Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection
An anonymous reader writes On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a case involving the conviction of a man based solely on the analysis of his "inadvertently shed" DNA. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that this tacit approval of the government's practice of collecting anyone's DNA anywhere without a warrant will lead to a future in which people's DNA are "entered into and checked against DNA databases and used to conduct pervasive surveillance."
Just because the police can do something, doesn't mean they should be legally allowed to do it. Before all the fingerprint comments start, I will remind folks that DNA is categorically different than fingerprints. Yes, both can identify an individual. But that is like saying both a driver's license and a smart phone can be used to identify a person. If you search someone's smart phone, you have boatloads more information. DNA is becomming more useful by leaps and bounds every year. This is too much information for the government to just blythely collect and shove into databases with little safeguard against hacking, misuse, and abuse. There seriously needs to be a national discussion and laws passed. It is sad that this is unlikely to happen.
Join the IParty!
The larger problem is not the countless cells containing DNA that you shed on a daily basis. If you leave evidence of your crime behind, that's your problem.
That said, collection of your DNA before hand, to have it on file for comparison just in case you commit a crime, is a breach of privacy. It's painful to imagine a world where one of the first things done when someone is born is to collect DNA for comparison throughout the baby's life.
The Supreme Court often denies review of cases it sees are unfit for deciding an issue, or for many other reasons. That does not mean that the court approves of a lower court decision. The court often lets the lower courts work on the issue, developing arguments and evidence, before stepping in to decide an important constitutional issue.
What are you, in law enforcement? This is a story about warrantless collection of DNA in a rape case. Not everyone is a rapist. How far do we let police intrude into people's lives who HAVE NOT committed any crime? How far can they intrude into your life without probable cause to believe you committed a particular crime? Should they be allowed to scan though your house walls? If you let infrared light seep out of your house, that is your problem! Should they be allowed to read all your emails? Oh, if you send your emails using weak encryption procedures through a third party, that is your problem! Should they be allowed to listen to all of your phone calls? Same principle.
Join the IParty!
Everyone has committed a crime. They just haven't been caught. Police will always have that on their side.
Just because the police can do something, doesn't mean they should be legally allowed to do it.
Ah, but you see, this is only one half of this overall problem.
The real issue is when the police do something illegal and are caught, we fail to apply appropriate punishment for the crime that was committed by law enforcement.
Seems today we offer nothing but impunity to all those charged with creating or enforcing laws. Until that damn attitude changes, it's fucking pointless to talk about laws and rules. It really is.
I wish they (and juries) soon get it through their thick skulls: synthesizing and planting DNA evidence is now nearly child's play - especially if you have a vast database of samples and easy access to the Evidence Room.
This comment makes absolutely no sense. Where does probable cause come from, except from an investigation? How do you expect police to do their job if they're only allowed to start collecting evidence after they get a warrant, which must be supported by evidence?
The purpose of a warrant is to allow the police to breach your otherwise constitutionally-guaranteed reasonable expectation of privacy. A warrant permits police to search your home, person, vehicle, or other private space without your permission. Other than such private spaces, police don't need permission from anybody to investigate. They certainly don't need a warrant to search a crime scene, where you have no legally-protected reasonable expectation of privacy.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.