Slashdot Mirror


FBI and States Vastly Expand DNA Collection, Databases

Mike writes "Starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial, and will also collect DNA from detained immigrants. For example, this year, California began taking DNA upon arrest, and expects to nearly double the growth rate of its database (PDF), to 390,000 profiles a year, up from 200,000. Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts, however law enforcement officials are expanding their collection of DNA to include millions of people who have only been arrested or detained, but not yet convicted. The move, intended to 'help solve more crimes,' is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent."

16 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. GATTACA by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scary how we are quickly moving towards the society depicted in GATTACA.

    1. Re:GATTACA by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at your UID number, close to 1.5 million people joined slashdot before you did. There is a huge variety of people here. Some go apeshit when the NSA are mentioned, but the scary thing is that a good number have the attitude that any invasion of privacy is OK if it means catching the bad guys.
      Personally this kind of shit scares me. Not only is DNA testing very unreliable but it may also make it easier to catch me, a political dissenter. I'll admit it here, I grow plants that are illegal and ingest them. I should probably stick to the legal deadly water hemlock but that is scary. Anyways I'm going to roll a joint and ingest it and go to bed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Guilty until proven innocent by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If your DNA is at the crime scene you're guilty until proven innocent. Duh.

    --
    Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  3. This is how it is in the UK now by bargainsale · · Score: 4, Informative

    The UK has a huge DNA database including large numbers of minors and people subsequently found innocent.
    The much maligned European Court is protecting our liberties by declaring this illegal:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/04/law-genetic
    Such a shame that the mother of democracies should come to this.
    Be warned by our bad example

    --
    Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    1. Re:This is how it is in the UK now by AlexBirch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      UK the mother of democracies?
      Greece called from 500 BC and wanted that title back.

  4. Re:The DNA you leave behind is no longer yours by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because DNA trace is found at a crime scene doesn't mean that you have been there at the time of the crime, it may be that you were there moments before or did unknowingly have a brush with someone involved. This is especially important in areas where public transportation systems are frequently used.

    It's important to consider how the DNA was collected and the conditions at the time to determine how relevant it is.

    More interesting would be if DNA is missing when it would be expected.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  5. DNA upon arrest and those awaiting trial by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it's for rape/murder, does anyone else find this extremely disturbing?

    And what if you're innocent, do they erase this data out of the system?

  6. Re:The DNA you leave behind is no longer yours by artor3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mistakes happen. If the woman in this story had been in that database, she'd be in prison for a crime she didn't commit.

  7. Re:Presumed innocent?? by Rohan427 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is unconstitutional. DNA is personal property and protected. A person is INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around. The act of being arrested is NOT proof of guilt, and in no way removes the rights of the individual being arrested (except in the eyes of The Man, no one seems to have any rights but them).

    So go ahead and collect DNA. You may eventually have everyone on record, but that's no big deal for most of us.

    Who decides that it is no big deal? Who decides if you are a criminal or not (or me, or the guy down the street)? When government is allowed to take even the smallest step, it never stops and only uses that small step to build a long path to no rights for the People and more power for government.

    If a person is found guilty of a felony, then and ONLY then can ANY of their rights be forfeit. In addition, the loss of rights must fit the crime.

    PGA

  8. Unconstitutional by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All records should be destroyed when the person is proven not guilty and released. WIth this ability they can just randomly detain people for questioning about some random crime that has no connection, get their DNA, and release them.

    For *innocent* people this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. ( and perhaps others )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. DNA is only as good as you handle it . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Informative

    . . . a search for a female serial killer, whose victims were in Austria, France and Germany, was ended recently, when police discovered that the DNA of the suspect belonged to a women who packaged the cotton swabs used for testing:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEPt22F_xcWatGRrX5ludZOsSM5AD976HRM00

    So, how reliable will these databases be?

    It's a hoot and a half to read all the different crimes associated with this case, and think how all those police profilers were totally baffled by this killer.

    It won't be too funny, if a lab mix-up incriminates you.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  10. Re:The DNA you leave behind is no longer yours by slashqwerty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or perhaps somebody else (1 in what, 36 billion chance)

    It's only 1 in 36 billion if DNA is randomly distributed. In reality, your DNA is passed down from your parents. The odds of a match go up if the perpetrator has your ethnicity. They go up even more if the perpetrator is in your family. They go up yet again if the perpetrator is a sibling.

  11. First they came for the ... by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You may eventually have everyone on record, but that's no big deal for most of us.

    Remember folks, it's okay as long as it's happening to someone you don't care about.

    And by the time it's happening to someone you DO care about, it's too late.

  12. Ethics and Errors by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now I think we can all see (at least at an intellectual level) why they want to try this. In theory, at least it'll allow for faster and more accurate convictions.

    The problem is, the UK, who has the largest DNA Database in the world, is having some problems with accuracy. And the Germans spent 15 years hunting a serial killer who didn't even exit.

    Furthermore, juries are lead to believe that DNA is perfect evidence. While in theory the probability of two non-twins matching is very low, the issue is there is absolutely no way to prove how exactly that material got there. What if you were in a car, and two weeks later someone else is shot in it? Or worse, what if you and your girlfriend did some dirty business in the back? Your DNA will be in the back, and it's going to be hard fighting that off in court, because the Jury believes that DNA is full-proof evidence.

  13. As always ... by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

  14. How hard do you think it is to plant DNA evidence? by boombaard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering bad cops, good criminals, and other assorted people that would like to either frame you or draw attention away from them are hardly few and far between (especially in the future, once DNA evidence checking becomes more commonplace through databases such as this one), how long do you think it will be before this is a marvellous way to implicate innocents?