Slashdot Mirror
House Votes To Expand National DNA Arrest Database
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the US House of Representatives on Tuesday. By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults 'arrested for' certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory. ... But civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes, and argue that if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted."
I find it ironic that the US should decide to introduce this measure under a new government when the old one was notorious for abuse of authority.
Meanwhile, here in the UK, we just handed electoral annihilation to the administration that introduced a similar guilt-by-suspicion DNA system here, not long after the European level courts ruled that keeping innocent people's DNA on the database indefinitely was illegal anyway.
One of the first proposals brought up by our new coalition government, indeed one of the points where both parties agreed on almost everything despite their general political differences, was a "Freedom Bill". That will basically be a mass repeal of all the draconian, intrusive, guilt-assuming laws that the previous lot brought in under a climate of fear that they perpetuated more effectively from the corridors of power than any terrorist group ever could. Introducing safeguards so that innocents' DNA is removed from the database in a timely fashion will be an acid test of that bill: they've talked the talk, now will they really follow through?
DNA evidence is increasingly used to convict even where the rest of the evidence is tenuous at best. Jurors, who mostly do not understand the science behind DNA, will accept that DNA evidence must mean the accused is guilty. The problem is that there are many ways in which an innocent person can be convicted on the basis of DNA "evidence". First of all we have cross-contamination of a crime scene. Next up. cross contamination (or downright incompetence) in the lab. Next we have increasing evidence that the current science behind DNA forensic analysis is not fool-proof: the tests only look for a finite number of specific markers on the DNA sample, and it appears that there is a non-zero chance that you share a genetic fingerprint with some other person. In fact the methods used are so weak that you may even share a marker with someone who is a different race than you. As the available DNA database grows the chances of such a false positive also increases.
Every year government spends more, borrows more, and seizes more power over the people. This isn't because power is the goal. On the contrary, for most of the elite at the top of the pyramid, power is merely a stepping stone to the real goal: money.
The larger and more expensive the business of government, the more lucrative it is for the people who make their fortunes in the business of government. The more complex, ambiguous, and unjust the system of law, the more exploitable it is for the elite.
That, in a nutshell, is why every government expands throughout its lifetime, both in revenue and power over the people.
Im not against fingerprinting because people don't necessarily see it as definitive proof of someone committing a crime. People, that is potential jurors, tend to see DNA evidence as conclusive.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
In Australia recently, all DNA evidence was thrown out of court because of the "poorly maintained" thing in the State of Victoria. It appears the forensics lab got caught with bad paperwork and contaminated samples. Following from that is a High Court challenge to DNA evidence being allowed as the sole claim for guilt. The upshot of that, is that police will not even be able to get arrest warrents on DNA evidence alone. They might have to do some good old fashioned detective work.
Ok, as I've posted, I just finished a five year bid in the Feds. When I was first arrested, I was held at the very miserable Wyatt Detention Facility in Rhode Island. I had not gone to trial nor plead out, so was not a convicted criminal at the time.
My Judge ordered a cardiac study done, as I was having heart problems, so I was sent to a fed medical center at FMC Devens as a pre-trial detainee. The day I arrived I was required to give a DNA specimen, which they get with a finger stick and blood drops on a card. I mentioned I was pre-trial, but was told if I refused, I would be "four pointed" (cuffed to a metal bunk by all four limbs) and the specimen taken by force. This is the usual course for people arrested (but not convicted) in the Feds. Some may have had different experiences, but I was one of many I met with similar treatment.
So this bill seems to be nothing new.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
Don't Even Need The Arrest...
How long before a swab is required to cross the border?
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
If you're a Human (or even just a warm blooded mammalian) your DNA is constantly pouring off of you everywhere you go...
Billions of skin cells are falling off of your body (1.5g per day), and you shed hair follicles constantly as well.
Your saliva is in the disposable cup you tossed into the refuse bin.
Think that DNA from the cells in someone's pubic region should be solid proof that's admissible in rape cases? If yes: YOU'RE WRONG.
Have you ever seen pubic hair on and around a public toilet or urinal -- Guess where it came from? YOU (at some point).
Additionally, male mammals (including Humans) excrete semen that is left in their urethra when they urinate after having been sexually stimulated.
Your DNA is by no means private, and the appearance of it at a crime scene doesn't prove anything at all.
Any premeditation on the part of murderers, rapists or thieves could easily include following YOU around (esp if you fit their physical profile) for a few hours collecting "evidence" that YOU did the crime.
Inappropriate conclusions are being made based on the presence of DNA evidence.
The only thing that YOUR DNA being found at a crime scene really proves is that you (might) exist.
(For plausible non-existence of living entities even given the presence of DNA see: stem cell research & gene therapy).
Jurors, who mostly do not understand the science behind DNA, will accept that DNA evidence must mean the accused is guilty.
The problem, then, is the jury system. Stupid people shouldn't be made responsible for a life and death decision in a criminal trial.
just sent a tweet to @keithellison (my rep) articulating my disappointment. it took only 30 seconds, do the same if your unhappy about this.
Plus you actually have recourse against the government.
Tried getting off a no-fly list lately?
Mind the frickin' laser...
I would not expect them to require it.
California already takes DNA from any adult that is arrested of a felony or a crime that could be charged as a felony. People that have been arrested during politcal demonstrations and released with no charges have had their cheeks swabbed. To make matters worse, a person must wait three years before they can request an expungement, which a judge must order but a prosecutor can veto. That is right, no charges have to be filed and the state could keep your DNA forever. The ACLU has filed suit and they asked for a preliminary injunction. The prelim was denied in federal court in December 2009 with the judge stating that DNA is just like fingerprints and it helps soolve crimes. The lawsuit continues.
Let us not forget, California shares their DNA database with the federal government. There is no requirement that the national DNA database honor an expungement.
Californians can blame themselves for this. Direct democracy in action. Happy times in America.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
So, acquitted or an over-turned verdict and you can get off the list... but simply being arrested and the charges later being dropped? Is there a process for expungement in that situation?
Generally, yes. In South Dakota, for example, we already have automatic DNA sampling imposed upon anyone *arrested* for a felony. It is part of the booking procedure. If the felony charges are dropped, dismissed, or you are acquitted at trial, you can send a copy of the dismissal order to the state lab and the sample must then be destroyed. This has been the rule for about two years now. (The tricky part is, for cases where the charges get dismissed early-on, you sometimes have to go ask the judge to sign a separate order documenting the dismissal, just so you have something you CAN send to the state lab.)
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.