Slashdot Mirror
NY Governor Wants To Expand DNA Database
crimeandpunishment writes "If Governor David Paterson has his way, New York would take DNA samples from even the lowest level of criminal, doubling the state's DNA database. He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted. New York would become the first state in the country to do this. Currently DNA isn't collected in most misdemeanors. The plan is getting lots of support among law enforcement, but the New York Civil Liberties Union says there are questions about privacy."
I mean shit, yes, the city of NY would like to pretend they're the whole state, but there's like, a lot more than NYC...
This space available.
NYC is the city -- With *Mayor* Bloomberg ( ~ 305 sq. miles) NY is a state... (~ 54,475 square miles) ... and Patterson is the governor of the STATE (which does unfortunately have to deal with said 'tiny island')
If this happens, what will follow is a crackdown on jaywalking and other everybody crimes so that the database becomes universal. They'll be taking DNA at traffic stops.
While there are some very clear benefits of using DNA as evidence in some cases, it can also be deliberately misused to purposefully frame people. Leaving false DNA evidence is much easier than copying someones fingerprints. A couple of kilos of cocaine planted in someones apartment, with a piece of hair, can in some jurisdictions land people in jail for a long time. It is somewhat the same dillemma with electronic evidence. Some real criminals are caught using historic location data or credit card date. At the same time, if you are well aware that this sort of evidence is taken seriously, you can also use it to create your own alibis which can make investigators rule you out as a suspect in the first place.
This is just a concern regarding the part about "He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted.", because I think someone might be wrongly convicted BECAUSE of the new use of DNA evidence. I don't really like the idea that you should collect DNA because of small crime in the first place, and even though there might be some benefits, this certainly weighs against (even though some might be found innocent).
Dvorak on Doomtech
Let's make New York City its own state. Heck throw in Long Island while you're at it.
And while we're on the subject of Patterson let me repeat what I said earlier in a story about him involving the NBC and Comcast merger.
I just don't think Governor Paterson sees the repercussions of this. Seriously he's blind to the blatant civil rights problems this will create.
The ACLU needs to give him the cane for this.
I'm sure Spitzer left quite a bit lying around.
Have gnu, will travel.
Uh-oh... does this mean he wants more babies? For a geneticist, more babies is like ordering the Sampler Plate at Denny's.
How is this supposed to clear the wrongly convicted?
If you are wrongly convicted, you wont have much issue providing your own DNA to get free.
This has only a few applications:
With current technology a matching genetic pattern can be generated. This would make a great tool for acquiring genetic patterns for the fabrication of evidence and false convictions.
Even without such fabrication, genetic evidence can be abused to implicate someone that just happened to have passed through the location of a crime days, weeks or months before the event.
"He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted."
yeah sure like thats ever going to happen.
judge: we found the bloody knife in your kitchen, but since we couldnt find any dna evidence of you being at the victims home you are free of all charges.
it will probably be more like:
judge: we couldnt link you in any way to the murder case, but we found one of your hairs in the victims appartment. have fun in jail."
there are millions of reasons why your dna could be at a certain place.
The U.S. House wants to collect DNA from people merely arrested. And they'll pay the states to do it.
The tracking of phones should give US readers some ideas of how this will be used.
http://tinyurl.com/y9lh6wq [www.nydailynews.com]
A suspect's cell phone battery is removed to avoid leakage, exposing the International Mobile Equipment Identity number to be noted down.
Also recall how the system seems to work in the UK
"Police arresting people "just for the DNA""
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AN1FA20091124
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Just a question to naysayers: how is this different from the state wanting to know where you live, or wanting your name on record?
Just a question to naysayers: how is this different from the state wanting to know where you live, or wanting your name on record?
If I get a cut and bleed somewhere, having my name or address on file doesn't tell you I was there. Having my DNA does.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
- It uniquely identifies a person.
- It may be used against that person in the future, even if the person was innocent at the time of collection.
- It may require drawing blood. Some people are very afraid of needles and should not be forced to submit to a blood test unless the person is to stand trial for a crime where drawing blood makes legal sense (as opposed to it just being something the government thinks would be nice to have).
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
It means they have longer to eat donuts instead of having to do real work to solve crimes.
The tests they do have a 99.9% success rate (if it's gone up or that was too optimistic, let me know, but that's last I saw). That means, once you collect DNA from everyone, each sample will hit on 30,000 Americans. So then, you have 30,000 people to sift through. It's good at taking a single person and comparing them against another with high reliability. But to search massive databases, you get too many hits. And then, you have to exclude 29,999 people to find the right one. Or, if you happen to be living nearby with no alibi, you may get convicted with nothing other than "your" DNA at the scene.
So it isn't just about the privacy of your DNA, but the miscarriage of justice by people that don't understand statistics and zealous police and DAs who are in the habit of creating evidence to convict someone they "know" did it (or in the case of DAs, they don't know or care who did it, but their conviction rate requires a guilty verdict and is more important than justice).
This is all just a symptom of a larger problem. The "justice" system is unrelated to justice and has become a punishment system where even those never convicted are punished in many ways (confiscation of money without any process at all, in direct violation of the Constitution, as long as they suspect that a drug user looked at it once). The government exists to serve us, and no, I don't mean serve us with warrants.
Learn to love Alaska
...Or has he balanced it already? Looks to me like he has his priorities misplaced. Am I wrong?
"B-b-b-but we NEED the government to make us safe and secure and take care of us!!!"
If police can gain an advantage by enforcing laws against minor and/or discretionary offenses, you can be sure they will take full advantage by enforcing such laws more often. It's been known to happen, and it will happen again if this abominable bill is turned into law.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Just a question to naysayers: how is this different from the state wanting to know where you live, or wanting your name on record?
Those examples are just further up the slippery slope.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
I was going to make this exact point if it hadn't already been made.
So first they'll convict you, then they'll take your DNA and then prove that you didn't really do it? I'm sure you would have offered your DNA before.
Or they'll find that the DNA evidence matches someone else's DNA to prove that you didn't do it? If the DNA evidence matches someone else then it doesn't match your DNA. No need to take anyone else's DNA to prove that.
Sound like BS to make a bad idea sound better. Makes about as much sense as adding manure to bad tasting medicine "to make it taste better".
This is the reason we have the right to bare arms. My .45 will be empty before they get any samples off me.
Crooks can just salt the scene of the crime with DNA not their own.
DNA tests are not quick, either - forget what you have seen on TV. The FBI backlog is overwhelming, as it is for State labs in most cities. DNA evidence collected at a crime scene is likely not to be analyzed before the trial date.
New York City doesn't have the money to do this, anyhow. The cost would be exorbitant, even with a balanced budget.
Criminals gave up their rights when they committed a crime.
Darn right, and I've solved the budget problem as well.
I suggest parking tickets and jaywalking be the threshold for being added. Wait about 5 years, then start doing DNA tests on litter, which will have fines raised up to $250 per item.
Think about it, NYS could mass-fine millions of people a day! Dropped that cigarette butt on the ground? $250! Chewing gum? $250. Drink container that fell out of a garbage can that hasn't been picked up in a week? $250.
Heck, raise the fine to $500 and jail people who don't pay.
Obviously you are not familiar with the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights.
Sig this!
"He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted."
uh-huh. Yeah, sure.
Investigating Officer 1: Lets review this case investigation, with impending court charges against our suspect, just so we can, you know, get him off, if we, you know, fucked up.
Investigating Officer 2: So we expose our ineptness, and corruption, and blow our case stats all at the same time?
Investigating Officer 1: Meh, Its 5pm anyhoo. Couple jars down at the local?
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
In some ways, this is no different to a database of fingerprints. They suffer from the same problems (false positives, near matches etc).
But in other ways, it's actually a whole lot more "helpful". For example, if person A commits a crime and their DNA is not on file, but a close relative (person B) is in the database, it's probable that the database will give a near match.
This means that the cops will potentially be able to say "this DNA is from Person B, OR family member of person B".
Which means they may be able to reduce the scope of their investigation even if the person they're looking for isn't in the database.
Nuff said with the subject line
- It uniquely identifies a person.
- It may be used against that person in the future, even if the person was innocent at the time of collection.
You mean like, oh.. I don't know... Fingerprints?
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Cost is to high to do it for all crimes!
The collections (real-life) I've seen don't need blood. They just swab the inside of your mouth.
GP didn't ask how it was different from fingerprints. Having said that, DNA conveys information that fingerprints do not. Fingerprints can't be matched against your relatives, nor do they reveal information about a person's genetic makeup. Finally, fingerprint collection is less invasive than DNA collection, especially when DNA is obtained via needles.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Cheek swabs are certainly an option, but that doesn't rule out the drawing of blood as an alternative (possibly at the arresting officer's discretion) unless it's explicitly forbidden by law.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
You forget the important thing: It moves with the person, and independently of the person.
Someone mentioned it's like a fingerprint. A clean fingerprint can place someone at a certain location with a high degree of accuracy.
DNA cannot do even that, except under very specific circumstances. Despite it being treated as direct evidence by law enforcement, it's circumstantial evidence at best.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
For social order, we need tighter reins.
Incarceration hasn't worked as a deterrent.
I say we expand execution to include lesser crimes!
Who would have thought a movie based upon a comic book that takes place in a city similar to NewYork would foresee something like this?
Someone's rights(within reason to what they did) are forfeited when they are CONVICTED, there is a HUGE difference there. Otherwise if a murder happened in a small town the police should be able to collect evidence from everyone in the town, after all it could have been anyone, and that person who did it doesn't have rights at all, right? And if someone is proven innocent later is their DNA purged from the database or does it stay there forever just because someone suspected they committed a crime?
In fact, I don't think it's anyone's right not to be identified by the epithelial they leave lying around.
And I believe they do have the right; now how are you going to tell me I'm wrong? There is no legitimate gain from collecting DNA from a person if they where law abiding, or did not commit a crime where DNA was involved at all.
In fact, I'd encourage everyone to get registered for fingerprints and DNA, because the time, money, and grief it will save your family when your unrecognizable torso is dug up in the woods, is significant.
That seriously the best answer you have? If you really did leave DNA around wherever you go why couldn't they compare the body to samples taken from another piece of clothing or something you owned? Hell, if it was a relative you could just run a DNA test with a sample from the relative and when it comes back with a 99% odds they're related be all set. Your argument does not stand on it's own.
I swear to God, if you believe this is a good idea I hope there's a special place in hell for you. This is called unreasonable search and seizure, police even when executing a warrant must only collect evidence pertaining to the crime. This law pertains only to evidence collection that does not pertain to a crime otherwise it would have been collected in the original investigation. My body, my fucking epithelium! If I did commit a crime and DNA was valid evidence in it go ahead and keep it, you'd need to in case of appeal anyways, but otherwise you have no right or grounds to keep it, so do the right thing and destroy it.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
With the right genetic information on a convict the state could figure out how to quickly reduce the cost of a life sentence in prison...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If I have the right to remain silent, do I also have the right to refuse giving my DNA away? IANAL but if I have the right to not speak so as to not incriminate myself, why wouldn't I also have the right to not have my blood drawn (or mucus swabbed) so as to not incriminate myself?
I don't live in New York but, I'm often there. If an officer there wanted to take a sample of my DNA for an offense such as speeding, I'd refuse. If he persisted, I'd try to invoke Miranda Rights. If he persisted after that, I'd fight back as he tried to take the sample, recover for a few months in the hospital after he beat me senseless and then sue for police brutality. Essentially, that's what it's going to take to get this law overturned if it gets passed.
It uniquely identifies a person.
Except that the DNA tests currently used to identify an individual from samples collected at the scene of a crime do not uniquely identify an individual. DNA tests, except in a very limited number of crimes (such as certain rapes), do not provide a good basis for conviction (although they may provide a good basis for exoneration).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That'll teach those politicians and lawyers.
Start with entrance into schools. Get DNA from everyone. Driver's license bureaus would be another good collection point.
But you miss the cleverness - bare arms exposed to the sun are more likely to accumulate DNA damage (through sun burns, UV light blah blah). DNA damage would throw off the tests! For once, living underground/away from sunlight and developing no tan has its distinct advantages... Or would getting a sunburn be thought of tampering with potential evidence? (yes, I know they can get DNA samples elsewhere, it's a joke).
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Prosecutors will go and tell a jury that the odds of a match are 1 in 1,000,000 (for example).
Interesting points about false positive rates.
Here's a thought experiment:
How would prosecutors react if the law put their dna on file, too?
Why not add in everybody who is involved: prosecutors, governor, representatives, judges, police, civil servants, lab techs, it staff...
I like to think they would start having second thoughts about how swell of an idea it is. Since it has such a low error rate, what could they possibly complain about? I wonder if any of them would say, "Hmmm..." ?
(For the record, this slope is too slippery - I really don't want to our society to go there. I was just wondering if the people involved with implementing this would be ok with having their on dna go on file as well).
Watch Gattagga (hope the spelling is right). CSI becomes, get the Dyson out!
Seriously in the UK we have had this, collect it for anything, attitude for years. It is bad in general because it makes law enforcement lazy, stop at the DNA match. Also bear in mind that any DNA profile collected can also be used to check blood relatives, parent and or children, so if they have a database of 500,000 its really more like 2 million.
Yeah, that's maybe why I was only responding to the quoted part?
Both of those points are moot because you can use finger prints in the same way, and no one seems to have a problem with those...
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
We had this nonsense introduced in the UK, with the result that the police were arresting people to take their DNA, then releasing them without charge. But their data wasn't deleted from the database. And as the police control the whole forensic process, it's an easy matter for them, once they've got the sample, to use it to contaminate any evidence they want. Vindicating people's innocence will NOT be one of the results of this proposal.
Obviously you are not familiar with the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights.
Our forefathers gave up their rights when they started the revolution.
What does this Constitution thing you speak of have anything to do with it?
Make America grate again!
but it may also be used to frame the innocent.
It is trivial to place DNA of someone you hate at the scene of a crime. Sure, DNA left in liquids are hard to fake but if you have a rape where a condom is used and the perpetrator doesn't leave blood, the crime scene guys will look for hairs and similar. And it's those that can be placed intentionally on the scene, framing somebody.
There's also the accuracy of the tests. Here in little Denmark (5m people) we've already had a case where someone on file matched a preliminary test of traces left on a dead body. This person was arrested and questioned for days - until a more complete profile finally cleared the person completely. With a DNA database the chances of getting hauled into questioning and jail because of a preliminary DNA match increases significantly. That is a huge problem for the innocently accused on many levels.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
If people are in the database dogs should be too
Only saints are unafraid.
Most saints in my good book were horribly assassinated. Maybe they are unafraid of police officers, but they must be very afraid.
you can use finger prints in the same way, and no one seems to have a problem with those
Wrong. Because I have a problem with those. I don't believe the authorities should have the right to force you to hand over your person for any kind of recording.
Of course, I lost that argument.
Just as everyone will lose this one too. Have fun in your dystopia.
So he wants a massive rainbow table for DNA? too bad we couldn't just generate them with brute force like we do hashes..
Actually, I'm completely familiar with them, and so is the judiciary, which allows criminals to lose their rights upon conviction, which is merely the government's official recognition of the fact of the crime having been committed. The criminal gave up his rights at the point he committed the crime. Conviction is an order to law enforcement to carry out the sentence for the crime (i.e, by jailing the perp or collecting the fine or starting up the probation rack).
Now, criminals have some rights even after they are convicted, but really, that's a mistake.
Someone's rights(within reason to what they did) are forfeited when they are CONVICTED, there is a HUGE difference there.
No, they forfeited their rights when they committed the crime.
Government can't do anything about enforcing the forfeit until it's proved the crime was committed by that person, but that's not when the forfeiture occurred.
I seen that on the internet once...mouth swabbing and the such!!!
...the more genetic databases, the merrier. Nice, being able to access a database and look for markers of genetic disorders and predispositions so that you can size the mandatory health care premium appropriately.
But wait, no government official would ever be so corrupt as to allow a great big industry with a whole lot of campaign dollars to access their growing genetic databases...
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"