Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Police Ask 8000+ Citizens To Provide Their DNA
sciencewatcher writes "In an attempt to solve a rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl, the Dutch police have asked 8080 men to provide their DNA. All these people lived 5 km or less from the crime scene at the time of the murder. This reopened cold case is the first large-scale attempt not to hunt the rapist and killer but to locate his close or distant male relatives. All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder. There seems to be great public support for this attempt." Shades of The Blooding.
It's clearly for the children.
That is what this boils down to. There is no "right" answer, but citizens of each country answer the question diferently.
"We'll destroy the DNA afterwards, we PROMISE...."
I don't generally like the idea of giving DNA samples to anyone. However, if the authorities are very direct and up-front about it, and provide me with a signed statement that the records will be destroyed after each sample is "cleared", then I'd do it in this case.
I'll always trust the entity who asks for something over the entity which does the same thing in secret without permission.
Even so, I sincerely doubt that this will lead to the perpetrator, for obvious reasons.
why not 6km away, 10km, etc? That is not that large of an area all things considered. It would be roughly the size of a small town. Who is to say the perp didn't live the next town over or was a nomad of sorts. Yes I know they say it is to possibly locate relatives, but how often would close enough match cause them to accuse said match.
Also who would trust their government to "destroy" the data when they are done with it. Yes they may very well destroy the samples but you can bet your next paycheck that it will stay stored on some backup somewhere for future use.
Fortunately, I'm a 6502 man, not an 8080 man. (But then I'm not Dutch either.)
Convince people they are being attacked, and they'll give you anything you want. Happens every day. Textbook case, ripped right out of that book written by the little general.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
As I understand it, the phrase "legitimate rape" was intended to refer to forcible sexual assault, as opposed to making a rape claim on the basis of having retroactively withdrawn consent for a previous sexual contact. Sure, a rape-and-murder like this is obviously forcible, but for claims of rape without murder or other bodily harm, what's the best way to distinguish forcible rape from "oh wait, that wasn't really consent"?
This is a good article on the problems with fishing expeditions like this. Basically, the farther you cast the net, the greater the chance of false positives. What's worse, if there's just one false positive, it becomes next to impossible to argue your innocence because people look at the improbability of a single person being a false positive instead of the probability that there are false positives.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
DNA screening only looks at a few characteristics. Take two random people, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match. If you take the DNA profiles of 8000 people, it is quite likely that one of them will match the criminals profile. Meanwhile, the criminal will almost certainly find some way to avoid giving a sample. So you get to put some innocent person through hell, and for what?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
"All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder." Governments are notorious for not destroying the data they are suppose to destroy like this. The only way I would believe it is
1) there was a law of some sorts that forces them to
2) a penalty if they dont.
3) a law that it cant ever be used against you except for this specific crime
Colin Pitchfork was the first person ever to be convicted on DNA evidence. That was as a result of voluntary mass-screening and suppose it's natural for the Dutch police to follow suit especially if they have no leads.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
Scientists know -- and have been saying -- that DNA is far weaker evidence than prosecutors have tried to paint for the last few decades. But really more to the point: even if a conviction were made, it is not worth the loss of freedom and potential abuse this procedure involves.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
First, announcing this pretty much ensures the guilty party is never found. It would be like going on Twitter and saying "Hey Mr./Mrs. (Name of criminal), the police are going to #raid your house tomorrow."
Second, you only THOUGHT you had the right to privacy.
sudo make me a sandwich
Indeed, the Americans beat the Dutch to it -- we need only look back a few years at the Christa Worthington murder at Cape Cod, MA (which some of you may not consider part of the USA) where the whole population of Truro was subject to DNA testing.
This reopened cold case is the first large-scale attempt not to hunt the rapist and killer but to locate his close or distant male relatives.
If they just want to find close or distant relatives of the rapist, why not ask women to do so? 23andMe does a spit test, so it's not like you need to ask for semen. Or are they looking for something in particular on the Y-chromosome?
If you're checking for close relatives, testing women is just as valid and will give you a larger set of samples.
The crime described in this story is truly horrific, bu as a supporter of personal rights I would only submit such evidence in one form and it would involve me standing up, the officers on their knees, and would require at least four tissues to wipe away the excess.
So the moral of the story is - if you are going to kill someone in the Netherlands, kill someone at least 10 km away from you.
"But this one goes to 11!"
No-one will be forced to comply, the department said.
So if the actual perp were one of the men asked to provide evidence, then he need only say no, and meanwhile 8000 others have to submit to DNA testing.
I read this "All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder" and immediately think bullshit.
As a rule, once they have this, it never seem to go away.
I would never submit to this unless I was required to -- this is a fishing expedition. Anybody who submits is probably innocent, and anybody who refuses is going to be treated as if they're guilty with something to hide.
Yes, this is terrible. But asking everyone to submit exclusionary DNA because they've ran out of places to look ... well, I find that to be a really scary precedent.
The next step of course would be to just simply have everyone's DNA on file just in case they ever needed it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Too many laws are written without stated punishments, which means that the government breaks the law without any consequences.
If they explicitly stated that if they failed to destroy my DNA records within 3 months, they would pay me me cash, I would do it. Probably for a minimum payment of $1,000 dollars.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Fourth amendment, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Although if you're asked and not required to provide a sample, I suppose it's not technically a violation.
Oh, and the shooting and suing part. That's just for fun.
We already know who did it
Sure, the cops will throw your DNA away. After you've been framed for the next crime they're too stupid to actually solve.
Bonus: refusing no doubt will put you on a permanent 'Persons of Interest' list.
Um, no. This in America is unreasonable search and seizure, and people have a presumption of innocence.
In Canada there's a reasonable expectation we don't get searched for no good reason, and that comes from British common law.
This is intended to keep the government a little further away and not be able to crap all over you.
Do you really believe that this wouldn't be infringing on your rights for the police to make you submit a DNA sample to prove you didn't commit a crime? Governments tend to collect for one purpose, and then retain indefinitely and use for any other purpose they see fit.
Unless you have evidence to suggest I did this, I'm sure as hell not going to voluntarily submit to this kind of testing without being compelled. And, quite frankly, "because we've ran out of places to look" isn't going to be a good enough reason and will get you told to piss off.
So maybe you think it wouldn't violate your rights to have your DNA on file just because they ran out of places to look. But I wouldn't give it to them voluntarily.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So now that the police have openly asked for this the criminal would have to be brain dead stupid to stick around.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The police dont expect the perp to provide DNA - they hope the father/brother etc will provide theirs, as they are innocent, but the DNA match will be close enough to take a hard look at the extended family......
You are going to get fucked. It's a very simple thing: they have your DNA, all they need now is to place it somewhere later on to link you to another unsolved mystery and then somebody gets a bonus and a medal and you get to spend many years in a comfortable jail cell.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
There is not great public support for this. Outside of that podunk village there's plenty of people, me included, who would go tell the authorities to go fuck themselves. Slippery slope this is. Destroy data? yeah right. They've also said, only after the case has been solved. What if its not solved? And is data ever really destroyed?
On the radio and in the media they're just not playing the sound bites of people who refuse, they're only playing clips of people who say "what's the big deal if you have nothing to hide". The old line secret police everywhere like to use.
I for one will tell the justice department to shove it if they ask me for this.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
The Dutch MPS is relatively powerless and the current one hasn't done a lot to impress. Sure, compared to such wonders of freedom like the former USSR, the former GDR or the current USA, Dutch politicians may appear almost saint-like, but they were in fact in favor of ACTA, the second Gulf War and plenty of other things that /. was outraged about in the recent past. If anything, proving loyalty to the EU and the NATO allies seems to be more important than a lot of the public news stories teh goggles come up with. I guess that's what you get with politicians, no matter where you live.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
"...the Dutch police have asked 8080 men to provide their DNA..." These 8080 men should all line up and rain their DNA in the form of a giant golden shower.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder.
Here is what Data thinks of that statement.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Maybe you can believe the promises of the Dutch police, but if this were in the USA, I would say there was not a chance in HELL the data would really be destroyed.
I suspect it would not only be kept locally, but probably snarfed by the state police, FBI, DHS, CIA, and/or whatever.
Sorry to sound so jaded.
You are guilty until proven innocent. The entire mandate of every police force is to bring arrest and deal with anyone not following the law, and it is much easier to catch criminals when we just go ahead and let the police harass, beat, abuse, and/or threaten the citizens to be compliant little subjects.
As a fellow Dutchman, I am honestly not surprised they're trying this. And I actually have enough trust in my government that I don't believe they'll abuse this in some scary giant database. For one, they are too inept to keep it a secret. But on the other hand, having the reputation of being inept at anything would be great. What spy wouldn't dream of hearing "Him? He's too dumb to be a spy". I keep going around in circles.
Cops come to my door, I have nothing to say to them unless they have a warrant, and not even then.
No, you can't come in—in fact I'm coming outside and closing the door behind me. No, I'm not answering any questions (other than my name, as required by law).
Yeah, right.
In 2006 Swedish police in Örebro took a brute force approach in the hunt for a rapist known as 'Hagamannen' and *forcefully* tested 777 men before they finally found him. It was quite the circus and became something of a witch-hunt type affair where any tip from the public resulted in a summons for DNA testing.
We need to get together and have everyone give samples of bodily fluids, containing our DNA, mix them together thoroughly, and spray the stuff EVERYWHERE, so that we can get our fucking privacy back by making it impossible to determine absolutely using our DNA whether or not any one of us has been somewhere, or anywhere, so we can once more be free from the prying, spying eyes of the sick voyeurs who make our laws.
Kind of like how at the end of Spartacus, everyone started exclaiming that each one of them was Spartacus, shouting "I am Spartacus!"
My response to this Gatacoid civilization we're developing.
I'd sure hate to be that false positive. But after they deduce that because of my 31337 computer sk1llz I must have hacked slashdot at the time of a post that was supposed to prove I was innocent and the fact that because of HRT I doublt I could rape anybody and I get convicted of both rape and a computer crime because DNA "evidence" giving a false positive in unpossible, well..
I suppose when I got out, I might just rape a nice looking girl so that I at least committed the crime I did the time for. And I mean, come on. Of course I'd do it so I wouldn't get caught.
I guess problem is for the guy they accuse of doing my crime because I planted his DNA evidence. Don't ask how I collected the semen..... see my other posts for how I might do that.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Sorry, rather be raped and murdered than be falsely accused :P
Given the reliability of DNA tests, I can bet they are going to find a lot of people matching the murderer.
Required to carry GPS enabled cell phones? We spend most of the day just here on Slashdot fighting over who will get theirs first. As an added benefit we pay 2-4x the value of the device and then go ahead and pay even more to have it connected 24hrs a day to the telecoms. Bonus to them if you use it too often and get nailed at the tune of 10-20c/KB.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
We had a murder case in Perth and the suspect was thought to be a taxi driver. All taxi drivers willingly gave their DNA so it could be excluded and thought their samples would be destroyed after testing. A few years later a taxi driver was investigated when his (supposedly destroyed) DNA matched for an unrelated crime. His alibi was cast iron so luckily nothing happened. When asked the police told the taxi drivers that their DNA would be destroyed WHEN the murder was solved (8 years and counting) and it was TOO hard to exclude the taxi DNA from scans. Gotcha!!!
I would never submit to this unless I was required to -- this is a fishing expedition. Anybody who submits is probably innocent, and anybody who refuses is going to be treated as if they're guilty with something to hide. Yes, this is terrible. But asking everyone to submit exclusionary DNA because they've ran out of places to look ... well, I find that to be a really scary precedent.
The next step of course would be to just simply have everyone's DNA on file just in case they ever needed it.
http://www.bollywudfunda.com/2012/08/athletics-mens-200m-final-jamaica-gold.html
too many incompetent cops, or not enough incompetent firemen?
let's have a conversation! let me know what you think.
Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a time when everyone expected the government to protect them from crime.
Your approach assumes that the purpose of his statement was to minimize the amount of total harm. Not everyone wants to do that. Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes.
A friend of mine once provided his DNA as part of something similar.
He has since FOUR times been called in for questioning because of a semi-match with DNA found on new crime scenes, and it's the kind of questioning where it seems you're guilty until proven innocent. The full profile of the crime scene DNA always clears him later but as it takes quite a bit longer than the initial profile, and the police doesn't wait until they are sure and start questioning all the semi-matches right away.
That's too much of a hassle but it's hard to argue that the police shouldn't try to run an early comparison and see if something 'pops'.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
The police/government are acting on behalf of the majority of people, so yes, you as an individual are secondary to that.
Tough. You can indeed be physically detained/imprisoned if you commit a crime such as murder.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I can only see this as a slippery slope.
You are aware that the slippery slope fallacy is, in fact, a fallacy?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The french police was right though: they didn't know a child was missing, and it was clear this had been a professional assassination. Fortunately a policeman in the countryside does not encounter such murders regularly enough to warrant the technical knowledge to research the murder scene. Therefor a specialised time from Paris was called in, who gave specific instructions *not to touch* the crime scene.
Moreover, they had flown a heli with a heatseaking camera to find additional victims, and as soon as they received information that the child was missing they did search the car.
So no incompetent cops there, just a very sad story.
Sorry, rather be raped and murdered than be falsely accused :P
You would rather be raped and murdered than falsely accused of something? That makes no sense.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a time when everyone expected the government to protect them from crime.
Your approach assumes that the purpose of his statement was to minimize the amount of total harm. Not everyone wants to do that. Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes.
Then you should fuck off and live on a desert island somewhere. Preferably one which will soon be swamped due to global warming.
Most of us prefer civilization, and the greatest good of the greatest number of people (or perhaps the least harm to the fewest number of people) is indeed the guiding principle. One individual being limited in his absolute freedom is a small price to pay for not having to live in constant fear of being murdered in your bed by someone with enough powerful friends.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"This maxim is fine as far as it goes, but ignores consequences."
It is in fact a maxim, or statement of principle. It isn't intended to be taken quite literally.
But Franklin was not stating something original, either. Very similar statements had been made by others prior to Franklin before his time, back to John Locke and others.
"Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes."
Then you have your thinking exactly backward, because Franklin's maxim was all about innocent people NOT having to pay for the mistakes of others.
Besides the obvious meaning (being falsely accused), there is also the concept that a society that does not strongly protect the innocent is a society in which there is greater suffering. History tends to bear this out.
You should demand that the document they sign, makes government or some official to pay you, if you find out that they have failed to obey the contract. Promise without any penalties is quite useless. But I have really strong feeling that they are not willing to sighn that kind of contracts with you...
I think that the third condition should be extended by prohibiting also the use of the sample against your relatives, except in this specific crime.
Who knows what happens in future. I or some of my relatives might send money in envelope to help Assange. If the wich hunt gets tougher, the donaters might also be in risk of getting shipped to Guantanamo to enjoy torture for the rest of their lifes. And even if you don't put your name on the envelope or letter, your DNA might be found on it.