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."
Someone should make a movie about this with a retro-streamline jet-age aesthetic.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
It's unlikely to happen because what you said is mostly BS. A smart phone contains all kinds of sensitive information like logs of where you've been and of private conversations between you and several other people (which may or may not be related to a case the police are investigating). Your DNA can't possibly contain information like that. Today it might be able to tell the police you have blonde hair and blue eyes, but so can your driver's license. Sure it might eventually be able to let the police generate a picture of what you look like based on your DNA, but once again so can your driver's license. It might even be able to tell the police whether you have a small penis (or something along those lines), but I'm pretty sure they won't be able to use information like that against you in court. ;-)
It really is no different than collecting fingerprints at a crime scene, semen from a rape victim, etc.
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.
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?
Yes well a rape kit is not medical testing of an unwilling doner it falls under collecting evidence directly from the scene of the crime. Its not JUST dna but actually evidence of the crime itself which, really is another matter entirely.
We are talking about covert collection outside of the act of any crime, which is an entirely different matter. I don't know why you would conflate the two at all.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
You don't even need to go that far to spoof this sort of surveillance.
1. Collect DNA from hundreds or thousands of humans, animals, plants from your local sewage plant or equivalent.
2. Clear off the icky parts, do a bulk DNA purification that can be done with kitchen chemistry. Much easier than making meth.
3. Freeze dry the stuff
4. Package in convenient creme, aerosol or get (bonus points for 'sporty scent')
5. Sell in local stores as 'natural health aid' - bypasses difficult FDA or DEA regulatory requirements*
6. Sprinkle on before attempted crime or just twice a day along with your tin foil change (you DO change your tin foil regularly, yes?)
7. Profit! **
* in USA only, Depending on status of lawmaking and regulatory agencies, YMMV. Not valid in the Eurozone.
** Patent Pending as soon as we figure out how to do this on a computer.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
No, I am worried about the constant expansion of police powers, which, I think need to be rolled back.
I am worried about surreptitious collection AT ALL. There really is no need for it. Frankly any time the police say "We think that guy there is a suspect we need to collect more about"....warrant. Period, every time, every situation....with the exception of the very time sensitive "ticking bomb" scenario.... and a very narrow one
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
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?
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.
The theory is we're supposed to be a free and open society. But not so open that those who have not committed a crime should have their information (DNA or whatever) stored in a database. We're supposed to have protection from government intrusion, at least that's part of what the Constitution was trying to prevent. We're supposed to be secure in our person and property. At least that's where DNA is getting very iffy lately. It's part of OUR Person..
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co....
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
In 1953, the double helix structure of DNA was first discovered. In 2000, it took a national effort to sequence a human DNA. Now, in 2015, as I understand, you can get your own sequence for a price most people can afford. 62 years ago, if you told people that one day you would be able to generate a computer image of a person's face using a DNA sample, they would ask you what a computer was. And what DNA was. DNA is basically the song of our soul. It is our life, encoded. The decisions we make or fail to make today will matter decades into the future. Police tried searching people's smart phones today using a 1979 Supreme Court decision on a "pen register" recording of a suspect's dialed numbers, before anyone knew what a cell phone was. Of course, the suspect in the case was guilty. But the decision opened up people's smart phone data to police for more than a decade until the Supreme Court finally woke up and drew a distinction between a pen register and a smart phone. You scoff at the info contained in DNA. If we could put you back in 1973, you probably would have scoffed at the Intel 4004 microprocessor, because it couldn't do much. Whereas, the information about a person that can be derived from a fingerprint is about the same now as it was then. Except now you can put it in a computer, instead of a big book of fingerprints.
Join the IParty!
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.
Some (ie, those part of the security industrial complex) do not want this discussion because they fear a curtailment of police powers. Others do not want it because they don't trust our current government to not bend this discussion into the interests of the wealthy.
Luckily the supreme court is a bastion of ethical behavior and impartiality [1]. I trust this outcome is based on a rational forward-thinking, wise consideration.
[1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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.
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.