Slashdot Mirror
On the Dangers and Potential Abuses of DNA Familial Searching
Advocatus Diaboli sends a story of how a high tech forensic procedure almost led investigators to the wrong person. In 1996, a young woman named Angie Dodge was assaulted and murdered in Idaho Falls, Idaho. There was a conviction in the case, but later reports claimed the wrong man was in prison, and police thought there were more than one attacker anyway. This eventually led to the re-opening of the investigation. Using DNA evidence that had been preserved from the crime scene, police used a controversial technique called familial searching to try to find a lead. This method is used when there is no direct DNA match within the available databases. Instead, it tries to identify family members of the suspect. Police found a partial match, which eventually led them to Michael Usry, a New Orleans filmmaker. They convinced a judge to provide a search warrant to extract Usry's DNA and test it against the sample. It wasn't until a month after the extraction that they told him he'd been cleared.
So, they got a warrant like they're supposed to.
Then they executed the warrant, gathered a DNA sample, and tested it.
Sample came back as not matching, so they removed the suspect from their list of suspects.
So, what's the problem here? They checked out a lead (using legal methods, like a warrant), found it went nowhere, and continued the investigation into other possible leads....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
At least at common law assault is the "putting in of fear", and battery has "physical contact" so if you killed them without scaring or physically touching them it would be possible.
For example if you crawled under their car at night and partially loosed the bleed screws on their breaks, and cut the line on the mechanical break; knowing they would porbably have enough fluid to get onto the interstate in heavy traffic for their morning commute before discovering anything was wrong. If they do get killed, I can see that leading to murder conviction without assault or battery.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
No mistake was made. The police checked a potential suspect and cleared him.
Well, this should cause anyone using a DNA service or donating their DNA to science to think twice:
The elder Usry, who lives outside Jackson, Mississippi, said his DNA entered the equation through a project, sponsored years ago by the Mormon church, in which members gave DNA samples to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a nonprofit whose forensic assets have been acquired by Ancestry.com, the world’s largest for-profit genealogy company.
What the actual fuck?
It depends on the delivery method.
If it's, for example, cyanide in your coffee, it wouldn't.
On the other hand, if it's a large barrel of cyanide catapulted in your general direction, it's assault. (It you fail your dodge roll, it's also battery)
They identified a suspect based on evidence and eliminated him using evidence.
How is that abuse?
Because they used one piece of "evidence" (very tenuous at best) and just cast out a wide net to suspect someone from half the country away. It's the same as if a witness of a crime in New York said the suspect was 6'2" and blond so the police start interviewing 6'2" blond people living in Utah. Partial DNA matches should not be enough to get a warrant for someone who lives 1700 miles from where the crime occurred, especially if there is no other corroborating evidence.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Nevermind, it seems like it is open and searchable. So yeah, maybe you don't want to give them your DNA.
This is semen. On the body. You pretty much had to be there.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Ah yes, the classic "one crime deserves another" argument.
No, it is the classic "one crime deserves citizens who provide reasonable assistance to pursue justice." If I find a murdered body while jogging, I am probably going to be one of the initial suspects. I will be questioned by officers, and possibly even called back to the precinct if they have further questions. This would absolutely inconvenience me, but I would be a real jackass if I put up a stink about it. Someone was just murdered, which would be a much bigger problem than me losing a couple afternoons.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If I find a murdered body while jogging, I am probably going to be one of the initial suspects. I will be questioned by officers, and possibly even called back to the precinct if they have further questions. This would absolutely inconvenience me, but I would be a real jackass if I put up a stink about it. Someone was just murdered, which would be a much bigger problem than me losing a couple afternoons.
And it is of the outmost importance that you keep the freedom to make that choice.
The public is increasingly fearful of the police. And it's THEIR FAULT.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it.
The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely.
The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.