Information destruction

[Nautical Insanity]

Because if the authorities say they will destroy the information, I have complete faith that they will remain true to their word. Yep, complete trust. No worries.

They can just send it on to the Orwellian "Ministry of Privacy" and I'm sure all record of my DNA test will just vanish!

Planting evidence has just become easier

[meist3r]

Bump into someone in the subway, grab a few loose hairs from their sweater, drop at murder site.

"Sir, how do you explain that we found your hair at the site of the murder?"

-Dunno, I'm riding the subway every day.

Mystery solved! Hurray! Oh wait ... shit.

Re:Planting evidence has just become easier

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm kind of surprised that criminals don't already do something like carry a container of DNA samples to taint the crime scene with. Basically, they would be DOSing the crime scene investigators with so many samples that it difficult and very time consuming to run labs results for each uniquely identified sample. Maybe it would not be enough of a problem to keep the criminal from being arrested especially if the police already suspected them, but it might be enough to cause reasonable doubt during a jury trial. And When you think about it, there's tons of places to collect DNA evidence like, say hair salons, public restrooms, porno theaters , garbage dumpsters, etc.. Planting DNA evidence is considerably more easier that planting finger print evidence.

Re:Planting evidence has just become easier

[Dorkmaster Flek]

That is precisely why DNA evidence should not be treated like the Holy Grail of crime investigations and the crux of a case. A person's DNA at a crime scene should be in addition to a motive and means for committing the crime.

What could possibly be the purpose

[Jane Q. Public]

of taking a DNA sample before someone is even charged? (Which is ridiculously unconstitutional, anyway.)

I can sympathize with the pain of the woman in TFA, but that doesn't give her the right to make everyone elses' life miserable.

If she doesn't stop this kind of preaching, she should be taken out and shot. Not really, but her kind is the biggest enemy to freedom here in the United States.

--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis
--
"Or women of zeal." -- Jane Q. Public

Re:What could possibly be the purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

of taking a DNA sample before someone is even charged? (Which is ridiculously unconstitutional, anyway.)

I can sympathize with the pain of the woman in TFA, but that doesn't give her the right to make everyone elses' life miserable.

If she doesn't stop this kind of preaching, she should be taken out and shot. Not really, but her kind is the biggest enemy to freedom here in the United States.

--

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis

--

"Or women of zeal." -- Jane Q. Public

Because that way while there waiting to charge you and are building a case, then can double check your dna to other crimes for a more solid link and hold you indefinitely. Otherwise there wouldnt be an issue with taking dna after the arrest.

Re:What could possibly be the purpose

[Jane Q. Public]

"Because that way while there waiting to charge you and are building a case, then can double check your dna to other crimes for a more solid link and hold you indefinitely. Otherwise there wouldnt be an issue with taking dna after the arrest."

Which is exactly the point. Our justice system was NOT designed to work that way. Nor our constitution. The very idea is un-American.

Re:What could possibly be the purpose

[Reziac]

Not to mention that once your DNA is on file, you can be RE-searched any time they please, without a warrant, and you'll never even know it was done.

Now, this may be "mostly harmless" to most people, but I still don't like where it's headed, and it's a bad precedent for allowing "searches any time we damn well please".

Excellent

[internerdj]

One more reason to waste taxpayer money at a time when many states are basing their budgets on a federal bailout...

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 'change we can believe in' you know ;)

Washington state only

[Pinckney]

Note that this is a proposed law in Washington State, not the whole country. Not that we should just forget about the rights of Washington's citizens, but I suspect a quite a few people will misunderstand the summary as it stands now.

Re:Washington state only

[Hordeking]

Note that this is a proposed law in Washington State, not the whole country. Not that we should just forget about the rights of Washington's citizens, but I suspect a quite a few people will misunderstand the summary as it stands now.

Don't delude yourself. If this gets a foothold in one place, other states will get the idea that this is something they can actually get away with. Before you know it, you have 50 states with it, and no alternative state that you can move to to boycott it.

Re:Washington state only

[kalirion]

First they came for the Washingtonians, and I did nothing because I was not a Washingtonian....

Re:Washington state only

[Pinckney]

I don't aim to disagree with you. My point is simply that a reader can take the "State" to mean the US government, which gives the misleading impression that this is a serious effort to impose this on the entire US.

Of course, it's already in practice for federal crimes anyway.

Constitution TP

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to make a toilet paper brand called Constitution TP. "All its good for now is wiping shit off my ass!"

broken window theory of law enforcement

[circletimessquare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows

simply stated, if law enforcement focuses on small, petty crimes, like turnstile jumping, graffiti, and shoplifting, they implicitly reduce serious crime, like burglarly, arson, murder

the idea works in two ways:

1. the public perception of lawlessness sends a signal that even worse lawless behavior is acceptable, so doping the reverse: focusing on the surface level impression of orderliness, actually increases real orderliness

2. you would be amazed how many rapists and murders also run red lights and shoplift. that is, routine screening of petty crimes (fingerprints in the past) has actually netted a surprising number of big fish (where big fish means any criminal who committed a very serious crime). people who commit trangressive acts against society don't really seem to be able to stop doing that

in which case, viewing the request to keep and track dna, you can simply see the evolution of police work,.where the next natural next step is to track dna, as well as fingerprints, based on the success of the broken window theory in the past

i'm not saying that dna tracking should be supported, i'm just framing the reason why law enforcement is interested in dna. as opposed to the mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[Hordeking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows

simply stated, if law enforcement focuses on small, petty crimes, like turnstile jumping, graffiti, and shoplifting, they implicitly reduce serious crime, like burglarly, arson, murder

the idea works in two ways:

1. the public perception of lawlessness sends a signal that even worse lawless behavior is acceptable, so doping the reverse: focusing on the surface level impression of orderliness, actually increases real orderliness

No, the idea works because there is the perception of a police state.

2. you would be amazed how many rapists and murders also run red lights and shoplift. that is, routine screening of petty crimes (fingerprints in the past) has actually netted a surprising number of big fish (where big fish means any criminal who committed a very serious crime). people who commit trangressive acts against society don't really seem to be able to stop doing that

Remember, in 1984, Julia states "You can get away with breaking the big laws if you keep the small ones.

i'm not saying that dna tracking should be supported, i'm just framing the reason why law enforcement is interested in dna. as opposed to the mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments

Why don't you go ahead and submit your DNA pre-emptively. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and get an RFID implanted in your hand? After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?

Some of us just happen to desire privacy from gov't meddling on principle. When I go somewhere, I tell my folks/girlfriend where I'm going. I don't announce it to the police or gov't. Likewise, I don't care for the thought of every time some cop investigates every pissant who happened to leave some kind of biological evidence at the scene of a crime, someone checks that against me.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[Max Threshold]

Whatever their motives or reasoning, the outcome is still exactly equivalent to the case where "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life". We should be making law enforcement harder, not easier.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[WindowlessView]

viewing the request to keep and track dna, you can simply see the evolution of police work

Is this an evolution? Any forward looking LEO should think twice in terms of their job security and salaries. If solving crime devolves to part janitor (acquiring samples) and part clerk (pushing buttons on a pre-formed SQL query) pretty much any monkey could do it. Cheaply.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[meist3r]

i'm not saying that dna tracking should be supported, i'm just framing the reason why law enforcement is interested in dna. as opposed to the mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments

You got something wrong here, these hollywood characters are modeled after real-life people. Always were. There's stuff going on that a writer can't even make up. So don't be so sure, what you're writing here sounds like you want to make a reasonable point but it acts as diluted propaganda.

I personally am strongly opposed to governments that want to put their citizens in databases and monitor them according to irrelevant statistical details. I'm from Germany and that's why we got the Holocaust. Someone said "Let's sort this list via the "Religion" column" and then the shitstorm started.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

You're misrepresenting Broken Windows theory in a not so good way and ignoring a great deal of criminological research that indicates it is not what it is made out to be. Wilson and Kelling, the authors of Broken Windows theory, in twenty-five years don't have very good evidence to show that the underlying process is as they describe it. The basic argument of Broken Windows theory is that minor social disorder leads individuals to retreat from the public space, allowing more serious crime to take place. By then focusing on minor disorder, individuals will not retreat from public space and therefore criminal elements will not be allowed to move in. This tends to reduce crime to a technical law enforcement problem, and it's a setup that police really like because it gives them a lot of free reign and allows them to call for greater resources, even when we know that the link between police presence and crime is not altogether so clear.

The fact is that with Broken Windows we can hypothesize an alterative causal chain, from Robert Sampson's studies of Collective Efficacy. It's not that disorderliness leads to retreat and thus to crime, but that a breakdown in collective efficacy and social cohesion leads to both social disorder and crime. This comes from a long line of theorizing about Social Disorganization processes that we have very good data on. The supposed causal relationship between disorder and crime in Broken windows theory is a spurious relationship. In this case the kind of zero-tolerance policing that Broken Windows theory advocates is not going to get anywhere.

You also can't forget that Broken Windows theory is very ideologically linked to conservative policy. It fits in well with the whole "Get Tough on Crime" mantra of the 1980s and early 1990s that gave the United States the largest prison populations in the world, but not really anything better in terms of crime. J.Q. Wilson, one of the authors, is a noted conservative criminologist who also pushed the equally poor notion "incapacitation", which argues that we should take out criminals from society and put them into prison to soften crime's blow.

In any case, even if Broken Windows theory were true, its tenets would not require a liberty-busting DNA dragnet to stop crime.

And Yes, I Am A Criminiologist.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[Mr. Slippery]

the idea works in two ways:

Well, no, it works in zero ways, since the reduction in crime seems to have had little to do with these "zero tolerance" policies. Meanwhile these policies were very expensive in both dollars and liberties. Between 1992 and 1998, NYC's police budget nearly doubled. The number of arrestees went from 6,000 to 21,000, causing costs to rise from $150 million to $800 million - and consider that one third of these were drug arrests, nothing less than unjustified acts of kidnapping by the state.

Police brutality cases increased: monetary damage settlements doubled from $13 million to over $26 million per year, and the number of persons shot to death by cops and the number who died in custody both doubled. Meanwhile public resentment of police increased, making it difficult for any good cops to catch actual bad guys.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the idea works because there is the perception of a police state.

Actually, a study did show that a bad-looking neighborhood will increase the prevalence of at least petty crimes. See this article for more explanation.

Please, if you're going to make accusations, at least base them on credible scientific research.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[apocalypse2012]

All the worlds biggest mistakes were arrived at through a steady progression of good ideas. Yes, we can come close to keeping ultimate order and stopping crime by sacrificing each personal liberty, which always seem paltry when measured next to the need. But utopia is no place for free people.

Re:broken window theory of law enforcement

[PMuse]

... law enforcement focuses on small, petty crimes, like turnstile jumping, graffiti, and shoplifting, they implicitly reduce serious crime, like burglarly, arson, murder ...

Every heard the maxim, "Let the punishment fit the crime"? The notion that we should punish people (and this DNA collection is punishment, make no mistake) for a misdemeanor (even when it won't help prove that misdemeanor) because they might, might have done something worse for which we have neither proof, nor even cause for suspicion, fundamentally undermines the principle that people are innocent until convicted.

In reality, law enforcement uses the vast host of minor crimes like drug possession because they are easy to prove and can thus be used as leverage against anyone law enforcement feels like using leverage against. These collections will be just one more kind of leverage.

Why not?

[FadedTimes]

It should go beyond this. Make it where if you get a Passport or State ID you should have to give a DNA sample. Helps verify your identity and in case you are involved in a crime investigation the government knows who you are and possibly where you live.

Re:Why not?

[oneTheory]

I'm guessing this is sarcasm, but I've seen people express this view seriously and it makes me wonder if some people even want to be free.

Why is this a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not have an opinion of this either way. But why is this a bad thing ?

This is how it started in the UK

[MrSteveSD]

Now they even keep the DNA samples of people arrested by mistake. Fight against it. Don't give them an inch or they will take a mile. Any gains in crime fighting are dwarfed by the enormous potential for abuse. It's really paving the way for future tyranny.

Re:This is how it started in the UK

[Nick Sz]

Do you know if there is any precedence to someone who was arrested by mistake taking legal action to remove those records? Also, if I were an insurance company I would be vying for these records- will we only know to late when people start getting dropped from their insurance due to a disposition for an illness?

Re:This is how it started in the UK

[LordSnooty]

Yup, and from no lesser court than the European Court of Human Rights. In fact one would hope that uncharged people will indeed be removed soon. But like the man said, what happened here was function creep. Suddenly one in 12 of the population is registered for ever.

Re:This is how it started in the UK

[Ma8thew]

We wouldn't know about issues with insurance here.

Re:This is how it started in the UK

[Nick Sz]

Oh silly me, that's just a stupid American issue, how could I have forgotten >.

Is this really that bad?

[Zakabog]

At first I thought "No way am I going to let them take blood from me if I'm arrested!", but after reading the article all they do is swab the inside of your cheek. It really is less invasive than fingerprinting.

I've been fingerprinted twice, once after being arrested and once after applying for a federal job. The first time was the worst, the machine couldn't read my print AT ALL, so the officer tried pressing harder. That registered a faint image of a finger print. So they gave me some gel to clean my fingers, that did nothing to help so the officer continued to press harder and harder. We finally got one print to show up after a few minutes when the officer forced all of his body weight onto my finger. ONE PRINT, then it was on to the next 9 fingers...

Second time didn't require as much force, but we had other issues, my finger wasn't rolling right. The person operating the machine had to do each finger 5+ times to get the machine to actually accept the print.

I know they're not going to do away with fingerprinting and replace it with DNA samples (DNA isn't a unique identifier), but they already take fingerprints and mugshots before you're found guilty. So what's the problem with taking a little bit of spit?

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you do for a living? Put your fingers in Bunsen burners?

Re:Is this really that bad?

[MozeeToby]

It's kind of funny how much difficulty you had with machine fingerprint scanners. I recently got fingerprinted for a security clearance and it took less than a minute total, no pain involved. The method? Ink and paper which was then scanned into the system. Sometimes the high tech solution just makes things more difficult.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of funny how much difficulty you had with machine fingerprint scanners. I recently got fingerprinted for a security clearance and it took less than a minute total, no pain involved. The method? Ink and paper which was then scanned into the system. Sometimes the high tech solution just makes things more difficult.

Did the system actually check the fingerprints for accuracy or did it just save the image? In my case it checked the prints and they weren't to the machines standards (although the first time the machine was just somewhat broken, they had to get someone to fix it before they continued fingerprinting me.)

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it like this:

You say goodbye to a friend by leaning inside his car; a hair falls off of your head onto the passenger seat.

Later, he's murdered. In questioning you, you're asked if you were ever in the victim's car; you say no, because you forgot that you leaned in.

Congratulations, you are now serving time for the murder of a person you cared about!

Re:Is this really that bad?

[meist3r]

So what's the problem with taking a little bit of spit?

You don't seem to realize that to leave your fingerprints you actually have to touch something. To have you face being photographed in some place you need to be there.

For your DNA to show up in some place you've never heard of you just have to sneeze on the Bus or scratch you head in the subway. Someone treads on one of the hairs that fell out of your nose or from your eyebrows and his shoe carries that to wherever. All of a sudden your DNA from the sneeze is found on the doorknob of a dealers apartement and one of your hairs is collected at the scene of a murder. Then YOU have to prove you've never been there despite the genetic evidence indisputably linked to you.

To me that's a LOT worse than fingerprints and mugshots. We spread our DNA involuntarily everywhere. Watch Gattaca then you'll start to understand.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[MozeeToby]

The prints were visually inspected by the person taking them (yet another way the old fashioned solution is quicker and easier) which I suppose takes some small amount of training but really all it was was 'oh, this one's a little blurry, we'll do it again'. I'm not sure if the software further verified them or not, but I doubt it since they let me go before they were done scanning (I'd think they'd have me stick around if there was a chance of them being rejected).

Re:Is this really that bad?

[kabocox]

At first I thought "No way am I going to let them take blood from me if I'm arrested!", but after reading the article all they do is swab the inside of your cheek. It really is less invasive than fingerprinting.

I've been fingerprinted twice, once after being arrested and once after applying for a federal job. The first time was the worst, the machine couldn't read my print AT ALL, so the officer tried pressing harder. That registered a faint image of a finger print. So they gave me some gel to clean my fingers, that did nothing to help so the officer continued to press harder and harder. We finally got one print to show up after a few minutes when the officer forced all of his body weight onto my finger. ONE PRINT, then it was on to the next 9 fingers...

Second time didn't require as much force, but we had other issues, my finger wasn't rolling right. The person operating the machine had to do each finger 5+ times to get the machine to actually accept the print.

Sounds like you got some one that's lousy with prints. If you ever need your prints done for a job interview, ask for crime scene to do it. I work with an ex crime scene guy and there are only 3-4 crime scene folks around here that are well versed and practiced at taking prints. From him, I wouldn't trust anyone else here to do it. (Well, they could but they don't have the practice to do it quickly and easily.)

I get shivers thinking about jail staff doing anything. Forget DNA or fingerprints. Our jail can't always match the right photo with the right booking. That happens lots of times. Now think about that. They've got them and take a picture, but the picture is for the wrong pulled up record. I'm sure that it happens with finger prints since they usually do the prints before filling out the crap on the card. (This is in case they screw up the prints they won't have to fill the form out again.)

Computers can't stop or slow poor human error data entry to the system. It takes a human that knows the individuals involved to check it! You or I could tell the easy obvious females on male records or that's a pic of a BF and its a WM record. But what if they mess up and switch two WM records? You've got to know what the 2 WM look like.

There are days that I'd like a national digital year book just so it would reduce the errors in our existing system.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Zakabog]

Think of it like this:

You say goodbye to a friend by leaning inside his car; a hair falls off of your head onto the passenger seat.

Later, he's murdered. In questioning you, you're asked if you were ever in the victim's car; you say no, because you forgot that you leaned in.

Congratulations, you are now serving time for the murder of a person you cared about!

Why would you have NEVER been inside of your friends car?

If it was new, why didn't your friend say "Hey come for a ride in my new car!"

If you didn't know them that well, why would you even be considered a suspect in the murder (yes, I know the hair, but if you didn't know the person that well they'd have no motive.)

Plus what if you put your hand on the door when you leaned in, now they've got your fingerprints too! Should we stop fingerprinting everyone now too?

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Zakabog]

You don't seem to realize that to leave your fingerprints you actually have to touch something.

Yes, and there's no way someone can steal something from your home with your fingerprints on it (like a knife or a gun) and kill someone else with it.

To have you face being photographed in some place you need to be there.

Or someone who looks like you has to be there...

For your DNA to show up in some place you've never heard of you just have to sneeze on the Bus or scratch you head in the subway. Someone treads on one of the hairs that fell out of your nose or from your eyebrows and his shoe carries that to wherever. All of a sudden your DNA from the sneeze is found on the doorknob of a dealers apartement and one of your hairs is collected at the scene of a murder.

1. DNA is not entirely unique, so even if they found DNA that matched yours, it didn't necessarily have to come from you

Then YOU have to prove you've never been there despite the genetic evidence indisputably linked to you.

You've got that backwards, THEY have to prove that you've not only been there, but have done the crime, despite the fact that you have no connection to the person or the crime whatsoever.

To me that's a LOT worse than fingerprints and mugshots. We spread our DNA involuntarily everywhere. Watch Gattaca then you'll start to understand.

At least if you pointed me to an actual case where someone who had no ties to a person was convicted based on DNA evidence I'd understand (and I know there have been wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence before), but Gattaca? Really? That's the best evidence you can think of?

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just because you're a fatass

Re:Is this really that bad?

[stewbacca]

The first time was the worst

"Worst" is a superlative of "bad". That would suggest that having your finger pushed in ink and smudged on paper is somehow really awful, which I'm not buying.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Jason Levine]

Friend gets new car. You're in town on other matters but meet your friend at a local bar/restaurant/whatever. Your friend says "Come check out my new car." You go outside and see it. Then you notice that you're running late and hug your friend goodbye. While doing so, a hair falls off of your head and onto your friend's shoulder. You leave. Your friend gets back into their car and turns on the AC (or heat depending on the weather) and the hair blows over to the passenger seat. Friend is murdered, police find your hair and question you. You say you were never in their car but witnesses say they saw you two talking and saw you two head out together. Your DNA is found in the car (from the hair). Another witness reports seeing you heading somewhere in a hurry. Doesn't look too good for you now as the police slap on the handcuffs.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be that bad if they anal probed everyone at anytime either. A little lube and it slips right in. You might even like it.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[meist3r]

Yes, and there's no way someone can steal something from your home with your fingerprints on it (like a knife or a gun) and kill someone else with it.

At least they'll have to break into your house first. That's a little more effort than bumping into you in the street.

Or someone who looks like you has to be there...

So you think it's alright for someone that looks a bit like a criminal should be arrested for that? Same problem here with photography than with DNA evidence. Just because you have something resembling that which you are looking for doesn't necessarily mean you already found it.

1. DNA is not entirely unique, so even if they found DNA that matched yours, it didn't necessarily have to come from you

Sure it doesn't but how often is that actually a valuable defense in court? If trials were held on that premise nobody would ever be able to use DNA evidence because there's only a ~3% chance that the murderer isn't a chimp. I'd like to see your argument when a judge finds DNA traces very similar to yours at the scene of a murder and everyone with a similar profile has a good alibi. Then what? I think the judge wouldn't care for your "could be someone else's DNA" chain of thought.

You've got that backwards, THEY have to prove that you've not only been there, but have done the crime, despite the fact that you have no connection to the person or the crime whatsoever.

Hold up, we're discussing this because they want to take DNA samples off of people for mere suspicion. Then they will file you as a potential suspect so YOU have to prove to them that you're not. We all know that they won't destroy the evidence once they determined that you're not the guy (this time). I agree that so far courts will give you the benefit of the doubt but I don't think there are that many cases in which the suspect had a good alibi for his DNA being in an unlikely place and walked. Usually if you DNA is found and held against you, you'll go to jail.

At least if you pointed me to an actual case where someone who had no ties to a person was convicted based on DNA evidence I'd understand (and I know there have been wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence before), but Gattaca? Really? That's the best evidence you can think of?

Well sorry, I'm not a lawyer. I don't dig around in court files all day. So far DNA analysis outside of criminal cases isn't that far spread. I'm not familiar with the minutae of such cases but they exist (as you say). Once we get some exemplary cases in, I'll get back to you. I didn't offer this as evidence, just as a potentially entertaining work of fiction to get a certain idea across. Next you'll tell me I can't quote from 1984 anymore because that's all literature bullshit and no real evidence for oppression and infringements on human rights. Calm down.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've completely... COMPLETELY missed the point.

Congratulations. The fact that this was even modded Informative just baffles the fuck out of me.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you don't know anything about DNA. There should be a "-1, Google first" moderation.
There's no way in hell you should want your government and it's cronies to know everything about you and your bloodline. You won't find a single one of them in the database, and any attempts to profile these guys will be fought heavily.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Zakabog]

At least they'll have to break into your house first. That's a little more effort than bumping into you in the street.

But someone is far more likely to rob a gun from me and use it, or sell it to someone who will use it, than to randomly pick up one of my hairs somewhere, transport it to a future crime scene and drop only the hair that is mine (if they drop their own hair then they'll be the suspect.) As far as picking up DNA from me sneezing, the minuscule amount of saliva left on the bus from me sneezing wouldn't be enough to get onto someones hand, be transported elsewhere, then be picked up by a forensic scientist for DNA testing (I would have to basically spit in that persons hand for them to have enough DNA on them to transfer it somewhere else where it will be noticed and picked up by a forensic investigator.)

So you think it's alright for someone that looks a bit like a criminal should be arrested for that?

No, not at all, I'm only pointing out that having a photo or video of someone that looks like you committing a crime is about the same amount of evidence as DNA that matches yours (actually it's probably worse as the jury can see that you look exactly like the person in the video, whereas DNA evidence is a lot more confusing.)

Sure it doesn't but how often is that actually a valuable defense in court? If trials were held on that premise nobody would ever be able to use DNA evidence because there's only a ~3% chance that the murderer isn't a chimp.

I don't think you fully understand how DNA matching works, DNA is far less unique than a fingerprint. A sampling of DNA left at a crime scene could potentially match yours, and unless there's some reason to believe that you were involved in the crime, NO ONE would come looking for you. There's no reason to round up everyone whose DNA could match, especially if there's no reason to believe that person could in any way be connected to the crime.

Hold up, we're discussing this because they want to take DNA samples off of people for mere suspicion.

No, they want to take DNA samples off of people who have been arrested, just like they take fingerprints and mugshots. The difference is they're claiming they'll destroy the DNA samples if you're not convicted of anything. So if you're arrested for shop lifting, they'll print you, take your mug shot, and collect some DNA evidence. If it's later ruled in court that you weren't guilty of shoplifting, they'll destroy the DNA evidence but keep the fingerprints and mugshots in their database. If you're found guilty they'll keep the DNA in their database, along with the fingerprints and mugshots.

Even if they choose not to destroy the DNA sample, it's no worse than keeping the existing fingerprint or mugshot databases. They want this so if someone gets raped they can search the database, if you have a history of committing crimes (if you're found not guilty you won't have a history), your DNA is a match, you're living in the area around the crime, the victim has no recollection of what the person looked like, and they have no other suspects, they MIGHT consider you a suspect. But then they would do that if photo or fingerprint evidence came up of yours anyway.

I didn't offer this as evidence, just as a potentially entertaining work of fiction to get a certain idea across. Next you'll tell me I can't quote from 1984 anymore because that's all literature bullshit and no real evidence for oppression and infringements on human rights. Calm down.

My point was more that forensic investigators don't vacuum a crime scene like that and dump it all into a computer to see whose DNA they matched. I know there's a lot of stuff that comes off your body that contains DNA in it, but it's very rare that anyone can get a good DNA test result from any of it.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Zakabog]

Friend gets new car. You're in town on other matters but meet your friend at a local bar/restaurant/whatever. Your friend says "Come check out my new car." You go outside and see it. Then you notice that you're running late and hug your friend goodbye. While doing so, a hair falls off of your head and onto your friend's shoulder. You leave. Your friend gets back into their car and turns on the AC (or heat depending on the weather) and the hair blows over to the passenger seat. Friend is murdered, police find your hair and question you. You say you were never in their car but witnesses say they saw you two talking and saw you two head out together. Your DNA is found in the car (from the hair). Another witness reports seeing you heading somewhere in a hurry. Doesn't look too good for you now as the police slap on the handcuffs.

Yes but you'd be a suspect in that case even without the DNA evidence. If witnesses say that you were the last person they saw your friend talking with, the police are going to come talk to you whether or not they found hair in the car.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[meist3r]

But someone is far more likely to rob a gun from me and use it, or sell it to someone who will use it, than to randomly pick up one of my hairs somewhere, transport it to a future crime scene and drop only the hair that is mine (if they drop their own hair then they'll be the suspect.) As far as picking up DNA from me sneezing, the minuscule amount of saliva left on the bus from me sneezing wouldn't be enough to get onto someones hand, be transported elsewhere, then be picked up by a forensic scientist for DNA testing (I would have to basically spit in that persons hand for them to have enough DNA on them to transfer it somewhere else where it will be noticed and picked up by a forensic investigator.)

Granted the sneezing example probably wasn't the best argument. Sure they are more likely to steal a personal item from you and use that for a crime than plant evidence but the thing is if you don't show up in either database there will never be any risk of you even getting involved in that investigation. Now, if for whatever reason your prints are in the database (which they usually aren't) they will get your data as a result, no doubt. The thing is these sets of data will be taken from everyone arrested even if they are released with no charges afterwards. These records stay on file indefinitely. That's a bad practice (maybe convenient and practical for investigators).

No, not at all, I'm only pointing out that having a photo or video of someone that looks like you committing a crime is about the same amount of evidence as DNA that matches yours (actually it's probably worse as the jury can see that you look exactly like the person in the video, whereas DNA evidence is a lot more confusing.)

But isn't it also true that some criminal cases are based solely on DNA evidence? If a jury is faced with some inconsistent witness accounts and confusing but nonetheless plausible DNA evidence don't you think they are more likely to utter a verdict that would be different than without the evidence? I'm just asking this because if the existence of DNA evidence leads to sentences then the possibility of a misconviction and false trial based on DNA databases and gathered evidence is not only likely but almost inevitable.

I don't think you fully understand how DNA matching works, DNA is far less unique than a fingerprint. A sampling of DNA left at a crime scene could potentially match yours, and unless there's some reason to believe that you were involved in the crime, NO ONE would come looking for you. There's no reason to round up everyone whose DNA could match, especially if there's no reason to believe that person could in any way be connected to the crime.

Yes, agreed. On the other hand once you have a database that you can run cross-checks on that will spit out all potential matches for a set of DNA you will consider questioning them. And that's where it gets dangerous. You find DNA at a crime scene, ask the computer for potential matches, computer says Joe X. lives two blocks away. So you go down and ask him questions or arrest the guy only to find out later on that he didn't do anything. Yet he's in all the legal trouble for getting arrested and has to explain himself to neighbors and employers. These are usually the problems that people suffering from misconduct in investigation suffer from. I'm not trying to defend actual criminals here but the risk of false positives grows by a magnitude if you gain unquestioned access to such tools.

Even if they choose not to destroy the DNA sample, it's no worse than keeping the existing fingerprint or mugshot databases. They want this so if someone gets raped they can search the database, if you have a history of committing crimes (if you're found not guilty you won't have a history), your DNA is a match, you're living in the area around the crime, the victim has no recollection of what the person looked like, and they have no other suspects, they

Re:Is this really that bad?

[broen]

Yeah, just like how 1 is the least of ( 1, 2, 3 ) therefore it is a negative number.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[stewbacca]

Leave it up to a math nerd to not understand grammar.

Re:Is this really that bad?

[Zakabog]

Now, if for whatever reason your prints are in the database (which they usually aren't) they will get your data as a result, no doubt. The thing is these sets of data will be taken from everyone arrested even if they are released with no charges afterwards. These records stay on file indefinitely. That's a bad practice (maybe convenient and practical for investigators).

I think what you're missing is that they already take fingerprints and mugshots (which do stay in a database indefinitely) even if the person is released with no charges. The only thing different is instead of having two identifiers on record they'll have three.

But isn't it also true that some criminal cases are based solely on DNA evidence?

Not quite, they don't have your DNA unless they think your a suspect, which means there's some other evidence that points you to the crime, and the DNA just helps back up that evidence.

Okay, the DNA database will not help in a case where a father rapes his daughter (since the daughter will be able to easily recognize her father.) It will help in a case where a complete stranger rapes someone (generally your semen doesn't accidentally land in a rape victims panties.) It will NOT help falsely convict someone in a murder case when the only thing tying you to the crime was a single hair found on the scene.

Yes, agreed. On the other hand once you have a database that you can run cross-checks on that will spit out all potential matches for a set of DNA you will consider questioning them. And that's where it gets dangerous. You find DNA at a crime scene, ask the computer for potential matches, computer says Joe X. lives two blocks away. So you go down and ask him questions or arrest the guy only to find out later on that he didn't do anything. Yet he's in all the legal trouble for getting arrested and has to explain himself to neighbors and employers. These are usually the problems that people suffering from misconduct in investigation suffer from. I'm not trying to defend actual criminals here but the risk of false positives grows by a magnitude if you gain unquestioned access to such tools.

Yes the chance of false positives increases, but so the chance of finding and convicting the actual criminal increases by a lot more than the chance of convicting a false positive. There has to be more than just DNA evidence tying you to a crime, so it's not likely Joe the retired war veteran is going to be arrested for a murder case just based on the fact that he lives close and they found one of his hairs at the scene.

Let's be honest. No one is going to delete the DNA records once they are on file. They don't even take people off their No-Fly/Anti-Terror lists even after they're proven to be innocent. The claim that they will dispose of the DNA evidence is bogus. Once the data is in the computer why, as an investigator, would you ever erase it? Someday, at some point, that guy you arrested for not wearing a shirt at the zoo will commit a serious crime and then you'll have all his stuff on file. The mugshot and prints are only useful if you have any indication the person was actually at the scene. DNA evidence will look like they've been there even though they never were. That's what is so dangerous.

Matching DNA isn't enough to convict someone, they have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Finding one hair isn't enough.

Have you never watched these "unsolved muders" things late at night? Again stupid media outlets but if you look at actual case proceedings you can see their pretty accurate. Investigators will swipe a crime scene for clothing fibers, hair, blood, other body liquids, cigarette butts etc to gather DNA evidence. That's how so many suspects are convicted. So if one of your hairs shows up at the scene of a murder they will probably find it and try to make sense. If your DNA is on file yo

No surprise

[Wansu]

During the 21st century, our personal liberties and civil rights have been peeled away. This is just another step toward subjecting everyone to DNA testing. Think DNA testing and DNA matching are flawless? What have you got to hide, comrade?

Go through the Trash?

[olddotter]

Maybe I watched too much CSI and "X Files". But couldn't someone build a national DNA registry by going through our trash or recycling bins?

Re:Go through the Trash?

[pmarini]

how would they know who it belongs to ?

Re:Go through the Trash?

[Kjella]

Maybe I watched too much CSI and "X Files". But couldn't someone build a national DNA registry by going through our trash or recycling bins?

Pretty close, if they went through your residential litter. Since you can work our out sex (x/y gene), approximate age (telomeres) and any blood relations (standard paternity test) you can build a pretty solid database from a fairly large building without ever making a positive ID. If you got a serious database running, it wouldn't be much work to identify new people showing up or to pick groups of unknowns apart by searching for known family members. It'd be a lot easier to just make it a mandatory part of getting a social security number or something though.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[spire3661]

Any database built in this manner would be more worthless then the garbage you gleaned the data from.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[kabocox]

Maybe I watched too much CSI and "X Files". But couldn't someone build a national DNA registry by going through our trash or recycling bins?

Nah, too difficult. It'd be much easier to develop and give the tech for average store video cameras to ID their customers and let the stores to most of your leg work. Do you have any idea what percentage of the nation that walmart could ID with that tech? Say they tie your recording with your cash, credit, or check payment. Two out of the 3 of those will give them ID on you. Well, if you've paid in cash, they just let their recorders follow you to your form of transportation. Which would either be bus or car. They record the as much vehicle info as they can and attach it to your video record. It's got to be automatic without any human involvement. After 6 months, a single walmart could ID a good chuck of the residents of that town.

That doesn't even get into if walmart decides to dump all that info to Walmart HQ and cross reference it. Imagine if those walmart greeters actually did keep the people out of walmart that were nationally banned from walmart. If you've ever caused an incident or shop lifted within a walmart you get banned and go on their black list. Today it would take you being arrested and the police to find out that you've been previously banned from the store and add that as an additional charge to what ever your arrest was. With this tech, they could scan everyone walking into the entry and have a automated voices/holograms say welcome "x" or "You've been banned from this chain please exit the premises." If you don't leave ASAP, then they summon the local cops. Laws generally only reach nationally, Walmart could apply that to every walmart on the globe. ;)

I use walmart as the example that people recognize as the largest store that could have plenty or R&D to develop this in house. It could be any national chain. If the video recording industry properly develops it, then it could be every gas station/small business/ or certain video recording usage companies. Customers don't have a clue what kinda of video recording that stores use. What if there was the small business anti-theft alliance, to do this instead of walmart? You'd see people that would try to fight walmart or other large national chains be glad of small businesses going after local crime.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[ShooterNeo]

Interesting idea, except that face recognition is just not accurate enough.

In fact, I would comment that it may never be accurate enough for what you propose : I don't always recognize the faces of my own friends in photos. The human 'face' can be altered, obscured, distorted, lit differently, aged, scarred in countless ways that would prevent this software from being able to be certain enough to auto-evict people from wal mart.

Now, RFID tags...that's easily an accurate enough technology. But someone who found themselves banned could just remove those.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[kabocox]

Interesting idea, except that face recognition is just not accurate enough.

In fact, I would comment that it may never be accurate enough for what you propose : I don't always recognize the faces of my own friends in photos. The human 'face' can be altered, obscured, distorted, lit differently, aged, scarred in countless ways that would prevent this software from being able to be certain enough to auto-evict people from wal mart.

Actually, that's the beauty of it. They don't have to do face recon to ID most of the time. O.k. to keep banned criminals out they do. As long as they can follow individuals through the store, that would be good enough. You then tie it to one of two things. A purchase or a vehicle. Most Walmart parking lots have 4-5 entrances, so you'd need license plate scanners at each one of those entrances so they'd use that as a fairly unique ID to tie you with something physical. Walmart doesn't need the DMV. They could just make an educated guesses. Trust me face recon may be bad, but license plate scanner tech has gotten really good lately. It just needs to be cheap enough for your average store to want to add it as an 1K additional security part. Last time that I checked, they cost around 20K. That's far to much.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[ShooterNeo]

You mean if the license plate matches that of a banned customer AND the face matches for the face recognition algorithm? Yeah, that could work...except that it is easy to get a new license plate. Only if walmart had DMV records could they catch you if you switched plates. Same with credit cards.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they need an identity to match up with the DNA. The DNA in your trash might not be your DNA.

Re:Go through the Trash?

[kabocox]

You mean if the license plate matches that of a banned customer AND the face matches for the face recognition algorithm? Yeah, that could work...except that it is easy to get a new license plate. Only if walmart had DMV records could they catch you if you switched plates. Same with credit cards.

Actually, I was thinking of them using the license plate rec as the sole tie in until their face recon gets good enough. O.k. you could switch plates, but they'd still have the visit recorded to a plate. Say that they've been recording every customer's visit for the last ten years. (Data storage has gotten to like cheap 1 TB flash cards or cheap 1 PB HDs.) Their face recon will improve over the next 2-3 decades. What's really bad is that the police or individuals have a difficult time matching up photos with individuals. Do you remember folks from your junior high year book? Usually not really only the names. Well, they'll have 10 years of recorded imagery of visits. They'll have pics of when you were 6 walking around with mommy to when you are 16 and trying to buy cigs or beer to when you are 22 and actually buy a gun or beer. They'll be able to string it all together and once they do, presto, they've got everything that you've ever bought at a walmart.

I don't even want to think how long most of those tasks would take with current hardware. With DVRs, we might be able to keep a month of security records. All other operations on that data is most likely difficult. In 10-20 years, it may be much more likely though.

Think about the (carefully regulated) children!

[Suzuran]

How are we supposed to determine whether or not someone can be issued a reproduction license without a national DNA database to determine the suitability of their genes? I mean, we can't allow just anyone to have children, right?

It doesn't solve crimes...

[pmarini]

It doesn't solve crimes... it simply helps find criminals.
To "solve" crimes, you have to put in place measures to prevent crime, like avoiding normal people from losing tons of money that have gone in banker's bonuses or unfair pricing for products using lock-ins and monopolistic practices

just my own 2c

Consider: DNA Backlog

[Nick Sz]

don't we already have a significant national backlog of forensic DNA, and would this just exacerbate the situation?

Re:Consider: DNA Backlog

[sqrt(2)]

Sounds like a great way to create thousands of new jobs. Think of all the technicians and office workers that would be required to process all that information. They could make it part of the stimulus package.

Fishing for suspects

[Adrian Lopez]

If this law passes, expect an increase in the enforcement of laws against loitering, public drunkenness and vagrancy. Nothing better than the enforcement of vague laws to enable a DMA fishing expedition.

Re:Fishing for suspects

[Man Eating Duck]

DMA fishing expedition

DMA forensics, now *that* is scary.
Sorry :)

Re:Fishing for suspects

[Adrian Lopez]

But... the 'M' is right next to the 'N', you insensitive clod!

DMA forensics would indeed be scary, though.

What seems to be the problem?

[denzacar]

Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned.

They already do far less with fingerprints they gather the same way.

Only, you CAN fake those.

You can't fake someone's DNA.
It is not like you can print it out or copy it to a portable media and then just sprinkle it later.

Re:What seems to be the problem?

[Forbman]

No, but you can plant others' DNA.

Re:What seems to be the problem?

[denzacar]

From what?

They swab the inside of a person's cheek.
They don't take a lock of hair or a vial of blood.
DNA is spent in the process of analyzing it. They just keep the data.

DNA itself, as any other organic sample, would require far more storage space in a very controlled environment.
You just stack more hard drives on top of the old pile when you run out of space.

Re:What seems to be the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get your hair cut, don't you? Don't mind me as I follow you into the barber shop next time you go.

DNA is very easy to obtain, which is the reason they want to use it. You leave it everywhere you go.

Re:What seems to be the problem?

[denzacar]

You get your hair cut, don't you? Don't mind me as I follow you into the barber shop next time you go.

Feel free to do so.

If it is ever brought up in a trial my lawyer will just ask for the hair to be checked for scissor marks.
Being that I use one single barber for last... umm... 8 years - they could probably even match the particular scissors to the cuts.
Might even get a testimony from my barber and people in the shop that day that would prove how long ago I had a haircut - matching that to the state of decomposition of the "DNA sample" found at the scene.

Oh... I do believe that we are BEYOND the reasonable doubt there.

And what do you think... when they call my barber to testify at the trial - will he more easily remember me having a haircut, or you tucking a large ball of other people's hair under your shirt?

Error in Logic

[OldFish]

To say that DNA sequencing is good technology because it helps solve crimes may be true but there is a fundamental flaw in the logic used to support their Big Brother style plan: they've already caught their suspect without DNA. They should only be allowed to take a DNA sample of a suspect if they are holding DNA evidence that could link someone to the crime. Apart from that, gathering DNA that is unrelated to a specific crime and conducting random searches trying to match to crimes where there is no suspect could be an illegal search. Sure some bad guys will get away but giving too much leeway to authorities is the greater of two evils.

Related: If you live in California...

[chainLynx]

In related news, California DMV wants to start putting your biometrics on your driver's license. Send a letter to the state legislature urging against it: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1256

Baloney

[JustNiz]

>> Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned.

Baloney. If this was actually true, they would only bother to collect samples from people after they were found guilty.

You first

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well known that a certain profession draws a great deal of criminals towards it. In fact, many bribery and corruption charges come from this profession. Therefore, I propose that anyone holding this job be forced to give a DNA sample. All lawmakers should do this so we can prevent any criminals from making laws.

Terrifying

[sqrt(2)]

Do you know how many places I've left my DNA?! Because I don't!

It's only a matter of time before it would be falsely linked to a crime scene. I don't need the state to do this to protect me. My best defense against crime is my CCW. You can have my DNA sample when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Re:Terrifying

[meist3r]

No one knows, common house dust is mainly construed of dead skin particles and broken hairs. So basically you can pick up a can of evidence behind everyone's TV set. Sure there are limitations but once we start with this bogus nonsense there is hardly a way to go back.

Sure. Let the bill pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no court in the country that would allow this it to remain on the books. That pesky 5th Amendment, and all.

WASHINGTON state

[Anonymous Coward]

Editors,

It would be nice if you could take a moment to update the article to indicate that it's WASHINGTON state. "State" can refer to a bunch of things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(disambiguation)). Even within the US, we use it to mean nation state or to mean any one of the 50 states of the United States, I know Slashdot is US-Centric, but I'm a US citizen, living in the continental US, and even I got confused.

I saw this movie once....

[rts008]

Gattaca, anyone?

It may be that in the long run, we can't totally avoid this crap, but the more we roll over and lick it up, the faster it will come to us.

Now, what's on American Idol...Ohh...Shiny!!

Re:I saw this movie once....

[snakernetb]

That was my thought exactly. How much longer are we going to take this. Where does the fifth amendment fit in all of this? Can't you refuse and waive your right? It is one thing to consent if dna is found somewhere to help declare your innocence. But how can they do this prior to charging you with any crime? Pardon me sir do you know how fast you were going, and oh BTW let me swab your mouth? High treason!?!

Re:I saw this movie once....

[Anonymous Coward]

Made me think of Gattaca also. Remember too how it turned out, they were so sure of the DNA evidence they found at the scene they stopped investigating and went after him, even though he wasn't the one who committed the crime.

Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

You cannot reject IP, copyright etc and then complain if someone (yes, including the police) picks up one of your hair from the ground and gets your DNA (yes, even without your knowledge).

There is no IP, you don't own your genome.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[sqrt(2)]

And why not simply make an exception for DNA? There's no reason why we can't, as a society, decide that the human genome doesn't follow the same rules as other forms of information.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of owning your genome as much as owning your right to privacy.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure you understand the concept of "Intellectual Property". Your DNA is not just information; it's actually a part of you. I didn't think up my sequence of DNA, it is a definite part of me. Writing computers software or using a bunch of letter and numbers in a certain order is not even comparable. It's like saying you don't own your body since you don't think I own the idea of the letter "A".

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

Because it doesn't make sense ? Because a "society" doesn't make decisions. Because there are moral rules inherent to the human nature which do not depend on what people claiming to speak for society think ?

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

The software I write is as much a part of me, if not more than my DNA. It's my creation. That doesn't mean I can enforce property rights on this piece of information.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

Begging the question, assuming a right to privacy implies you own your private information.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[JohnWhitney]

IP and copyright are about business and making a profit. DNA sample collection is about life and liberty. It's also possible to reject current IP and copyright laws (implementations) without rejecting the whole concept (i.e., why not copyright only for 20 years?).

To flip your argument back onto you: you cannot reject the police searching your house whenever they want, without a warrant and without charge, if you don't reject people taking your DNA without being convicted of a crime. In either case, you are being presumed guilty.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[evanbd]

Balancing the right to privacy against the right to free speech and intellectual property is anything but simple. Most people who think about it a bit will decide that the question is full of gray areas, and that there is, in fact, a difference between my dna and my published works.

Assuming the issue is so simple that you can make such black and white statements helps no one.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[JesseMcDonald]

You're absolutely right. However, this article isn't about collecting some abandoned hair off the ground and analyzing it; it's about forcibly extracting a part of your physical body, without so much as a criminal conviction. The fact that no one has any exclusive right to the information encoded in their DNA does not imply that they have no ownership rights in the DNA itself, or in the tissue/fluids surrounding it.

You don't own your genome, but you do own your DNA (until such time as you abandon it).

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[skeeto]

You are talking about two different subjects that have nothing to do with each other: copyright and privacy.

Apples to oranges. It's nonsense.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

Rights are not to be balanced, they do not contradict each other or they wouldn't be rights. A right is like a border between right & wrong, you're either within or out.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

Yes, that's a valid point but it's a technicality. They could as well collect falling hair.

They would only need to use force on someone wearing a plastic hat etc. You could argue that people would start wearing such hats if hair were collected but I doubt it.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Arthur B.]

Can you claim ownership on a piece of information and restrict people use of it if they have it at their disposal ?

Same problem.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[sqrt(2)]

Much of our legal system already doesn't make much sense. And we have a way to make collective decisions as a society, it's called government.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[JesseMcDonald]

There certainly are ways to discover someone's genome other than taking a sample from them directly, but these other methods aren't as suitable for identification. It would be quite a bit more difficult to prove that a random strand of hair picked off a public floor came from a particular person, vs. a cheek swab or blood sample. Note, too, that you haven't abandoned something simply because it's no longer in your possession -- you can continue to claim ownership even over your fallen hairs, bits of skin, etc., although you would the have to take responsibility for leaving them on others' property.

I have no problem with law enforcement taking advantage of people's negligence or apathy, but I do have a problem with them taking DNA samples by force. This may be a mere technicality in terms of results, but the difference between passive observation and active violation is significant from the moral, ethical and legal points of view.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice buttonholing job there.

It's not a matter of IP, it's a matter of identity.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[lordofwhee]

You seem to have IP and real, physical property confused. One exists, the other does not. There is no double-edged sword.

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Reziac]

To the contrary. I own my DNA just like I own my thoughts. Or are you saying that since if I speak my thoughts become known (or if I drop a hair my DNA becomes collectable) that they cease to be my private concern??

Re:Rejection of IP is a two sided sword

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that copyright and ownership of your genome are two very different things. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create. You cannot create new genome.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[mtrachtenberg]

I bet no one in your land is ever arrested without being guilty of a crime, and no one will ever abuse their access to private information about you. You lucky dog!

All you wussy pussy thieves who fear the law closing in on you !! Don't want your DNA known? Don't shoplift. Goddamn that seems simple enough even for slashdot lusers !!

Only if the Washington Const. is Amended!

[MarkvW]

This simply will not happen in its present form.

If this DNA collection is legal, then it must pass muster under both STATE and FEDERAL constitutions. It may be OK under the federal constitution (where the US Supreme Court is the last word), but it will NEVER pass muster under the Washington Constitution (where the State Supreme Court has the last word). The Washington Supreme court has a strong libertarian component (I'm not exaggerating). Compelled collection from convicted felons is OK per the Wash. Supreme Court (State v. Surge, 160 Wn.2d 65), but they're not going to approve compelled collection from pretrial detainees. No way.

It's going to take a state constitutional amendment or a recomposition of the Washington Supreme Court before DNA samples can be taken from pretrial detainees.

this is called hysterical overreaction

[circletimessquare]

i feel nothing but pity for you, to live in such fear of your world, and see the natural, valid functions of policework as horrible fascist knives pointed at your happiness

of course there are abuses of policework in our world. and these abuses are reviled, examined, reversed, and protected against. they are NOT the accepted status quo, which is what you seem to believe

i'm really sorry for you. that you have to view your world this way. but the way you view the world isn't reality, it simply isn't, unless you live in iran or china

i can prove what you say isn't reality

that isn't even reality to you

proof of this assertion?

it is thus: despite your hysterical timidity on the issue of the all intrusive police state you supposedly live in, you seem to have NO PROBLEM WRITING THE COMMENT YOU JUST WROTE

you have no problem at all registering your criticism of your mythical police state here on slashdot. if your complaints were 100% real, you wouldn't even have made the comment you just made, such would be your fear of reprisal and intrusion and punishment for registering your malcontent

Re:this is called hysterical overreaction

[Hordeking]

you have no problem at all registering your criticism of your mythical police state here on slashdot.

I can't tell you if it exists yet or not. That is immaterial. If we don't actively take measures to prevent the pre-conditions, it eventually will exist.

if your complaints were 100% real, you wouldn't even have made the comment you just made, such would be your fear of reprisal and intrusion and punishment for registering your malcontent

Don't think I don't consider that every time I write something. I'm willing to pay for my freedom. Are you?

Re:this is called hysterical overreaction

[Anonymous Coward]

of course there are abuses of policework in our world. and these abuses are reviled, examined, reversed, and protected against.

Even if I couldn't point to cases left and right (HPD crime lab scandal, Massachusetts "secret DNA stash" etc) the infamous "Blue Wall of Silence" specifically refutes your contention that the public is protected from abusive police. I wonder how many riots I can find caused by people getting killed by cops and the cops getting off scot free. Hell, it takes a rich black man getting shot in the back while laying in the driveway in front of his mother by cops who thought he must have stolen his own SUV he had driven home before an external investigator gets involved.

Re:this is called hysterical overreaction

[circletimessquare]

you have no problem at all registering your criticism of your mythical police state here on slashdot.

"I can't tell you if it exists yet or not. That is immaterial. If we don't actively take measures to prevent the pre-conditions, it eventually will exist."

yes. if we don't actively develop and improve our police force, the natural tendency to lawlessness will accelerate. you seem to believe that the natural tendency of things is to accelerate to police state. no. the existence of civilization is something that is constantly being eroded and must be actively maintained from various forces which would otherwise destroy it. you seem to believe that civilization is the low energy state, and high energy effort must be exerted to prevent civilization from consuming anything that isn't pure conformity. this is ludicrous. your entire starting assumption is the inverse of reality. the natural tendency is towards lawnessness, not towards stifling rules

if your complaints were 100% real, you wouldn't even have made the comment you just made, such would be your fear of reprisal and intrusion and punishment for registering your malcontent

"Don't think I don't consider that every time I write something. I'm willing to pay for my freedom. Are you?"

yes, i am willing to increase my taxes to hire more police to enforce the social framework in which i enjoy my freedoms. because i, unlike you, recognize a simple reality: lawlessness is more of a threat to my freedoms than the enforcement of my society's rules. my society's rules are ABOUT my freedom. when i am outside my society's framework, i don't have any of the freedoms my society enforces. it is only within society that the rules about your freedoms exist. with less police, with more anarchy, there is more transgression against your freedoms by random thugs and other mindless criminal behavior

do you believe the opposite? do you believe that, say your freedom of expression, is some sort of natural law granted by mere existence? ok, you go in the woods, outside of society, and you shout "i believe in evolution". and some guy comes out of the woods and says "i heard that. evolution is evil. recant your words or i'll kill you"

what's preventing him from using intimidation to squash your right to express yourself?

well, nothing, out in the woods. in society, a set of laws exist to prevent him from responding to your words with violence. and a vital, inescapable piece of the legal framework for the enforcement of your freedoms is the... drum roll please... the police

do you get it? a freedom you enjoy, say, freedom of expression, is not an aspect of natural morality. rather, something like freedom of expression, your right to say what you want without fear of capricious and violent response, is an unnatural, artificial, manmade idea. it exists only within the confines of your society, and must be actively maintained through a police force in order for your freedom to have any substance and reality about it

again, the simple truth of the matter: lawlessness is a greater threat to your freedom than your society's representatives for enforcing the freedoms, that you enjoy and your society guarantees. such representatives of YOUR society and YOUR rules are called the police

why don't people understand these simple concepts?

Re:this is called hysterical overreaction

[spire3661]

Read more history. It is not unfounded fear that raises our hackles, but the proven history of those in power.

Re:this is called hysterical overreaction

[Hordeking]

you have no problem at all registering your criticism of your mythical police state here on slashdot.

"I can't tell you if it exists yet or not. That is immaterial. If we don't actively take measures to prevent the pre-conditions, it eventually will exist."

yes. if we don't actively develop and improve our police force, the natural tendency to lawlessness will accelerate. you seem to believe that the natural tendency of things is to accelerate to police state. no. the existence of civilization is something that is constantly being eroded and must be actively maintained from various forces which would otherwise destroy it. you seem to believe that civilization is the low energy state, and high energy effort must be exerted to prevent civilization from consuming anything that isn't pure conformity. this is ludicrous. your entire starting assumption is the inverse of reality. the natural tendency is towards lawnessness, not towards stifling rules

Then we need to stop exerting so many resources towards creating stifling rules. There are such things as false-ground states (local minima), even in our usage. Let me use an extreme example, presented in the form of a sort of game: free-will vs determinism. Let's say we have a way to activate and deactivate free-will (individually). Any individual can change the free will-status of any other individual. Now, let's say all of the individuals randomly switch statuses as long as they have free will. When they don't have free will, they only do what they're told/act according to mechanism. There are two ground states: a chaotic system (anarchy), and a mostly deterministic system (police state). Sure, you can change the rules a little so a few deterministic elements can switch other elements or themselves. The spectrum in between is normal. But if either of the two extremes is approached, you end up with a positive feedback loop that eventually takes you to the stable states.

if your complaints were 100% real, you wouldn't even have made the comment you just made, such would be your fear of reprisal and intrusion and punishment for registering your malcontent

"Don't think I don't consider that every time I write something. I'm willing to pay for my freedom. Are you?"

yes, i am willing to increase my taxes to hire more police to enforce the social framework in which i enjoy my freedoms. because i, unlike you, recognize a simple reality: lawlessness is more of a threat to my freedoms than the enforcement of my society's rules. my society's rules are ABOUT my freedom. when i am outside my society's framework, i don't have any of the freedoms my society enforces. it is only within society that the rules about your freedoms exist. with less police, with more anarchy, there is more transgression against your freedoms by random thugs and other mindless criminal behavior

I'm a big fan of self-defense. When you find someone in your house in the middle of the night, and the police are too busy with other things, do you just happily wait for them? I would wager you either handle it yourself, or attempt to proactively take measures to ensure you catch him later.

On the streets: In the common situation, if I'm looking to victimize someone, I check around for police. If I don't see any, I'm good to go. In self-defense-positive jurisdictions, the cop is there to keep the peace. If I look to victimize someone, all bets are off if the victim has the means to defend themselves.

The police should be a supplement to looking out for oneself, not a substitute.

do you believe the opposite? do you believe that, say your freedom of expression, is some sort of natural law granted by mere existence? ok, you go in the woods, outside of society, and you shout "i believe in evolution". and some guy comes out of the woods and says "i heard that. evol

Re:this is called hysterical overreaction

[Anonymous Coward]

do you believe the opposite? do you believe that, say your freedom of expression, is some sort of natural law granted by mere existence? ok, you go in the woods, outside of society, and you shout "i believe in evolution". and some guy comes out of the woods and says "i heard that. evolution is evil. recant your words or i'll kill you" what's preventing him from using intimidation to squash your right to express yourself?

You associate with other people with a similar point of view, or get a bigger stick, and beat the bastard.

Self-incriminiation and the 5th amendment?

[zerofoo]

Maybe someone with a law degree could enlighten me on the 5th amendment? Does it apply here?

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

If I am asked or forced to give up my DNA, could that not be considered witnessing against myself? If the 5th amendment applies here, why are police allowed to collect and store fingerprints?

-ted

Re:Self-incriminiation and the 5th amendment?

[faloi]

My understanding, and I'm not law degreed so it probably doesn't carry much weight, is that the 5th basically frees you from having to give damning testimony against yourself in a trial. Witnessing against yourself when you know your guilty puts you in a bit of a bind...it's perjury if you lie and are caught, and pretty much throws out the "proven" part of being proven guilty.

The police are allowed to use evidence that could constitute witnessing against yourself (teeth impressions, finding the bloody knife in your hand at the murder scene), assuming they meet the criteria for a reasonable search and seizure. Getting DNA off everybody as a matter of course has a better shot of getting thrown out because it's unreasonable seizure under the circumstances than because of any 5th amendment concerns.

Heck, the feds have my DNA because of military service. I'm sure those weren't destroyed when I got out.

germany also gave us uwe boll

[circletimessquare]

so, according to your theory that hollywood stereotypes have a grain of truth in them, should i start viewing uwe boll movies as valid social critiques?

truly, this is a dystopian hell worse than the most paranoid orwellian nightmare we can imagine!

"You got something wrong here, these hollywood characters are modeled after real-life people. Always were. There's stuff going on that a writer can't even make up. So don't be so sure, what you're writing here sounds like you want to make a reasonable point but it acts as diluted propaganda."

wow

in conclusion: pointing out that hollywood traffics in stereotypes on my part is propaganda. i need to accept hollywood stereotypes as representations of social truth

wow

do i laugh or cry that someone actually believes this?

Re:germany also gave us uwe boll

[meist3r]

I can see why you want to defend your highly ranked comment, but with this load of incoherent bullshit?

I used the term propaganda because your arguments are in favor of these measures and you got your theory wrong from the outset. If you actually wanted to reduce the number of petty crime you wouldn't take DNA samples from every suspect but start actually punishing the big players. The shoplifter doesn't get his justification from the "common" lawlessness but from the lawlessness that is endorsed and furthered (apparently) by banking consortiae and such. How would the petty thief who steals for his drug habit or other social disadvantage see the reasoning behind broader law enforcement measures while the bankers who've burned billions of dollars walk free, wait, even get more money to throw away and are paid their bonusses? The perception of crime is not governed by how it is punished but with what you can actually get away with. Why doesn't the death penalty work? Explain to a shoplifter why he has to go to jail and give his DNA samples and the bank managers don't even have to show up in court. I appreciate your approach but I think it's flawed. If you see on TV that being a major asshole and a douchebag is perfectly acceptable and will earn you millions of dollars eventually there is absolutely no sense in trying to coerce the little guy on the street to believe in stronger law enforcement if society as a whole has adopted a corrupted agenda. That is what I think you meant by "surface level".

Then the next thing.
Uwe Boll? Are you serious? You consider that dork Hollywood? And let's not forget real quick that no one here gave him money ... it was American studios who gave him the dough to produce these celluloid atrocities. To me he's not even in the same league with other film makers despite his investors might be the same. You can blame Germany for quite a lot but not for that shit. I'm talking about movies like Michael Clayton for example. The typical "rich industrialist who uses his contacts to build a secret network to gain power" look at the old Capra movies for god's sake.

You accuse people of using QUOTE

mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments

And yet, you use ridiculous stereotypes of the commenters yourself. All I was trying to get across was that whatever nutcase conspiracy theory the tinfoil hat demographics comes up with there is something even worse going on in real life. Read a few things about the US government and the CIA and what their methods of control and "guidance" are. Read a book about the Gladio "stay behind" networks and look at some of the (recent) politically motivated wars and coups to install governments. Whatever you think people over-exaggerate I think you don't even see the tip of the iceberg yet.

in conclusion: pointing out that hollywood traffics in stereotypes on my part is propaganda. i need to accept hollywood stereotypes as representations of social truth

Where are you getting this crap? Nothing of what you call you "conclusion" was even implied in what I wrote. You say "people use hollywood stereotypes to make up crazy conspiracies". I say "hollywood uses real life as a stencil and creates it's characters after actual events, therefore some of the conspiracy theories are probably even worse in reality than they are depicted in movies". Talk about Watergate and the whole Iraq war story. No one knew about tortured prisoners and missing WMDs and so on, All just coincidence. I don't actually believe something that you made out of my words by completely ignoring the context. So cry if you have to. Laugh if you must. I certainly don't give a rat's ass because you're hopeless.

Ballot

[bugs2squash]

Really; they will put inconsequential crap about gay marriage on a ballot, but nothing like this...

1) Governments are incapable of keeping any record confidential. How many apologies have been issued for massive leakages of social security records (especially in Britain I believe) So you're not just giving up your DNA to the government, you have to assume that the government is simply collecting it for anyone to use.

2) It won't be long before DNA evidence becomes discredited. There will one day be ways of beating the system, planting evidence, altering evidence etc. And the evidentiary value will diminish. So the cost/benefit that looks so good now will erode.

3) I not only have my own interests to defend, but those of my Children. So far as I am aware, if my and my wife's DNA are collected, then my Children's DNA can be inferred.

So in 10 years' time the record will show that I put my childrens' freedom / insurability / job prospects etc. at risk for minimal benefit and at great cost to the tax payer.

Frame the question on a ballot in that way and see if the good people of Washington will approve it.

Re:Ballot

[Red Flayer]

Really; they will put inconsequential crap about gay marriage on a ballot, but nothing like this...

Well, duh. In areas with a decent conservative population, putting gay marriage on the ballot will bring the conservatives to the polls in droves (and their religious leaders will encourage them!). This gets conservatives elected (or re-elected).

Putting privacy issues on the ballot would bring the wrong voters to the polls... it would be voters who want to fight the system and encroachment of government, not those who support the behemoth.

Did you actually think ballot issues are placed there to let the public decide an issue? They are placed there to motivate people to come to the polls.

Re:Ballot

[Anonymous Coward]

Really; they will put inconsequential crap about gay marriage on a ballot, but nothing like this...

1) Governments are incapable of keeping any record confidential. How many apologies have been issued for massive leakages of social security records (especially in Britain I believe) So you're not just giving up your DNA to the government, you have to assume that the government is simply collecting it for anyone to use.

2) It won't be long before DNA evidence becomes discredited. There will one day be ways of beating the system, planting evidence, altering evidence etc. And the evidentiary value will diminish. So the cost/benefit that looks so good now will erode.

3) I not only have my own interests to defend, but those of my Children. So far as I am aware, if my and my wife's DNA are collected, then my Children's DNA can be inferred.

You assume that you aren't an unknowing stepfather my friend.

So in 10 years' time the record will show that I put my childrens' freedom / insurability / job prospects etc. at risk for minimal benefit and at great cost to the tax payer.

Frame the question on a ballot in that way and see if the good people of Washington will approve it.

Re:Ballot

[Anonymous Coward]

"There will one day be ways of beating the system, planting evidence, altering evidence etc. And the evidentiary value will diminish. So the cost/benefit that looks so good now will erode."

I have never heard of a form of forensics that this is not already be true of. Sabot's and brass harvesting for ballistics. Blank ammo for gunpowder tattoos to disguise the distance the fatal shot was made from/to fake suicide.

Latex fingerprints molded and adhered to your fingertips. That requires a laser printer and a glass cup from a victim. (better stop eating at restaurants)

The DNA in the finger print oils/blood evidence can be cultured with a PCR(polymerase chain reaction) machine and mixed with or spritzed over fake blood/fingerprint evidence.

We shed hair everywhere we go. Not hard to steal some hairs and leave them in a hat in the bushes at a crime scene.

hxxp://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/catalyst/stories/s1199805.htm

Don't even get me started on "Fire Sciences." What a load of shit. The entire field is bought and paid for by the insurance industry to generate fake arson convictions so that the insurance company doesn't have to pay.

Something to think about before you insure your house against fire damage.

Innocent people are convicted of DNA as often as innocent people are exonerated by it. It's a revolving door of "fuck off."

We're already there. The juries just haven't been informed yet because I haven't finished my work.

A wide net doesn't just tangle big fish...

[weston]

you would be amazed how many rapists and murders also run red lights and shoplift....

One of the problems I have with this philosophy is that it ends up turning a number of otherwise routine stops into attempts to saddle you with a bigger crime.

I've encountered this personally, particularly in the Sacramento area. I wondered for a while, for example, why I'd get questioned for 5-10 minutes on a number of unrelated topics on a stop that happened one of my brights wasn't working. Eventually I figured out that it's the routine screening philosophy at work. It happens that I'm not guilty of any crime I'm aware of or for which I've been questioned about during these encounters (drug possession, illegal weapon possession, violating parole, driving under the influence...), but it's more than a little unnerving to have a traffic incident turn into an obvious digging effort where the object is apparently to find anything they could possible charge you with.

I suppose some people look at that as being thorough. But for a guy who keeps his nose pretty clean, I've had a pretty disproportionate number of these encounters, so it's pretty easy for me to wonder how often the routine screening philosophy leads to barking up the wrong tree.

So, I don't really want it applied writ large. Especially when it comes to DNA, but really, when it comes down to it "routine screening" sounds a lot like "consistent surveillance," doesn't it?

This is law in California

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds less invasive than the California law, approved by voters by 62% in 2004, which does the following:

• Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and submission to state DNA database; and; in 2009, from adults arrested for or charged with any felony.
• Authorizes local law enforcement laboratories to perform analyses for state database and maintain local database.
• Specifies procedures for confidentiality and removing samples from databases.

More here.

Maryland has had a DNA database since 1994

[PeeAitchPee]

They've kept expanding whose DNA gets included despite protests from privacy advocates (and they're quite proud of that). Here's MD DNA Database's official site. ALL arrestees aren't added (yet) . . . but given MD's track record of expanding this database, it's just a matter of time.

why stop there?

[nurb432]

Just take everyones DNA? You know its what they want to do.

Re:why stop there?

[theleoandtherat]

Next they will be want to get DNA and fingerprints from your children because they are at risk of being kidnapped (because they exist).

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Mateo13]

What about speeding?
What about when the police detain you for no good reason other than they suspect you of doing something wrong? It's happened.

i live in new york

[circletimessquare]

the lawlessness of the 1980s made the city unliveable

in the 1990s and 2000s, new york city is liveable again. crime is way down, murders are way down. how is this anything but a good thing?

you seem to believe in a world where everything is normal and fine, and then the police come in and start abusing people just because that's what police do. no, the real world is an environment that is unliveable and dangerous, and the police come in and make it safe and liveable... for you

you seem to believe police are the enemy. no, lawlessness is the enemy. what are the police? the police are yours. they are an extension of your society bent on enforcing YOUR rules, to make your life safe

and yet their is this fantastical common notion that the police are some sort of fascist stormtroopers of some evil elite, enforcing random draconian laws... just because they are cartoon characters who like doing that, apparently

police abuse IS real. and when it happens, it gets punished. for the simple reason that police abuse is a form of the lawlessness that police exist to fight. the argument that police are the enemy folds in upon itself: how do you fight police abuse anyways, except within the legal framework of the society itself? what other solution exists to fight police abuses than police functions of society?

when you look at it that way, it becomes a matter of tweaking police function, and changing the rules of society. not attacking the police themselves. you are just attacking your own safety when you do that. it's just some sort of absurd teenage mentality

all civilization need police to make society function. to somehow believe or begin with the assumption that the police themselves are the enemy is some sort of bizarre alien notion. it says you don't understand some really basic simple truths about the world you live in

Re:i live in new york

[Uberbah]

in the 1990s and 2000s, new york city is liveable again.

Yes, but the problem is that dropping crime rates had little to do with the massive increase in police presence, and everything to do with an improving economy. As evidenced by other large American cities that had similar drops in the crime rate without a Rudy 911uliani for a mayor.

Re:i live in new york

[Mr. Slippery]

the lawlessness of the 1980s made the city unliveable...in the 1990s and 2000s, new york city is liveable again. crime is way down, murders are way down. how is this anything but a good thing?

You ought to familiarize yourself with the fallacy of "post hoc ergo prompter hoc".

Crime rates fell across the nation during the 1990s.

no, the real world is an environment that is unliveable and dangerous, and the police come in and make it safe and liveable... for you

Ah, you've bought the "thin blue line" propaganda.

You do know that full-time professional police are a relatively recent invention in human society, right?

you seem to believe police are the enemy. no, lawlessness is the enemy.

No, lawlessness is the goal - that is, the development of a social order that doesn't need to be constantly re-enforced at gunpoint. As Thoreau put it:

I heartily accept the motto, -- "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, -- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. [emphasis added]

It's an asymptotic goal, of course.

police abuse IS real. and when it happens, it gets punished.

No, police abuse is SOP throughout the United States, and is rarely punished.

Re:i live in new york

[makomk]

and yet their is this fantastical common notion that the police are some sort of fascist stormtroopers of some evil elite, enforcing random draconian laws... just because they are cartoon characters who like doing that, apparently police abuse IS real. and when it happens, it gets punished. for the simple reason that police abuse is a form of the lawlessness that police exist to fight.

I notice you talk about the "reality of human nature". Well, in this case it is this: some people, when given these sort of powers, abuse them. However, police abuse, in general, doesn't get punished. Why? Cliquishness.

Police forces inevitably seem to develop an attitude of protecting fellow policemen, no matter what. (There are a few unusual individuals who do believe in upholding the law, even against other policemen, but they don't last long.) This means that abuse by the bad apples goes unchecked.

In the case of really serious abuses of police powers, there are special internal investigation units for this reason. However, they're for the big stuff (police collaboration with organised crime, that sort of thing), and even they have the problem that someone has to report it. The little abuses always go by unchallenged.

twins

[njko]

im so busted my identical twin is a punk

Re:twins

[DaveV1.0]

Yeah, no.

Your identical twin would be immediate reasonable doubt for any crime you are linked to by DNA evidence unless your punk twin had an unshakable alibi, such as sitting in jail at the time of the crime.

Of course, if they had your DNA and your fingerprints at the scene, that would be bad for you. Your fingerprints will not match your twins.

DNA is plenty accurate but this will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a company that performed the DNA profiling for the CODIS system and was heavily involved in the creation, analysis and production of the DNA profiling results. Lots of these where used to catch real bad people.

I can assure you it's plenty accurate enough to distinguish any individual with a couple of caveats: Identical twins and those lucky folks who are trisomal. The accuracy is based on the possible permutations of a set of marker sections of DNA. There used to be 14 markers of various lengths. For you CSI fans these are the Cofiler and Profiler marker profiles. Newer markers are now in use that have 16 markers (PowerPlex 16) and are more accurate and faster to process.

All this is fine and dandy with one little problem: Processing DNA profiles is an EXPENSIVE, complex and time consuming process. There are literal 10's of thousands of DNA samples piled up that never get processed because there simply aren't enough labs to do it and there's no way local agencies can do this kind of work. Sorry Horatio. Also the government doesn't like to pay their bills which is why lots of labs simply dropped processing DNA profiling samples. The company I worked for got out of the DNA profiling business 2 years ago because the government cheese (for all their talking) made it difficult for companies to make any money doing this type of work. Did I mention it's expensive and complex?

DNA profiling is way better than finger prints but it's expensive and difficult to perform. They can collect all the samples they want. They'll never get analyzed. This is a real problem if something happens to some one you care about and the DNA evidence to catch the criminal is sitting around for years waiting to be processed. It happens every day and won't change until somebody way up in the government is a victim and are told the police would love to catch the criminal, and have DNA evidence, but it's going to be a year or two until the sample can be analyzed.

Where have you all been?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1989 I was stopped by the Urbana, IL police for failing to wear my seatbelt. I was on my way to a car wash to wax my perfect little efficient car. When I declined to give a wouth-swab DNA sample, I was taken into custody, and later arrested for an outstanding parking ticket violation. My friend bailed me after 30 hours, having paid the fine for me. I am a physicist, and was using the nice afternoon to think through a paper I was to write that night, for immediate publication in a major journal upon a very hot topic. Cops will use every tool made available to them, for their own destructive purpose, regardless of the damage to millions of lives.

4th Amendment, anyone?

[JSBiff]

Can someone explain to me under what legal doctrine this does *not* violate the 4th Amendment? Does this fall under 'probable cause' since the person has been arrested? I could see taking a DNA sample upon arrest and checking it against a database of crime-related DNA samples (that is, DNA samples taken from a scene of a crime or victim [like skin under the fingernails of a person who was assaulted and scratched the assailant]), but it shouldn't be stored in a general purpose DNA database unless the accused is actually convicted (it would probably be stored, of course, in the case files for the case under investigation).

It Stops crime

[TarnVeda]

Yeah, right.

It's technology - it's neutral. That argument is often used to justify one more nail in the coffin of what's left of the American illusion of freedom.

We need more police on the street - 'It Stops Crime'
We need more cameras on the street - 'It Stops Crime'
We need more informants - 'It Stops Crime'
We need your DNA - 'It Stops Crime'
We need your children to spy on you - 'It Stops Crime'

Here's an interesting thought - take DNA samples AFTER CONVICTION, or are we now presumed guilty until proven innocent (sounds like trying to prove you did not do something, and IIR, you can't prove a negative )

RFID/GPS implants, solve crime AND online security

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of the benefits if we had an RFID/GPS "tag" implanted at birth:
- track kidnapped babies
- locate your children
- security when online shopping
- targeted advertising
- easy TSA checking
- no captchas, passwords, usernames would save all the costs on MSFT security, OpenID efforts
- dramatic decrease in law enforcement investigative costs; just run a log of people in an area, buildings, vehicles
- attach your tag info with your browsing profile to help advertisers and gov't agencies help you
- helps the economy (more tech infrastructure) and jobs (more people monitoring)

All around a great enabler to society.

Isn't it Winston ? We all want more convenience, efficiency and cost savings. Surely you agree ?

Future knowledege

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the UK there is a national DNA database, and I think it's quite terrifying.

The problem isn't so much what it represents now, but what it could hold. There is a huge amount of research going on into DNA, and all the time scientists discover how to determine more and more about a person from their genetic makeup.

Clearly as time passes the amount of information that can be extracted from the database can potentially increase greatly depending on how it is stored.

And the government doesn't have a good reputation in keeping data safe. So assume the data is leaked at some point, and some 3rd party is now able to scan the DNA records of some significant portion of the population for their own purposes.

The fact that we simply do not fully understand the coding of DNA right now makes collecting a database of it a very worrying prospect for me. Even if they only stored a MAC of the DNA, we'd still have to worry about rainbow tables and the ever increasing computing power available to almost anyone (via Amazon EC2 or a botnet).

Clearly DNA does hold some benefits in policing, but it should be retained only for people with convictions and even then destroyed some time after they have repaid their sentence.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. The problem isn't concerning people who shoplift. It concerns the people who are accused of shoplifting but had nothing to do with it. Why should they be bothered any more than absolutely necessary?

My take

[raijinsetsu]

Although I agree with many people in this discussion that the collection of DNA for every arrest is an invasion of privacy, I do not agree that the use of collected DNA should be seen the same way.
Before DNA, law officials used everything they could find at the scene of a crime to narrow the list of suspects. Items such as hair, finger prints, foot/shoe prints, personal affects, weapon, etc. were all used to find likely culprits. If you found red hair, you'd look for red-haired people to question. If you found a foot print that indicated the culprit's weight and height, you'd look for people with those attributes. None of this is at all seen as an invasion of privacy.
DNA is just another set of evidence used to limit the number of suspects. It cannot be used to convict (although, with enough other evidence, it does help). If I were accused of a crime and they had found DNA at the scene, I would gladly turn in a sample so that I could remain free.
I do believe that collecting the DNA of felons or perpetrators of violent crime is acceptable, but only after they have been tried and found guilty. That last part is important. Collecting DNA is much the same as recording the person's name, address, height, weight, outstanding features, and finger prints. I see no difference.
I do not believe that collecting everyone's DNA would be beneficial for anyone. Indeed, collecting that much data would slow the process significantly (think of searching for a "John Smith" living somewhere in the US). If we claim that collecting the DNA of known criminals is an invasion of privacy, then we must claim that collecting ANY data on known criminals is also invasion of privacy.
But... that's just my take on it.

Re:My take

[DaveV1.0]

Although I agree with many people in this discussion that the collection of DNA for every arrest is an invasion of privacy

Do you feel the collection of fingerprints is for every arrest is also a violation of privacy?
Explain the privacy difference between getting your fingers inked and pressed on a piece of paper and getting your cheek swabbed?

Re:My take

[abelenky17]

Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.

Fingerprints don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".

On the otherhand, DNA says *everything* about you.

Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.

Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.

Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.

We don't even know how DNA may be used in the future.

Re:My take

[DaveV1.0]

Prove your assertions, with examples from trustable verified sources and show where the groups you have mentioned will have access to the data.

Or you can admit you are just making shit up and spreading FUD.

Just like fingerprints

[DaveV1.0]

There is no difference between this and getting fingerprinted.

Or do you think that is somehow a violation of your rights too?

Re:Just like fingerprints

[spire3661]

There is a gulf of difference. A fingerprint is simply a physical pattern impression. DNA evidence is your entire medical code, complete with information about genetic disease, lineage, etc etc. DNA holds several orders of magnitude more data then a simple fingerprint.

Re:Just like fingerprints

[DaveV1.0]

Maybe it does, but we really don't have the knowledge and technology to read it all for everyone, or even everyone who is arrested. And, even if we had the technology, resources, and knowledge, it would be pretty much useless to do decode it for everyone in this context.

This is a tempest in a teacup.

Re:Just like fingerprints

[theleoandtherat]

Your DNA know things about you, that you didn't.

Like why you look so much like your mothers mailman and what place you're in line to the Crown of England.

Re:Just like fingerprints

[WolfTheWerewolf]

>> "... but we really don't have the knowledge and technology to read it all for everyone ..."

You forgot the all-important "yet" in that statement.

What happens when the technology and data mining capabilities do exist to piece together everything about you? Will such data be infallible?

Re:Just like fingerprints

[stewbacca]

While we are at it, we should ban mug shots! Those give away vital private information, such as what your face looks like! But in all seriousness, until the average Joe has a way to a) steal your DNA from a data bank, b) read the data in your DNA, and c) exploit it, there is nothing to see here.

Re:Just like fingerprints

[DaveV1.0]

So what? They won't have access to that information.

Re:Just like fingerprints

[DaveV1.0]

Oh wah wah wah. You act like the government is going to bother to mine the data, let alone share it. Quit spreading FUD and grow the fuck up.

Let's Start With The Cops!

[squozzer]

In fact a precondition for any government job should be DNA submission. Considering the fact that many government agencies have substantial criminal infiltration (both organic and intentionally-planted), we should take the time to gather information to help us fight the most nefarious of criminals -- those that would pose as our protectors.

Re:Let's Start With The Cops!

[Locke2005]

More true than you think. The Inglewood, CA police department did a check once and discovered at least 3 of their dispatchers had outstanding warrants. (No, they did not admit this publicly, I knew somebody that worked there.) Of course, all those with access to the database can just make those records go away, can't they?

Geebus Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Sponsored by a Democrat in a predominately Democrat state. I thought the police state was the realm of the eeebil Republicans.

Bag checks are different

[BenEnglishAtHome]

You can ignore the bag check. I do. I finally decided to stop complying with any of them based on three experiences at two different Walmarts.

First, there's a Walmart in Houston that checks everything on the way out. That's ridiculous. It's a high-volume place with mostly low-dollar goods. I just walked past and stopped complying with any such requests at Fry's, etc.

The second was at another Walmart, one that didn't routinely check bags. I set off the shoplifting alarm because the checker hadn't deactivated the tag on a DVD I bought. The little old door lady came over, I handed her my receipt and showed her the DVD, then stuck out my hand to retrieve the receipt. She didn't hand it back. Instead, she started looking over every single item in my cart, bags, on the bottom rack, everywhere, checking them off against the receipt. I was incensed. When I realized what she was doing, I said "Goodbye" and started to roll on out. She jumped in front of me, did two last checks just so that I could see she was in charge of when she would let me go, and handed me the receipt.

I shoved my face to within two inches of hers and growled, as menacingly as possible through gritted teeth, "DO NOT *EVER* stop me on the way out of this store again!" Then I walked out.

A few weeks later, I'm leaving the same store when the same lady walks over to me as I'm leaving and asks to see my receipt. I was momentarily confused since I hadn't set off the alarm. Then I realized who it was. I realized she just liked screwing with people. And I leaned in, looked directly into her eyes, and simply said "No." She realized who I was and scurried away.

Nowadays, I don't even acknowledge the door workers on my way out. I don't care if they ask me to stop. I don't care if there's a line for the receipt check. I don't care if I set off the alarm. I just walk out.

Works for me.

What does that have to do with the mandatory gathering of DNA? You can refuse to stop for the little old lady at Walmart. Somehow, I don't think my strategy of "Just walk out" will work if I'm under arrest. I'm not sure how to handle or how far to push my objections to having a sample taken when I'm surrounded by men with guns and clubs who are determined to take what they want. Ultimately, these questions deal with the limits we place on governments to use force. Where I come from, in the privacy of a police station, there are *NO* limits. That's a sobering thought.

take your argument to its logical conclusion

[circletimessquare]

police abuse must be fought. correct?

ok. thefore the police... must be policed. do you have any other way to fight police abuse in mind?

so your argument against police abuse invariably leads to... more police. (or, specifically, internal affairs: any good sized police department has police within the organization whose job is to weed out and fight police abuse.)

in other words, your argument collapses in on itself. you don't really have a problem with the existence of the police, you have a problem with the behavior of a subset of misbehaving police

because police abuse is not some essential component of policework. rather, the opposite: police abuse is a flavor of the lawlessness that police exist to fight

lawlessness occurs at every level and in every sector of society. including the very elements of society dedicated to fighting the lawlessness

meaning, even the police must be policed

Re:take your argument to its logical conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

So the solution is having a corrupt organization look after itself. That's clearly a winning solution based on solid logic.

I guess all the abuses are "isolated incidents" too, right?

Re:take your argument to its logical conclusion

[circletimessquare]

the solution is for an organization to weed out its corruption

simply because without that organization, the corruption would spread like wildfire in all segments of society

in other words, which is worse: an organization with some corruption, or no organization at all?

and yes, the abuses are isolated incidents. what do you believe? that the police are alien creatures of inscrutable agendas and secret allegiance and of an unwavering desire to abuse average citizens just for the hell of it? the police are human beings, like you and me. mostly doing a good, a few bad apples doing bad. you honeslty believe otherwise?

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Gerzel]

Yes. If you are not guilty then why do you have anything to fear?

Because there is a frighteningly high rate of conviction for INNOCENT people. DNA has helped show that with many cases overturned. Our justice system is a good one but it DOES often make mistakes and OFTEN enough to warrant some caution on the part of the common innocent citizen.

That however is not a valid argument for taking away citizens' rights or jeopardizing those rights with a clerical error.

If they want dna from a suspect they should get a warrant like everyone else. This is done for people who are in custody. There already are means and methods of judging who will be a flight risk or not and DNA testing still is not a field practice so it would only help in a small minority of cases where the person is accused and then fled.

I have no problem with taking DNA of every person who was convicted of a crime(of a certain level, parking tickets for instance probably shouldn't warrant it).

Welcome...

[EddyPearson]

...to the UK.

We've been doing this for years. Funny to think my genetic fingerprint is stored in a DB somewhere.

I've always thought, doesn't this constant databasing of our personal details fall under the Data Protection Act's remit? Surely I should be able to A) Request a copy of everything they have on me B) Have it removed on request.

IANAL but I work on the assumption that nobody's above the law, and that conflicting laws are deemed unenforacable when they get shot down in court. Have I got it wrong?

your argument is absurd

[circletimessquare]

the freedoms you refer to only exists within a social framework. a social framework in which police are the essential component for the enforcement of your freedoms

that is, police exist to make sure you have the freedoms you enjoy, not take them away

human ideas of freedom are not natural laws. they are merely good ideas about human social interaction that are only real when they are enforced representatives of society's laws. who are called the police

your freedom of expression does not exist without police around to make sure you are protected from intimidation and threats of violence for simply expressing your ideas

in anarchy, you have no freedom of expression. i can shout "i believe in evolution" in a lawless environment and some guy can come up to me and say "take that back or i'll kill you" and i have no protection from him: i am intimidated. only within the framework of society do i have the police there to protect me from that intimidation

the freedoms you refer to as something to protect from the police are freedoms that... drum roll please... would not exist were the police not there to protect those freedoms for you. and so your argument is absurd: you wish to proect your freedoms from the guys who make sure you have those freedoms in the first place

needle phobe?

[Uberbah]

My concern isn't the needle (I donate blood frequently), but that this DNA is going in a database that the police "faithfully promise" will "be whipped if the suspect isn't charged".

Given the liberties that cops have taken with gathering and storing evidence, like using infra red cameras to look for pot growers (struck down by Supreme Court), or using helicopters to fly over your property without a warrant (ok'ed by the Supreme Court), I really really don't want them to start collecting DNA as a matter of course.

Re:needle phobe?

[Zakabog]

My concern isn't the needle (I donate blood frequently), but that this DNA is going in a database that the police "faithfully promise" will "be whipped if the suspect isn't charged".

Yes and my point is what malicious acts can they do with a database of DNA that they can't do with mugshots or fingerprints (both of which they take right after you're arrested, and they DO NOT delete them from the database if you're not found to be guilty)?

Gattaca

[HockeyPuck]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

The slippery slope begins... first arrests... then when you're born. Living "off the grid" will eventually equate to "being born in the woods."

Re:Gattaca

[Nocturnal Deviant]

haha wow i posted the exact same thing, creepy.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[LordKronos]

Why before? So we won't let the WANTED free, only because we don't yet know this person committed some other crime for which DNA was found.

That logic is no better than setting up random DNA check roadblocks everywhere. If we have to make sure an innocent guy that was wrongfully arrest didn't also actually commit a crime, then why not make sure everyone else that wasn't arrested (wrongful or not) isn't guilty of something too?

If you can use the DNA that was compulsorily taken from a non-yet-known-to-be-guilty person to prove they committed a crime, then you might as well just require all DNA for every person to remain on file whether they've been arrested or not. I say this because you'd already have a loophole in the system: you simply need to "arrest" everybody briefly on a daily basis and hold them just long enough to run their DNA against a database before "dropping the charges". Heck, you don't even need to do it daily. Just "arrest" them, take their DNA, hold it for whatever period would be legally allowed, and THEN drop the charges before promptly "rearresting" them on some other charge.

What we really need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a DNA and fingerprint database of all politicians. And not merely the elected ones -- ALL candidates for office too :-)

For their own identification and protection, of course.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[overlordofmu]

Hello, Anonymous Coward. Your DNA profile (which we have on file from that line jumping incident at the county fair) indicates you have anger issues and violent tendencies. You will be moved to the internment camp shortly for your mandatory sterilization to prevent your damaged genes from spreading and duplicating. You cooperation is appreciated. Thank you for support our cause on Slashdot. We now have you (literally) by the balls.

I agree with you.

[maillemaker]

I know we are in the minority here, but I agree with you.

If a person has done something that merits getting fingerprinted, then I have no problem with getting a record of their DNA pattern.

follow cops and collect disposed of cups and forks

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should follow legislators and cops around and collect trash that has thier DNA on it. If they ask tell them it is for a DNA database as you take thier picture.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[fiercedeity]

That's right. The more we start making concessions like these, the more the government will push for, well, more. Pretty soon, we'll need to give blood and stool samples to get a driver's license, or go on a plane, or take the bus.

Think of the Children

[Layth]

I commend you on your excellent use of the "Think of the Children" argument.

3) I not only have my own interests to defend, but those of my Children. So far as I am aware, if my and my wife's DNA are collected, then my Children's DNA can be inferred.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[korbin_dallas]

Ha. What you going to do when they change that requirement to include 'driving without a seatbelt'? No matter that its a antique car that didn't come with seatbelts. Or you just happen to forget that day.

Remember in these tight economic times, cops are being told to pull over anyone and everyone for anything, and seatbelts are a super easy one to catch people on. Cities need revenue and will do anything to get it.
Hiding under the cover of hassling lawbreakers shouldn't fly with anyone, lawbreakers or not (mostly not).

Its why we have Principal of Law and not Kings. Kings like to go around making up shit.

i have a question:

[circletimessquare]

what is wrong with large prison populations?

assuming you can prove that someone trangressed against society and someone else's freedoms, do they not deserve a punishment?

i don't understand this concept that prison populations should be low... according to what ideal? they shouldn't be high according to some arbitrary ideal, either of course. but what prison populations should be is the natural result of society making rules and imposing punishments according to those rules. whatever prison populations gravitate to because of that, makes no difference. as long as those who are not in prison don't have their freedoms impinged upon by criminals, what's the problem?

and i'm glad you are criminologist. but i remember the new york of graffiti and muggings on every corner and needle park (bryant park, in the middle of manhattan overrrun with heroin addicts) and bernie goetz (subway vigilante) and prostitutes and drug addicts in times square. and i remember the supposedly horrible conservative notion of getting tough on crime, and now i know a new york with the lowest rates of crime and murder in decades. and i am a social liberal: i believe in marijuana legalization, gay marriage, etc.

so to me, it is not a liberal notion, this idea of being soft on crime. i don't think you want to say this either, but you do realize that equating being tough on crime with conservativism means that liberalism holds the inverse? to me this is a false association: toughness on crime with conservativism. what would you call a social liberal who is tough on crime? an aberration? well, that's who i am then. but to me, its just common sense

no, this is a gross misrepresentaion of liberal principles. liberal principles gave us emancipation, gay rights, womens rights... all liberties and freedoms enforced by the police, against criminal elements who wish to impose transgressive acts on our liberal notions of freedom

a prison exists to house those who impose on your liberal freedoms. that's the way i see it. and from my experience living in new york city, the broken window theory is nothing but the reason my life in manhattan is now safe, and why it is nothing short of a blessing

because my experience in new york city has shown me the truth. a truth that seems to be inverted in other people's minds. the trtuh is: the greatest threat to your freedoms are criminals, and the protector of your freedoms is the police

if you can enunciate to me a way to get the results new york city did with its broken windows theory in the past 20 years, i will listen to you. but if you can only attack the theory, and blithely ignore the results, and offer no superior alternative, then i seriously wonder at the intellectual foundation of your beliefs. no matter what your credentials

Re:i have a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Largely the problem is that you're making an assumption that both the implementation of the kind of Zero Tolerance Policing that Broken Windows theory calls for and the reduction in crime rates are causally linked. The fact is that during the late ninties and early part of this decade everywhere in the United States enjoyed drastic drops in crime. There was plenty of other jurisdictions that experienced similar drops in crime that didn't adopt the policies of the NYPD. Rudy Giuliani merely took credit for what was actually a massive shift throughout the country. All of that drop in crime was met by a rapidly increasing economy which had a profound effect on homeownership, levels of community, social mobility. Moreover, shifting demographics reduced the number of individuals in the "crime prone years", which we know has a very powerful impact on crime. Crime is far more complex than a technical policing problem, and that's what Broken Windows suggests.

I'm not saying we shouldn't clean up parks of open-air drug markets, because there are very good reasons to do so independent of just wanting to repress crime (like creating a safe environment for children and piedestrians to play in). There are also other ways of using police that have an impact on crime (like problem oriented policing) than the kinds of policies than emanate from a broken windows philosophy. I'm saying you can't directly make the statement that Broken Windows is a good theory.

The issue with large prison populations is that we imprison far more than anyone country in the world and there is very little evidence to suggest that increasing use of prison really has a strong effect on reducing crime. It does, on the other hand, have a strong negative personal effect on those who are imprisoned, their families, and in turn society. By functionally creating class of pariahs through harsh punitive treatment, we ensure a permanent dependent criminal underclass, rather than dispersing it. The massive increases in our incarceration rate actually represent a form of American deviation from everyone else in the world, over and above any difference in actual crime rates. We punish more often and more frequently than any other Western Nation and we're pretty much in league with such wonderful nations as Russia in how we treat crime. Ask yourself, do you want to be as repressive as Russia?

Re:i have a question:

[T-Ranger]

If someone breaks the law, they should be punished for it. Send criminals to jail.

Some crimes fall into a category where, I think, pretty much whatever government does, they will still happen. Serial killers, for example.

Other crimes are different. Street level drug dealing is a prime example. There are people addicted to drugs, there a new people wanting to try drugs. There is a demand for drugs. Arresting a drug dealer today, and putting him in jail does nothing to reduce the demand for his product. Someone else will quickly take his spot on the corner, as it were.

Street level dealers, at least, are generally from a poor, uneducated background. They deal drugs because (apparently) it looks like a better gig then anything else.

If _all_ that government does is arrest drug dealers, then nothing has been accomplished - except making lots of jobs for prison guards. There are still drug dealers on the street.

1 drug dealer is a criminal problem. 100 drug dealers is a social problem.

In this specific case, an alternative approach would focus on reducing demand for drugs. Treat drug addiction as a health care problem. (well, in the US that would mean having good health care, in general, but I digress). Further, make drug dealing a less appealing source of income, by encouraging better alternatives. Better schools means people getting jobs, and having better options for jobs - which means fewer people willing to be dealers.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Tauvix]

It's a matter of degrees and small steps. First it's people arrested. Filthy criminals, they deserve it, right? Just don't get arrested.

Then it's anyone who wants to buy legal narcotic pain killers. Well, there's serious chance of over use, not to mention a black market...so we take a DNA sample, codify it in some way, then somehow encode it into the drug. See, we're winning the drug war!

Then it's any prescription drug. Hey...these are all controlled substances too...

Then it's anyone who checks into a hospital (including those born there). This will expedite the issuance of prescription drugs!

Then it's anyone who wants a drivers license or passport. We're protecting against identity theft and terrorism! Hurray!

And then it's just everyone. Well, everyone needs a drivers license, or will check into a hospital, or need prescription drugs at some point... Or what if they have a horrible accident and all we have is their left elbow?!? Now we can identify them!

Where do you draw the line? The most oppressive policies are the ones that start out "For the good of all..."

i know perhaps more of history than you then

[circletimessquare]

since it is lawlessness that is always eroding your liberties and freedoms

civilization exists to give you liberties and freedoms. your liberties and freedoms do not exist as some natural law, but only as a pact agreed upon by members of your society

those in power who abuse their power are not symptoms of society. they are rather a manifestation of lawlessness seeping into and subverting the freedoms that a normal society exists to protect

the police are not the enemy of your freedoms. lawlessnes is

the police exist to protect your freedoms

how people have come to view them as the enemies of freedom is absurd: your freedoms don't exist without the police

What not Texas Number One?

[ElmoGonzo]

I would have expected something like this from Texas.

Re:What not Texas Number One?

[glenstar]

You have to remember that Washington has the "764-HERO" number posted all up and down its freeways so that drivers can tattle on people who use the HOV lanes with less than the appropriate number of people in the car. This state is fucked.

Re:What not Texas Number One?

[stewbacca]

...so that drivers can tattle on assholes who think the rules don't apply to them

Fixed that one for you.

Re:What not Texas Number One?

[glenstar]

Nonetheless, the choice of the word "hero" in the phone number is creepy at best and damn near Orwellian at worst.

Re:What not Texas Number One?

[Anonymous Coward]

People in Texas tend to take their constitution pretty seriously. Not like "liberal" states.

Super Powers

[theleoandtherat]

The gov is go to do one of two things, hunt meta-humans or start making super solders. Both very cool things that we still wont get to know about.

wtf - DNA isn't "intellectual property", it's YOU

[Uberbah]

You cannot reject IP, copyright etc and then complain if someone (yes, including the police) picks up one of your hair from the ground and gets your DNA (yes, even without your knowledge).

You can't complain about the CIA randomly picking you up and torturing you for a couple months with no probable suspicioun, or else you support terrorism.

IP and DNA aren't remotely comparable no matter how many 'shrooms you are on. They aren't on the same planet, much less the same page.

oh god....

[Nocturnal Deviant]

This REALLY reminds me of the movie Gattaca

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

Quote: "In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is conceived and born without the aid of this technology. Suffering from the nearly eradicated physical dysfunctions of myopia and a congenital heart defect, as well as being given a life expectancy of 30.2 years, Vincent faces extreme genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his life-long dream of becoming an astronaut is to break the law and impersonate a "valid", a person with appropriate genetic advantage.[4]"

DNA isn't an identification technique, unless...

[weston]

Uh... you are at a crime scene.

Arrests happen other places besides crime scenes.

You seem to be confusing a search of your person with a process that will identify your person.

On the contrary, I think anybody who's proposing DNA as an identification technique is confused. It's only correlated with an identity ONLY if it's linked to an identity in a database somewhere.

And if that's the proposal, people should be more wary about the idea than home searches without a warrant.

and you would probably be the first person

[circletimessquare]

to complain loudly about the fact that the kidnapper was pulled over by the useless police and they didn't even bother to look in the trunk and find the duct taped hostage

damned if you do, damned if you don't

i got pulled over in harlem for a missing inspection sticker, with one of the cops staying by the patrol car with his gun cocked and raised at the back of my head. they even shouted at me when i reached for my wallet instead of keeping my hands in the air

i supposed i could be indignant and angry at that

except for the fact that i understand why the police do that, and why it is necessary for them to be cautious, prudent, and careful

in other words, i don't process the encounter like a self-absorb individual would, only concerned with easy shallow outrage. i don't wear my indignation on my sleeve, i'm not an insecure person who considers every slight and affront as a major questioning of my human dignity

because i'm not a child

are you?

Really Bad

[DaMattster]

No, this outrightly obscene. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I honestly hope that they try to pass this as the US Supreme Court would strike it down and slap the hands that attempted such an overt slap in the face of the Constitution. The very thought of requiring DNA of an arrestee is downright wrong! I could understand for a convicted felon but nothing less.

Re:Really Bad

[stonewallred]

really? the same SCotUS that said it was perfectly OK to hold a fellow without charges for several years?

I'll take 'Unreasonable Search' for $100 Alex

[Rastl]

First the legislation has to pass. THEN someone is going to have to be arrested and refuse to give the DNA sample. THEN they will be charged with obstructing justice or some similar thing. THEN they will be held in prison until they comply with the law. Only THEN will there be a high enough profile case for this to be overturned.

Unless a sudden case of common sense breaks out, which I doubt.

"Oh, think of the [insert hot-button crime here] this will prevent!" Which immediately tries to put anyone who opposes the idea in the "Supports [insert hot-button crime here]" camp.

I won't go into the oft-quoted Benjamin Franklin quote about security and liberty. But this is yet another example of it in practice.

Are hospitals going to be required to submit all DNA of newborns, just in case that person goes on to commit some crime in 20 years? Slippery slope my friends.

absurd

[circletimessquare]

so why are other city's crime rates, many often much smaller cities, lagging so far behind new york's low crime rate? and why are they all keen to copy new york's model?

yes, the joblessness drops, the crack epidemic waning: they contributed to crime drops. but new york has extraordinarily impressive low crime rates is due to its strong policing

i don't conceive of how you are able to deny this

Not just bad on tv....

[jefu]

Coincidentally in the NY Times today there is an article on how bad forensics labs really are . A good read.

HIPAA

[TheMCP]

Wouldn't this violate HIPAA?

If so, I believe that any doctors that participated in disclosing the DNA data to the state would be subject to federal arrest and jailing.

I was fingerprinted too...

[JonStewartMill]

but I thought I was just playing with fingerpaints!

Re:I was fingerprinted too...

[TehZorroness]

I smeared the ink all over the wall

There's no balance.

[jeko]

The police do not offer "security."

One of the things the NRA and the associated gun nuts always point out is the numerous court cases -- including one involving a police officer who allowed a brutal gang rape to continue for over an hour while he hid and "waited for backup" -- that affirm the police have NO duty to protect you personally. They have an "overall" duty to promote order in society IN GENERAL, but if a cop is walking by while you're getting mugged, it would be nice if he intervened, but he doesn't HAVE to.

Building a DNA database will help raise conviction rates, which theoretically might take more criminals off the street, but make no mistake, this isn't being done to increase your security. This is being done to increase police power and prestige through conviction rates.

The DNA database would increase security the way that traffic cameras increase safety.

I Used To Live In Washington State

[Anonymous Coward]

It's wet there.

Not just for law enforcement

[Zolodoco]

Insurance companies salivate at the prospect of large DNA databases that they can lobby their way into. If privatization people get hold of DNA data warehousing then sooner or later your DNA will be for sale.

your argument short circuits

[circletimessquare]

you are proposing vigilantism as superior to police

in one respect, you are correct that you have first responsibility at protecting your rights and freedoms. without enough people in society with this instinct, you cannot expect society to protect your freedoms for you. either we believe in our freedoms, or we don't. our society simply reflects that. but this is a last resort situation, when society is facing a major onslaught to its principles, not a day to day necessity to fight for your rights

it is far superior to outsource the protection of your rights and freedoms to the police, in a civil society. in the woods, yes, you must enforce your rights and freedoms. but this is pure thuggery. now every argument is an argument of gunpower, of might makes right, not an argument of principles. only in a civilized setting can an argument about rights and freedoms progress purely as one of ideals and concepts. if everything degenerates into one of a mexican standoff, there is no real rights and freedoms, only force

in a civilized setting, it is far superior for specialized representatives of the rules you and your society make to enforce those rules. if you yourself spend all of your time enforcing society's rules, there is no uniformity, there is no policy. meaning, there is no social pact and no social cohesion. everyone can't walk around judge, jury and executioner. if you really are a member of society, you must absorb the full implication of what it means to be a member of that society: you outsource some of the roles you would normally play as an individual. you can't say you are part of a society, and yet still walk around like you are a one man show. if you don't agree to throw the enforcement of your ideals in with those around you, you are announcing your independence from your society. which short circuits your pact with society and that you are part of it and that you deserve its protection. its a good bargain: you give up a little independence, you gain a heck of a lot more rights and freedoms. yes, i am saying that your independence exists in opposition to the amount of freedoms you enjoy. on your own in the woods, being independent, you can't concern yourself with your freedom of expression, you have to concern yourself with having enough gun powder. only in a civil setting can you explore your mind and its ideas, and thereby strengthen your society

either its
1. everyone for himself
2. we are in this boat together

when you go with #2, you have police, and you build a strong society. simple economic superiority of specialization of role. when you go with #1, you have an unworkable situation, since every encounter needs to be negotiated at gunpoint about what principles are agreed upon and what is not. tedious and am absolutely showstopper for regular social functioning

it is an inescapable necessity of civil society to acquiesce to the police representatives of that society, to at least tacitly signal your approval for that society's rules, and rights, and freedoms. and in return for doing that, you deserve and gain priveledges of freedoms and liberties that that society says it stands for

Why?

[gillbates]

If you don't plan to collect DNA except for cases which result in conviction, why incur the expense of taking the DNA of every arrestee in the first place? Can't you get it later?

Or will my tax dollars be used for yet another useless activity with substantial civil liberty implications?

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[cayenne8]

"Remember in these tight economic times, cops are being told to pull over anyone and everyone for anything, and seatbelts are a super easy one to catch people on. Cities need revenue and will do anything to get it."

Ah..you know, I can remember when they passed the seatbelt laws and said specifically that you could NOT be pulled over for simply not having a seatbelt on. It could only be a secondary offense.

When did they change that I wonder?

And people ask me why I worry and fight most any law that can possibly infringe freedoms. They will start it off, and most always will expand the law allow broader and broader interpretations. There has hardly been a law passed that hasn't later been abused by those in power.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why, when the law was ignored

[cayenne8]

"If the law says "seatbelt required or wind up dead" and citizens ignore law because not an offence that can be pursuded, law must change to "seatbelt required or you will be cited" and citizens no longer ignore law. Makes sense to me. If you say, then only criminals won't wear seatbelts, I say, GREAT! More dead criminals makes sense to me."

You misunderstand what I said.

Basically, where I grew up...to get the seatbelt laws passed, to make them less onerous at the time, they said yes, you can be cited and fined for not wearing a seatbelt, BUT, you could not be pulled over for simply being observed not wearing one. That is, if you got pulled over for something else, like running a stop sign, and they saw you didn't have a seatbelt on, they could cite you for it then.

Somewhere along the line....once they got that law on the books, they changed it to where you CAN be pulled over for not wearing a belt. Adding yet one more little niggling thing they can look for as an excuse to pull you over.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Paracelcus]

And of course, NO ONE is ever wrongly accused or convicted in the US of A.

A liberty, once relinquished cannot be regained without bloodshed. -me

absolutely correct

[circletimessquare]

"You associate with other people with a similar point of view"

meaning, you join a society, and acquiesce to its rules, to appreciate the freedoms everyone in that society desires. if by "associate" you mean something less than that, then there is no real association going on

"or get a bigger stick, and beat the bastard."

meaning, the solution to a difference of opinion is force, rather than principles. which is a state of being that is the exact opposite of the freedoms you seek. the whole point is to escape a might makes right situation, no? then why are championing that idea?

Re:Why, when the law was ignored

[korbin_dallas]

This was on yahoo news a day or 2 ago.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h7cv3fJnVi_WQi-gdvqKLGVWStlgD964LNQ80

Cities are losing tax monies. So they are winding up the cops to 'enforce' the laws on
the books. Whowouldathunkit?
Seat belt laws are tied to federal monies too, so those states the never had seat belt
laws are now running to add them, and get Fed money.

Wow, and we are just talking some stupid seat belt law to raise money.
Imagine what could be done if we really wanted to f&^k with everybody!

bait them

[Yuan-Lung]

They could have just offered free snacks on sticks, like corn dogs or popsicle, and maybe drinks, in their holding cells, and make the collection voluntary...


*please discard sticks&plastic cups in this recycling bin*

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Tenebrousedge]

I think for 'crime of a certain level' we can just substitute the word 'felony'.

DNA Database effectiveness

[Firethorn]

This is nowhere near the first time this has been done. The same 'solve/prevent crimes' has been proposed for cameras, ballistic databases, etc... None have been more cost efficient than more traditional police methods. DNA is better as confirmation, not primary investigation.

"It is good technology. It solves crimes," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which has long pushed for DNA tests at the time of arrest.

I dispute Don Pierce's statement. It's simple enough, England has had this system up for years. They even have the more extreme DNA collection method - DNA is collected for all arrestees, no conviction or charges required.
Crimes solved by DNA evidence fall despite millions being added to database.

Figures show that for the past six years the number of crimes solved using DNA evidence has remained static at between 0.34 and 0.36 per cent - about one in 300 of all recorded crimes.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better idea. You can come take my flesh...after I have my unholstered pistol drawn and loaded, safety off.

You clearly are (a) a troll (b) uninformed (c) uneducated (d) have a short attention span. Might I add that you will enjoy your wrongful imprisonment in the future.

Fuck off.

"lawlessness is the goal"

[circletimessquare]

when you are willing to talk about the reality of human behavior, i will listen to you and respond. but if you are only going to spout the nonsense that college sophomores who have read too many philosophy books and have no real world experience are going to spout, there's really nothing to say to you

you need police in order for civilization to function. this is a nonnegotiable fact of the reality you live in. if you don't accept or understand that, you are concerning yourself with daydreaming about utopian fantasies, not commenting intelligently and usefully on the reality you live in

let's hand you some intellectual charity to start you on your voyage back to reality: how do you fight police abuse?

answer: with more police. internal affairs

do you have a better solution?

caveat: confine your "better solution" to aspect of real human behavior. not utopian behavior dependent upon human beings behaving in ways human beings have never behaved in any culture, present or past, any where in the world

there is no escaping the notion of a police force. nor should there be, were you to properly understand that the police exist to enforce the rights and freedoms you enjoy. and that without the police, you wouldn't have any rights and freedoms, utopian daydreaming in spite of simple truths about human nature to the contrary

Re:"lawlessness is the goal"

[Mr. Slippery]

nonsense that college sophomores

It takes some dedicated anti-intellectualism to call Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, the document that inspired King and Gandhi, sophomoric nonsense.

you need police in order for civilization to function. this is a nonnegotiable fact of the reality you live in.

Presuming that by "police" you mean "full time professional government agents", it's an arguable presumption.

Sure, some people have to take action against people who threaten the safety and rights of others. But the idea that there must be be a large force of people with special authority, as opposed to a truly democratic "militia-like" approach in which we are all prepared to do a little bit (perhaps supplemented with specialist officers), or to a free-market system of private security forces as some radical "libertarian capitalists" would have, is debatable.

I again point out to you that police, as we know them, are a recent innovation. If they were necessary for civilization, civilization would not have existed for the several thousand years that it did before modern police forces.

how do you fight police abuse? answer: with more police. internal affairs

No. With fewer police with fewer laws to enforce; and with those police given high levels of education and training, high pay - and held to high standards of behavior.

Stop having cops chase hookers and junkies, and stop creating the violent black market that drives so much of our criminal activity. Bring drugs and prostitution and other "consensual crimes" within the system, and leave police to go after people who are a threat to other's safety or rights.

Set high educational standards. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice recommended by in 1967 that "all police personnel with general enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees," but forty years later it's a rare jurisdiction that's implemented that. I know that neither the Baltimore County nor Baltimore City forces, nor the Maryland State Police, requires this. (Heck, you need at least 30 college credits to be a Licensed Massage Therapist, but zero to be a cop.)

And set high standards of review - not by "internal affairs" but by citizens and civilian government. In Baltimore a few weeks ago, the city council's public safety committee chairman was denied entry to a meeting of police commanders - if he can't "watch the watchmen", who can?

#1:

[circletimessquare]

how is having your dna taken a punishment? they have been taking fingerprints for years. do you consider that a punishment too? in what way?

#2:
your leverage argument, the idea of someone using your dna to frame you is mostly esoteric fantasy. but lets assume for the moment you are in this exotic situation of being framed. they could do the same with your fingerprints, or any other framing evidence. not taking your fingerprints or not taking your dna provides no inherent protection from such frame jobs. furthermore, if such a frame job occurs, this is a crime. which must be policed. and it will be policed with the same fingerprints and dna evidence against your framers that you oppose. ther eis no "us" versus "them" btw. the police are not an alien species of inscrutable and impenetrable cohesion allied against you. they are human beings, like you and me, as poassionate or impassionate about the freedoms we are talking about as you and i are. and so they are just as interested, or uninterested, in fighting police abuse as you and i are. in other words: its a wash. taking fingerprints and dna does not tip your rights away from you, nor does it closer to you. its merely a tool in a toolkit, that can be used for many things, but most of all will be used for simply doing the job of policework better than before, justas criminals use technology to transgress against your rights better than before. why do you want to hobble the police in the effort to protect your rights from criminals?

what part is hard to understand

[Uberbah]

Other big American cities with high crime rates saw the same reduction in crime, at the same time period as NYC did, without a massive increase in police presence and harassing jaywalkers. And it happened without multiplying the law enforcement budget or the number of people accidentally shot to death. That old quote is appropriate again: it's the economy, stupid.

Oh, and the black market created by the War on Drugs trumps the Broken Window theory. Every. Time.

Re:wtf - DNA isn't "intellectual property", it's Y

[Arthur B.]

You cannot morally prevent other people to use and dispose of information they have at their disposal. DNA is information.

you are making the economic argument

[circletimessquare]

and i grant you, that made a difference in crime too

i also grant you, even though you didn't bring it up, that the waning of the crack epidemic also had a large effect on crime reduction as well

however, like you say, crime reduction isn't that simple, and as the whole country experienced a drop in crime, new york city's drop was largest and still is an incredibly historic drop in crime. so much so that other jurisdictions want to copy new york city's broken window theory, to enjoy the extra impressive results new york city achieved

surely you don't deny that the broken window theory added much more to the baseline drops that the whole country experienced due to more mundane reasons? you don't see new york's extraordinary crime drops as especially notable? you don't attribute that extra boost to the broken window theory? really?

as for prison populations, as i said before, they are what they are. you keep saying that the high prison populations are extra punitive, and just compare that with other countries if i want a dose of reality

well, ok, i will go to other countries, and i will ask the common man about the crime on their streets, the common thuggery, and the rioting and thefts and lawlessness. i won't go to the ivory tower types walled off from the experience of the common man by economic prestige and social class and ideological indoctrination, i will aks the common man only

i think he will applaud the american model, and demand his country also get tough on crime like the usa

wet your finger and put it in the wind. the american model that you see as lamentable is thought of as ideal by the common man in the countries you applaud as the good model. and through simple democratic feedback, those countries are coming around to adapting the american model. it was the era of being fed up with lawlessness in the 1960s and 1970s that led to the broken window theory in the usa. and that is only going to spread to the bastions of lower prison populations that you champion whose citizens are fed up with lawlessness on the streets

ivroy tower types called dirty harry a fascist, but vigilantism was applauded by the common man because society's mechanisms of justice wasn't serving society as a whole, only some ivory tower type's idealized notions of superior crime tactics, formed in a vacuum, cut off from what the effects those idealized notions had on the quality of life for the common man. this whole idea of being too tough or too soft, or jails too empty or too full, or punishments too harsh or too lenient: utterly pointless hot air

the only metric that matters is: the common man on the street is comfortable and safe, or fed up with crime. how full or empty the jails mean nothing. only the opinion of the common man matters in the end, and only that opinion will be served, because his representatives will get an earful

honestly, its the only opinion that matters, not the academics. academics unfortunately get walled off in self-supporting derivative ideas that often stray from reality. ivory tower types and their opinions forged completely in isolation of the reality of life for the common man on the street

so you go on about prison populations and other countries. i am the one who has to walk down 42nd street tonight in the dark, and i am glad i feel a hell of a lot safer than i did in 1985, and i know it is because of economics, and crack fading away... and the broken window theory

Re:you are making the economic argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Perception of crime and fear of crime are not directly linked to actual crime rates. A great many things can influence actual fear of crime that are not reflective of actual crime. When crime is being blasted in the news and on television, that creates the perception for a great many people of a very dangerous world, even when their own experience isn't like that. Interestingly, the groups that are the least likely to be victimized, elderly white women, are the most afraid of crime. They also tend to consume the most television.

Police departments copy the NYPD model for a lot of reasons, many of them political, some personal, and some economic. They do not simply copy the NYPD because "it works" as you might imply. You're forgetting that a lot was going on inside the NYPD during the 1990s that was nott derived from Broken Windows at all, and was derived from Social Disorganization theory and larger notions of Community Policing. Things like Compstat, which focused on statistical analysis of police data and more efficient use of police resources, was not rooted in Broken Windows theory at all. Compstat was a change in management theory, not in policing style.

Believe me when I tell you, we have extensively studied the relationship between incarceration and crime and the kind of punitive policies you say make us the envy of the common man have very very little effect on crime. Crime rates and Imprisonment rates largely vary independently of one another. Even if something like incapactitation theory were true, we lock up far more people than that theory would itself call for. We lock so many people up for political reasons and not for criminological reasons.

Your appeal against the ivory tower is misguided. Many, if not most, of the people I know in academia in the field of Criminology grew up poor, grew up in the streets, and have quite a bit of personal experience with it. Heck, I can even think of one Criminologist (Jeff Farrell) who left his job and spent an entire year living as homeless person to understand homelessness. Before you based everything on the common man, I should say that most of us haven't just stuck our finger in the wind, we've been dunked in the pool and now stand in the breeze. We know which way the wind is blowing. We also know how fast it's blowing because we measure that. Learning to trust your numbers and your statistical tests is a lot like instrument flying an airplane in a cloud. Your eyes can and do deceive you and if you trust them exclusively you will eventually crash.

babies in california

[TheGratefulNet]

I believe when you are born in calif, dna samples are taken (you probably can't even opt-out?) when you are born. ...or slightly afterwards ;)

also see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E4D71231F93BA35751C1A9629C8B63
  (National Briefing | West: California: Challenge To DNA Collection Law)

and:

http://japark.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/29/1623247-may-2-2008-bush-signs-bill-to-take-all-newborns-dna-
  (May 2, 2008: Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA)

fact:

[circletimessquare]

new york city achieved an extra incredibly historic drop in crime as compared against the baseline drop that the entire country experienced. now, if the broken window theory is not responsible for this extra boost in new york city, then you tell me why this happened

as for your red herring about the war on drugs: i believe in marijuana legalization. the war on drugs is an entirely different topic. you can't win an argument by changing the subject

As a resident all I can say is..

[k1e0x]

They pass this I'm moving.

Goodbye police state Washington, goodbye Seattle, it was fun paying your incredibly high sales and gas taxes.

i believe in marijuana legalization

[circletimessquare]

and your entire argument is off topic

you aren't replying to my comment, you are threadjacking it to a pet peeve of your own

which is fine of course, you are free to do whatever you want, but you've destroyed my interest in the discussion by doing so

Re:i believe in marijuana legalization

[T-Ranger]

I'm sorry if the connection wasn't clear enough for you.

Having a large prison population is evidence of problem with the big picture. Having a large prison population is evidence that ones government is attacking symptoms, not causes, of crime.

Equal Rights

[sjbe]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Doesn't mean they stay equal or that their outcomes are equal. Hell the Constitution in its original form acknowledged slavery and denied women and minorities the right to vote among other things. (fortunately since amended) Children have many rights but until they are of a certain age they lack the many rights and privileges including but not limited to:

• The right to vote
• The right to hold office
• They cannot enter into any valid contract by themselves
• They cannot hold most forms of employment
• They cannot drive
• They cannot legally purchase alchohol, cigarettes or most prescription medications.
• Join the military

Yeah, sounds like equal treatment to me! /sarcasm

That fucker up there said it very simply over two centuries ago.

That "fucker" was also a white slave owner and when they said "men" most of them quite specifically meant white landed men. Not women, not minorities, and certainly not children. We just interpret it differently today.

Re:Equal Rights

[Hognoxious]

I said all that, and got modded down.

Re:wtf - DNA isn't "intellectual property", it's Y

[Uberbah]

Stop pretending that all information is equal. What would concern you more:

• You're a musician and I download your CD from a torrent site, and never pay for it.
• I have your credit card numbers, birth certificate, social security number, address, and photos of your children.

Your comparison of DNA to copying music, movies or software is equally laughable.

How do you abuse this?

[mi]

The dilemma involved in balancing "security vs. freedoms".

The dilemma certainly exists, but I don't see it in this particular case. Although I too find the idea of the universal DNA database repulsive, I can not rationalize my own negative reaction. What exactly is wrong with such a database? It is not even like a camera on every corner, leaving no room to kiss a girl without somebody watching...

Perhaps, the correct question to pose is this: "Do we want 100% of the crimes solved?" Or do we want to leave some wiggle room left for some future revolutionary to be able to undermine some distopian totalitarian government?

One Answer

[fast turtle]

5th Ammendment

This ammendment to the United States Constitution gives me the right to Not Testify against Myself and it will be the Constintutional Clause that strikes this idea deader then a door knob (yes some have more brains then a politition.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[tribe of thousands]

Shoplifting? We need to collect DNS for shoplifters? Holy shit!
Are you just being intentionally belligerent or are you truly mind-fucked by your government?

What is needed is not MORE control, monitoring, and tracking, but MUCH, MUCH LESS. Giving up freedom and anonymity for security is unacceptable by any standard. Those who advocate the need for this kind of disgusting abuse of power need to be exposed and ousted from any position of authority or power as soon as possible.

As a previous poster stated, the state has no authority or right to invade my body in any way, shape or form. Whether or not
someone has been convicted of a crime or not, fingerprinting is good enough and will have to be. I am not interested in making it any easier to solve murders, child rapes, etc. at the expense of the majority's anonymity and freedom. Sorry if that offends, but the alternative is for us all to live in a constant "police state" of mind. The discussion about additional government control or invasions into the personal lives of Americans must end with NEVER! Not in the name of security, not in the name of "helping" law enforcement, and not in the name of helping to convict. No, No, No.

America needs to wake up and amend the constitution to permanently prevent and ensure this kind of "tool" can never be used for anything other than curing diseases, advancing profitable science, and cloning animals. If it comes down to the "security" or "freedom" debate, I choose freedom everytime. And yes, I understand all of the "scare" tactics used and why people may be able to convince each other that sampling DNA can be good. So what? If I happen to get into trouble, and get arrested, that doesn't mean I should have to give up my anonymity then for life. Previous posters are correct, this would lead to the inevitable and mandatory "national" or even "global" DNA database.

And before anyone slams me...I am a middle-aged, white, conservative Catholic living on the eastern board of the U.S. I am a successful business owner, married and have a daughter. In addition, I donate time to help with prison charities and regularly speak on behalf of rape victims.

Anybody have any comments?

Re:wtf - DNA isn't "intellectual property", it's Y

[Joe the Lesser]

No, DNA is taken from a cell produced by your body, and therefore so long as it's on your body or on your property it is private. The whole damn argument is that they can't have your body and it's cell at their disposal as per the constitution.

If they pick it up off the street than fine, trash is trash, but you know that's not what they're talking about because that is not a systematic approach.

Completely different things man.

the US military takes DNA from every member

[peter303]

Its supposed to be used solely for death or injury ID and destroyed after separation from the Service.

Re:the US military takes DNA from every member

[novakyu]

But this is not nearly comparable to this Washington bill. At least for now, the U.S. military is composed of volunteers, who presumably knew all the things, including background checks and files that will be kept on them, that they will have to go through as a consequence of their choice.

Arrestees, on the other hand, do not have such freedom. Heck, in fact, they cannot even avoid committing crimes in order not to be a victim of this bill, since a cop could easily arrest you for looking at him the wrong way, on such trumped up charges as "disturbing the peace".

-1, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, you stupid troll.

Easy to fake a profile

[Reziac]

A DNA profile is just a series of letters that indicate genetic markers. Anyone with a text editor could fake one, and if the original physical sample (say from a crime scene) becomes conveniently lost, there is no way to prove that it wasn't a bogus DNA profile from a nonexistent sample.

Would be very easy to pull out the desired perp's existing profile and type their DNA marker list into the forensics report, then claim the sample from the crime scene got lost along the way. Maybe a judge will see through it and dismiss it as hearsay, but even at best, it lets the cops harrass "undesirables" whenever they want.

Re:Easy to fake a profile

[denzacar]

Besides the need for several layers of security clearance NOT available to your average beat-cop (Cops don't gather or handle the DNA evidence. If we were supposed to learn one thing from all those CSI shows - that should be it.), not to think of actual computer and genetics knowledge...

There are only two DNA samples of importance here.

DNA left at the scene. Found, gathered and analyzed according to very strict procedures and by trained experts. That DNA is then called "evidence".
Usually, it is in a form of hair, tissue or blood samples. Stuff that sticks around for a couple of days at least.
And usually - there is enough of it there to be used in a DNA test AND for some of it to remain in the archive - at least until the end of the trial.

The other DNA sample is the one gathered from the suspect. Again... procedures, experts and all that.

 

You can't fake the second sample, cause... well... it is too easy to just take a new one.
So, we are left with faking the first sample.

Now, if the "original physical sample becomes conveniently lost" - only thing the suspect's lawyer needs to do is ask for a neutral expert's opinion.
Evidence being lost in the meantime - it can't be used in the trial.

Replacing a sealed, numbered, marked, cataloged and locked up sample on the other hand would require FAR more then just a text editor.

Re:Easy to fake a profile

[Reziac]

But you've progressed from the crime to the trial. At that point one hopes actual standards of evidence, including full provenance, would apply.

What I'm talking about is a dandy opportunity to "round up the usual suspects" (whether as harrassment or as fishing expeditions) ... and then if they're not a match when actual samples are found, well, so sad about the lost wages and embarrassment ... and possibly lost parole for those whose condition of parole includes "NO arrests for any reason" ... you can see the potential for abuse.

It wouldn't be the first time some "on file just because we can" data has been used this way; Iron Curtain countries were infamous for it.

Re:Easy to fake a profile

[denzacar]

What I'm talking about is a dandy opportunity to "round up the usual suspects" (whether as harrassment or as fishing expeditions) ... and then if they're not a match when actual samples are found, well, so sad about the lost wages and embarrassment ... and possibly lost parole for those whose condition of parole includes "NO arrests for any reason" ... you can see the potential for abuse.

What does that have to do with DNA samples?
You yourself state that DNA gathering/comparison takes place AFTER they round up the usual suspects.

Cops do that all the time.
Either pick on something small that is otherwise a forgivable offense, like a parking ticket or even jaywalking or use the magical "probable cause".

It's worse than this

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA dragnets are statistically bogus anyway. While the probability of an *individual* DNA match being a false positive is very low, the chance of getting a false positive during a DNA dragnet is high enough to be worrisome.

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/05/06/bayes-theorem-and-dna-database-searches/

Store that DNA!

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA should be collected from everybody at birth. I curse all the nutball libertarians every time I hear about somebody who was the Nth murder or rape victim of a serial criminal who could have been stopped after his first crime had his DNA been in a national database from the get go.

The UK is already way ahead...

[mdwh2]

Well in the UK, they take DNA from anyone arrested, even if found not guilty, or never charged with an offence (as in, this is standard practice, and not merely a proposal). The European courts ruled it illegal, but that doesn't stop the practice.

I don't think "Don't get so uppity" makes sense - if other countries have it worse, that's just even more depressing, and also adds to fears of where a slippery slope could lead to.

Re:The UK is already way ahead...

[Yvanhoe]

I don't think "Don't get so uppity" makes sense - if other countries have it worse, that's just even more depressing, and also adds to fears of where a slippery slope could lead to.

I agree, I should stop supposing that everyone here has a sense of humour.

If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell...

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned.

"The Authorities" are supposed to do a lot of things that they don't/won't.

Sorry, I don't buy it. IF this was the intent, they would only take the DNA sample AFTER conviction. This is just a wink ... wink ... nudge ... nudge ... we know we legally need to destroy this, but I won't tell if you won't kind of approach to 1984. As long as there are no consequences for getting caught, there will be abuses galore.

Re:Why, when the law was ignored

[glarbl_blarbl]

Wow, and we are just talking some stupid seat belt law to raise money. Imagine what could be done if we really wanted to f&^k with everybody!

What, like outlawing cannabis?

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Gerzel]

There are non-felonies where such collection might be warranted, but for the most part yes.

DNA != Fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of comments to the Tribune article ask what the problem is if the state can already take your fingerprints and mugshot when you're arrested. People, DNA is much more powerful than a fingerprint. A fingerprint uniquely identifies you, but DNA can be used to find out information *about* you. Health problems, ethnic background, etc. I'm not going to give up that much information about me to any government willingly. The government has no rights over this innocent citizen's body!

A certain company..

[Anonymous Coward]

in Redmond. There's a monstrous beast there that's employed as CEO, who has a fascination with "Developers". It should be arrested for making crappy software, and then we'll finally be able to see it's DNA!

Bad science reporting

[Kaseijin]

DNA is known to change during one's lifetime. For example: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090116/hl_afp/healthaustraliageneticssugar;_ylt=At8juaZrV2AoHEmOvom1Hj4PLBIF

The article talks about "permanently altering DNA", but the paper is about changes in gene expression, how genes are turned into functional products.

All Hail The Biological Imperative Of Reproduction

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of course, a life is only valuable in terms of its reproductive potential. Good one.

Re:Why, when the law was ignored

[painehope]

Want to know another interesting fact? Some jails will deliberately hold you for an insane amount of time just to get federal tax money.

I recall being arrested for a bogus assault charge (I was at my family's residence, had been drinking, took prescription medication for insomnia, and dozed off on the porch smoking a cigarette before going to bed - I'd had too much to drink to drive; my mother freaked out, called an ambulance, and because the dispatcher heard my father yelling at me to wake up in the background, I was arrested for a class A misdemeanor - punishable by up to 1 year in state jail - assault, simply because that's what the county they live in arrests drunk people on private property for; oh, no ambulance or medical treatment, just straight to jail) and spending 5 days just getting arraigned, bond set and posted, and processed out. No big deal, just 5 days. Case was thrown out in one court visit.

But while I was in there, I was talking to another guy who told me a joke about how he'd tell his wife not to send him any more money, because he'd be out that month, every month. He had long passed the stage where it bothered him, so he was laughing about it. I asked him how long he'd been there (jailhouse rules - never ask anyone what they're in for, and everyone is always innocent), and he replied "6 months" and then started laughing again. I asked him what was so goddamn funny, and he explained it was because he missed 4 hours of community service and thus had his probation revoked. And it wasn't jailhouse bullshit either, because I've been in enough times to know it.

That county was getting 100 USD per day, per inmate, from the feds - so they made roughly 18K off the guy (and once you've pled guilty and taken probation, or are out on parole, there's not a lot you can do if either is revoked, since you're considered guilty already). Not to mention free labor from trustees, or the profit on commissary. Oh, and this same county is building a brand new jail (and not closing the old one) right down the road - and it's a rural county, nothing but farms and suburbs, with a low crime rate and a low per capita income. Greed and corruption, anyone?

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[Unipuma]

I have no problem with taking DNA of every person who was convicted of a crime(of a certain level, parking tickets for instance probably shouldn't warrant it).

I think the correct term for 'a certain level' is slope.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[muckracer]

Apparently in parts of Britain it's already standard practice to collect DNA from mere arrestees: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7872425.stm Aside from the collection issue I also question the reliance on DNA as THE indicator that you have committed a crime or were present at the location (hence your proven involvement). What's to prevent anyone from going through my garbage, pulling out a few hairs I threw in there (nevermind tissues with who knows what on it :-)) and then placing it at the crime scene he created by raping/strangling the cute one living a block down? If my DNA sample is already one file (whether justified or not), *POOF*...instant match and I get hauled out of bed for something I have no idea that it even happened. I'd say certainly convicted too. Just as DNA can exonerate innocents in some cases, it can also falsely implicate. Perhaps this should be taken into account when talking about "essential crime solving tools".

Stop whining, Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had this in the UK for years and our records aren't destroyed. Anyone would think it was a bad thing.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[muckracer]

Coming to think of it...it would appear, that all States mandating the collection of DNA from *innocents* (until proven guilty) are in clear violation of the 5th amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

A forced DNA sample can in certain cases surely be self-incriminating. And since no "due process" has occurred yet, it is unconstitutional. PERIOD. Has anyone ever challenged the dozen or so States on that?

Besides, DNA is IMHO "private property" so if nothing else you should get paid for your DNA sample.

AAAAAAAAGGGGHHH!!!! HOLY SHIT!

[Jane Q. Public]

Originally, OP said "STATE wants DNA... but did not specify what state other than an ambiguous reference to 'Washington' that could, in context, have meant DC.

NOW it says "Washington State...". What a jolt. I thought this was in reference to one of those third-world states (you know which ones I mean). Not my oft-cited-as-home, normally more-or-less sane, state and its representative.

Meh. Now I am going to have to threaten some representatives or something. Damn I hate this shit.

Add this to our plan to create new criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an article by the same author, Joseph Turner at the News Tribune.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/331/story/605078.html

Gregoire's budget proposal also kills the General Assistance (GAU) of 339/mo. that supports 20,000 "unemployable" US citizens temporarily until they receive federal remedies. In Washington State, it can take three years or more to receive a simple hearing for SSD/SSI. These people are mentally or physically handicapped US Citizens (our severely impaired drug addicts go on ADATSA, which will also be cut).

The 339/mo. these 20,000 people get is temporary. Without it, they will end up committing survival crimes. They will go to jail, where it will cost ten times as much to maintain them ($42,000/year). There are already 8,000 homeless in Seattle. This measure will double that, swell our prison population will mentally ill, and raise the crime rate.

Also, as chairman Frank Chopp (D) mentions, this will end up killing a lot of these vulnerable people.

Our governor Christine Gregoire (D) had the gall to run under Obama's message of change. She represents anything but. She is a totalitarian and an apparently social Darwinist.

Expect more of this invasive governing and treading on the least-able.

She used to hide her abuse of the poor (3.00/pack cigarette tax). Now she is out-and-out trying to destroy them. She could accomplish this same thing by improving the Social Security hearing process (3 years!). Instead, she is attacking the poor.

The flaw in this proposal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why target arrested people ? After all they are innocent until proven guilty.

Why not just take DNA samples of everyone with a moustache ? That would also clear up a lot of crimes.

Or, let's take DNA samples of everyone with blue eyes. That will also clear up a lot of unsolved crimes.

The point is - none of the arguments that are used to justify taking DNA samples of arrested people apply solely to arrested people. They apply just as well to all of us.

The proposal only makes sense if you think arrested is the same as guilty.

xdefendant

Re:wtf - DNA isn't "intellectual property", it's Y

[Arthur B.]

If you know my credit card number, I cannot morally prevent you from knowing it, however, if you use it to steal my money, that's very real theft.

Not destroyed, lasts forever

[Anonymous Coward]

In case it hasn't been posted yet, any DNA or fingerprints submitted to the FBI will never be destroyed. Way back when fingerprinting was still big deal (about 25 years ago), the FBI stated that according to them, once fingerprints were submitted into their database, it would be "impossible" to remove them (at the time, it was an issue for people who were not charged, found innocent, or for local cases, when an "un-arrest" report was filed). Without a doubt, they will use the same excuse for dna, if they haven't already, especially if they are using the same database.

And never will?

[professorguy]

we really don't have the knowledge and technology to read it all

But we WILL. And this database will still exist then.

But they will

[professorguy]

This database will exist FOREVER. So these uses will be available when the technology comes along.

Toothless tiger

[professorguy]

I am a network administrator at a hospital, so I know a few things about HIPAA. HIPAA has the mother of all loopholes: Namely, if the state asks for information then the hospital provides it--period. If the agency is rogue or has one rogue member, they will use that loophole to run roughshod over your privacy WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

.

It's perfectly legal to violate your HIPAA-guaranteed privacy as long as some scumbag low-level agency fuck with an axe to grind decides he feels like doing it.

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[CharlieKotan]

The logic in the bill is that, "Scumbags is as scumbags does". People who do crimes usually continue to do crimes.

So by collecting DNA (and prints) of thieves and vandals, the cops will more likely be able to track them down when they graduate to the nastier leagues. I really, really like the idea of being able to snap up rapists, burglars, home invaders and other scum most skosh.

Collecting DNA from misdemeanor convicts is where I have some concern. I do think any non-citizen convicted of a non-traffic misdemeanor should be sent home. Bye, Bitch {flush}.

But I'm not sure I'm in favor of collecting DNA from every CITIZEN pot smoker, shoplifter, and street fighter in the land. And I'll echo the first poster's "Yeah, right" regarding always pitching the DNA record if the arrestee is not convicted.

What about Juveniles? If they are convicted, whether tried as an adult or not, is their DNA kept on record?

This is an issue that will not go away, with 50 states to fight it out, and it will probably go to the Supremes. DNA is a great way to convict and a great way to show innocence. As a privacy advocate and big fan of Liberty, I expect to revise my thinking a few times in the coming years.

SVN and authentication?

[freaker_TuC]

I'd guess this database has some form of user authentication/logging and svn-kind-alike system?
Still, could you trust one who has clearance (or root) at such system ?

Life can be messy when giving Genes away!

[freaker_TuC]

There is no IP, you don't own your genome.

I know the problem, I gave mine away to my neighbours to loan, never got it back in right state!

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[ckaminski]

I'm with you. Particularly on the freedoms convicted felons lose, like the right to vote. Personally, I feel if you've done your time, spent your parole time cleanly, and clean up your act, you shouldn't have to pay a lifetime's penalty for one mistake or intentional act. Three strikes, maybe, but one offense? I'm not sure how I feel about three strikes either, I wonder how many people are in jail forever on over-trumped charges in three-strikes states?

Re:Here's a novel idea: don't fucking SHOPLIFT !!

[ckaminski]

And how do you price something that's one of a kind and unique? I like your thinking on this... Too bad I think we're fairly alone on this, and the majority of our fellow Citizens are happy coughing up their DNA if it'll capture kiddie-touchers and rapists. :-/