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."
It needs to stop!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I don't mind, so long as the government doesn't have a problem with me giving them a sample at a time and place of my choosing.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Someone should make a movie about this with a retro-streamline jet-age aesthetic.
Another blob field added into the NSA databases I guess.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
the DNA test was no different than lifting a fingerprint left by someone. The did not force him to take a DNA test, rather he left it behind and thus no warrant is needed.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
They'll wind up using the same sort of protective techniques the superstitious used to use against witchcraft --- being careful not to shed any blood, skin, hair or nail clippings when engaged in their illicit activities.
I can see a scene in a science fiction movie (God forbid it really needs to happen) where the protagonist's best friend, despite the padded, blood-absorbing armor which they were when conducting sabotage against the state is injured, so that a single drop of blood drops to the ground --- while the protagonist looks on in horror and sadness. Then, the doomed buddy simply announces, "I've been blooded. Give me all the ammunition you can spare." and then goes off on a berserk, suicidal assault of the pursuing authorities.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
And whatever you do, don't let anyone learn your True Name. If they have your True Name, they have power over you.
Or rather, but large collections of random people's dna, in spray form, and spray every crime site.
Some people keep forgetting that arms races are races. The fact that one side moves forward doesn't, by itself, give that side an advantage.
Indeed, that is a pretty great similarity - thus, just like (spoiler) Locke Lamora isn't his real name... the best way to foil (techno)mages is to lie your rear end off.
Neither should you let them know your middle name.
Unless it's "Danger".
If it's "Danger" let them know it, as it instill fear in their hearts.
Or "Wolf". Let them know it's "Wolf" too.
Or a color. Any color instills fear too.
Except "Pink". Don't let them know your middle name is "Pink" or you'll die on your first day in prison.
So does this ruling apply to the public or only to government?
For example, could I legally collect Elizabeth Warren's "inadvertently shed" DNA and have it tested to find out if she really has a Native American ancestor?
If this is something only the government can do legally, then what law gives them but not me the right to collect other people's DNA and have it analyzed without their permission?
More to the point, is there any law preventing me or anyone else from doing this right now? I can see James O'Keefe with a cotton swab and vial chasing Elizabeth Warren across the Harvard campus.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Your DNA is really like a name, and it could confer true power over someone. How about this for science fiction: the politicians get control of a new virus printer which can take someone's DNA and formulate a specific virus for them that will show up in the autopsy as a garden variety flesh eating bacteria. The engineered strain would be particularly deadly, drug resistant, but only affecting one individual. Autopsy would not show anything amiss. A variation would be that the politicians silence opposition using viruses tailored to an individual which change their behavior: cause them to become schizophrenic, docile, perverted, suicidal, or any number of usefully self-destructive traits. Actually, I see this kind of capability as kind of inevitable, the only question being, what will be the countermeasures?
Join the IParty!
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.
I think some bad guys did that in an episode of Almost Human a year or so ago.
The military has been doing this for a long time now. If the Supreme Court had ruled differently, they would have shuttered who-knows-how-many government programs. Some of the research being done is very useful. For example, a small portion of the population is immune to HIV, and the Army did some testing to further knowledge about who is included in that group and why, whether the are genetic markers, etc. Sometimes that work has perks for the people involved. For example, I found out that I'm not immune to HIV when they tested my blood and DNA.
I've only touched on what I've seen myself. This doesn't consider cases like the testing of rape kits where a different decision could have raised the question of whether they can collect DNA samples from rape victims without the consent of the rapist or a warrant requirement that could introduce evidence-spoiling delays.
Rather than worry about this decision, what we actually need is legislation or a decision that ensures rapid DNA forensics so that false results don't arise from spoiled or damaged samples, and oversight to ensure that samples are never handled incorrectly to produce spoilage and damage to begin with. DNA is such conclusive evidence where the science is concerned that people have forgotten that it's possible for humans to mess up science. Having the most accurate tests allowable by nature means nothing if the people performing the tests are underfunded or incompetent.
from the welcome-to-gattica dept.
Really?
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Aside from the huge privacy issues, I'm even more concerned that they would screw up collecting it. Everyone sheds DNA. Who is to say that the DNA they collect is actually from the person they think it is? DNA gets all mixed together after it leaves a person's body.
Yes, I know that if you are arrested for something because they screwed up, it is easy enough to give them some real DNA to clear your name, but how long until they do that on purpose in order to legitimately collect some? What legal recourse would you have?
Actually, I generally do object to that. Not for nothing but, if they really have a reason to suspect a specific individual and be collecting such evidence at all, then they can and should get a warrant to obtain it. I see no reason to make exceptions on such thin loopholes. Such requirements should always be interpreted as STRICTLY as possible, if there is even question over whether a warrant is appropriate....fucking get one....aka DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.
Hell even if they don't think they need one....why not get one? I see absolutely no reason NOT to get one except in the most extreme and rare of circumstances.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This is a sterling indictment on the state of either autocorrect, non-physical keyboards or the dangers of using bath salts.
My head asplode.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
The main problem is that they don't sample your entire DNA, only specific parts of it which sometimes could also match or partial match your siblings (eg. identical twins), parents, clones and other close relatives.
Despite what you may think, DNA tests as performed by police have never been scientifically proven to be globally unique. It is unlikely for someone to have the same DNA markers than you but it's not impossible.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
Currently DNA analysis is quite crude, basically enough to determine some genetic predisposition to illness and family relationships.
But there is indication that researcher might be able to find generic markers with predispose people to various conditions and traits (such as being left handed, homosexual, overweight, balding violent, psychopathic, etc.). Do you really want this information to be in the hands of big government and multi-national corporations?
Even if someone is genetically predisposed to some trait, there are additional environment factors which can prevent this from surfacing.
Why should a person who may have genetic markers to make them predisposed to violence, but was raised in a loving environment and taught at a young age to use anger management techniques and never hurt a fly, be discriminated against like someone who has countless violent acts against innocent people?
DNA should only be allowed to be freely collected, when people have the technology and option to change their own genetics, so that they are not victimized by discrimination.
Never talk to the police without a lawyer, never let them into your home without a warrant, and never cooperate with them on any matter for any reason (they lie). If you have a issue, deal with it yourself in a way you see fit. How do you like living in America?
Are we going to permit 'inadvertently shed" fingerprints also?
Oh, wait...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm generally supportive of any efforts by the EFF etc. regarding privacy claims but this was the wrong test case for their argument. Specifically the EFF was arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to just collect random DNA samples & keep them in a database forever, but that's NOT what the case was about. The police used the collected DNA to compare to DNA found at the scene, they found a match & used that as evidence to support a charge. That is no different then collecting any evidence gathered in 'public space' (garbage etc, as well as fingerprints left on a glass at the station) to support a charge and that's why the Supreme Court correctly in my opinion should have refused to hear arguments & make a ruling.
The question of whether or not the police should be allowed to keep any evidence on file about someone who is not being charged with a crime is an entirely DIFFERENT argument entirely. In fact whether they should be allowed to keep evidence on file for someone who has been charged but acquited falls in to this category as well. The point being that if you believe the police should not be able to keep random data on file about a citizen who is not charged with a crime or even charged but acquited then find a different test case, e.g. a case where the police already had a citizen's DNA on file compared it to DNA found at the scene & used that to support a charge. Then this brings in to question whether the DNA on file was a "violation of a citizen's privacy" but this test case is exactly the reverse & is 'good police work'. The police aren't always 'out to get us', and the government isn't always 'out to control us'. All this shows is that people should NEVER speak to the police unless your 100% sure that you are not a suspect, will never be a suspect or have anything to do with potential criminial activity. In fact I would argue that it's time for people to have their own legal form that you make the police sign prior to speaking with any police/officer of the goverrnment in any way. Something to the effect 'I do not authorize the collection and retention of any information about me that could or may be gathered by an agent of the government not in connection with the immediate action for which I'm being interviewed. Or use of any such information gathered in any way other then for the immediate use as to why the information is being gathered.'...I'm sure a lawyer could write something up that would give citizen's 'extra rights' in such situations. The fact is that people do not have to just rely on the Constitution or Bill of Rights to protect themselves. If you're not a suspect in a crime (e.g. just expected to be a witness) no agent of the government should ever have a problem signing such an agreement & if you are a suspect in a crime (or know you have committed the crime) don't speak to the police without a lawyer anyway!
Good point. The police probably are only collecting what amounts to a bar code. However, the Court's decsion did not rest on this fact. Police can unilaterally change their tactics. The price for the full sequence is falling drastically.
Join the IParty!
You FBI Coward, I spit on you! No, wait, I don't want to spit on you because then you will collect my DNA. I throw my hairbrush at you! No, no, that won't work either. I, I, punch you with boxing gloves!!! Take that!!!
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
Denial of certiorari sets no precedent. They could have rejected this case for any number of reasons, from a full calendar to the suit involving side issues which would make any ruling muddy to not liking the name of the defendant. They denied without comment.
We have:
An anti-American, anti-Constitution President
An anti-American, anti-Constitution Congress
And now an anti-American, anti-Constitution Supreme Court
In short, we're screwed.
The sad thing is that we let it happen, either through ignorance or through apathy.
I am. This has led to many miscarriages of justice.
Prosecutor: "The DNA test shows there is a 1 in 10 million change that this person is not guilty"
Truth: "The DNA test shows that this person is one of around 35 people in the USA who could have deposited this DNA, I.E. 1 person in 10 million of the US population (assuming the US population to be 350 million)"
There needs to be something else to make it that person and not someone else. Scouring a DNA database of the whole US is going to throw up many false positives.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
Nothing is inherently wrong with taking a position on either side of the issue, and defining where the sphere of individual liberty meets the public interest in catching individuals responsible for crime will always be open for debate in a free society.
But the summary and headline here are profoundly wrong. SCOTUS receives *THOUSANDS* of petitions every year and only hear about 100 cases. When they don't accept a case, it doesn't mean they're approving it, even tacitly, and the case doesn't become binding precedent nationwide like it would after SCOTUS heard it.
Sometimes they won't hear a case because it's a messy fact pattern which may be important for a couple of guys, but is a bad case to use for establishing precedent that will actually set meaningful rules for future court cases in lower courts. Sometimes they won't hear it because it's not interesting enough or they don't want to get involved. Sometimes they won't hear it because the petitioner failed to present a convincing case for why he should be heard.
Don't read anything into it. Doing so is profoundly uninformed in a way that would give even an otherwise informed opinion a big hurdle to get over before it became persuasive.
The fact that one side moves forward doesn't, by itself, give that side an advantage
It certainly does when one side holds the power of coercive authority. You can't actually win against coercive authority. You can try to circumvent it, but you can never defeat it, because the advantage of coercion is absolute.
Which, as we all know, is the reason to be living in an Absolute Monarchy.
No one is saying that they can't collect evidence at the crime scene. What they are saying is the police can't invite a witness to the station, give him a cup of coffee, and then compare the prints on the coffee cup to the prints at the crime scene. If they want to collect the prints they have to get a warrant. Likewise, if they want a DNA sample they can't just follow someone around until they leave some behind, they have to get a court order.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.