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!
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.
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!
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?
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.
Anything you leave behind at a crime scene is fair game.
What about stuff you leave behind NOT at a crime scene?
So they got some DNA at a crime scene, but don't know whose it is. They think it might be you, but the judge denies them a warrant based on lack of evidence... so they follow you around until they see you throw away a cup, or a piece of gum, or sneeze and toss the tissue away in a public place. Then they amble up and help themselves.
The couldn't get a warrant for your DNA, but because its impossible to live a normal and free life without shedding DNA they just had to wait a while until you left some behind.
Whether or not that is "ok" is something that deserves national discussion.
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!
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.
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.