Slashdot Mirror
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."
Don't get so uppity, in France the proposal included to take DNA samples even of all witnesses involved in a case.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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?
Think Deeply.
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 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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
>> 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.
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.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
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.
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.
\u262D = \u5350
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.
There is no dilemma nor need to balance. There is only an excuse (NOT a reason) for power grabs.
Free Martian Whores!
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?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
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."