Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CIA's Venture Capital Arm Is Funding Skin Care Products That Collect DNA (theintercept.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the unsure-intentions dept.

sittingnut writes: The Intercept reports that Skincential Sciences, whose main product line is Clearista, has attracted media coverage because its "innovative line of cosmetic products marketed as a way to erase blemishes and soften skin" are funded by In-Q-Tel, a venture capital arm of the CIA. According to Russ Lebovitz, the chief executive of Skincential Sciences, the CIA fund told him they share an interest in looking at DNA extraction from "normal skin" using the method pioneered by his company. Lebovitz said he was unsure of the intent of the CIA's use of the technology, but the fund was "specifically interested in the diagnostics, detecting DNA from normal skin." He added, "There's no better identifier than DNA, and we know we can pull out DNA." Perhaps law enforcement could use the biomarker extraction technique for crime scene identification or could conduct drug tests, Lebovitz suggested.

62 comments

  1. Uh... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

    The CIA isn't "law enforcement". Spy agencies are pretty much the opposite of that.

    And they've been doing surreptitious DNA analysis for a while now.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The CIA isn't "law enforcement".

      Then they should stop acting like they are, NSA too for that matter. Sorry to burst your bubble but the entire intelligence apparatus feeds law enforcement now, Constitution be damned.

    2. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can vaccuume up viable cells in to nearby snooping building ventilation systems and triagulate where every person is all the time?

    3. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The entire intelligence apparatus is unconstitutional. Literally there is nothing in the constitution granting the government that power. We as a people have tolerated it as a necessity of running a country. In turn we expect good behavior in return for our generosity.

      They have abused that trust. For decades. It is time to end these agencies and put new ones in their place. Ones more tightly controlled and accountable. Ones staffed by people who know their jobs don't involve spying on or trying to control their fellow citizens.

    4. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally there is nothing in the constitution granting the government that power.

      That is an interesting claim. I'm not going to ask you to defend it, because I do believe you. But I'm curious how the other side would try to counter that claim.

    5. Re: Uh... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Intelligence is a military function always has been.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably by saying that there are thousands of Federal laws and agencies not provided for in the Constitution. They're allowed to be established by Congress so long as they don't actually violate the Constitution. FDA, CDC, DMV and a host of other TLAs are likewise not provided for in the Constitution, but they're not unconstitutional.

    7. Re: Uh... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No need to counter it. There have been intelligence "services" since the founding of this country. The Constitution doesn't specify what services can exist and what can not.

    8. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights provides a way to prevent excessive Federal government overreach, if it were followed. Here is the text: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Regarding the OP's concern, one potential counter-argument is that intelligence agencies are providing for the common defense of the country, which is in the first paragraph of the Constitution. Then there's the 4th amendment to consider, where they seem to be ignoring. It would be interesting to see a Supreme Court case over it, as there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides.

    9. Re: Uh... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The Constitution is the sole source of all of the federal government's powers, so if an agency (or its role) is not provided for in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional.

      They're allowed to be established by Congress so long as they don't actually violate the Constitution.

      Exceeding the powers that the Constitution grants to the federal government is unconstitutional... full stop. Or are you one of those people who think that anything the government does is allowed unless it infringes on the Bill of Rights?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    10. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No need to counter it. There have been intelligence "services" since the founding of this country. The Constitution doesn't specify what services can exist and what can not.

      Sure it does. The bulk of the Constitution (the Articles) specify exactly that.

    11. Re: Uh... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Or are you one of those people who think that anything the government does is allowed unless it infringes on the Bill of Rights?

      There are many, many people who have somehow managed to completely forget that amendment. It's unfortunate, too... All powers not granted by the Constitution where to be reserved for the people or for the individual States. Unfortunately, any time someone mentions "State's Rights" they get branded a racist (which is funny, 'cause I'm not white) and every other time they say stuff like "general welfare" or "interstate commerce." That's if they even know about the amendment to begin with.

      Hmm... Yeah, I'm going to spare you the novella. Pretend that I went on a long, insightful, witty, and accurate rant. <rant>blah blah<rant> There... I'd write it out but nobody would read it - except maybe you. There's not much point in writing it for you, that'd be like preaching to the choir. It'd be a waste of time that I'm lacking. Also, fill it with bad grammar, improperly used quotes, and an occasional joke - but not great jokes - I'm not that funny.

      For the record, however, military matters are well and truly within the scope of the Federal government. The CIA is actually one of those things that is Constitutional, as is the NSA. What they aren't, is following their charter as well as violating other parts of the Constitution. However, in and of themselves, they exist within the framework just fine.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re: Uh... by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      "Intelligence is a military function always has been."

      And when a government routinely spies on its citizens?

      Doesn't that mean that the government thinks it is at war, and that it thinks of us as the enemy?

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    13. Re: Uh... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      MI is not supposed to operate on US soil against it's citizens etc thats a police matter not a national intelligence matter.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    14. Re: Uh... by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      In post-Constitutional America, what is supposed to happen and what actually happens are quite a bit different.

      Likewise, what is supposed to not happen and what actually doesn't happen are quite different, too.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    15. Re: Uh... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day you do need to know what other sovereign nations are doing.

      Fixing the overreach etc etc etc pretty much needs amendments to do so. You have to turn violations into must prosecute by a special prosecutor that can not be pardoned. Not realy any different than local police, the DA is far too close to them to oversee them. You have to clearly say no to parallel construction and pretty much anything other than operation secrecy for police.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    16. Re: Uh... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Intelligence is a military function always has been.

      Yeah, and according to the Constitution the entire Army is only supposed to be called up on an ad-hoc basis and disbanded after two years! So what's your point?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re: Uh... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Well, the Constitution does empower the congress to make laws for the general welfare (as in good, not charity per say although broad spectrum charity is in the interest of the general welfare), which would be broadly beneficial things and could certainly be used to defend programs like social security, medicaid, and medicare. And the interstate commerce clause is there but almost certainly refers to matters of interstate trade as well as disputes between states. Both are now ridiculously over interpreted.

      The problem is the supreme court stopped doing it's job a long time ago and instead rules according to political agendas instead of accurately interpreting the Constitution. Which aside from a few variances in how words are used (regulated in the 2nd amendment meant disciplined or trained in common amercian english at the time for instance). So you don't need to be a lawyer, it wasn't written by lawyers. You can in fact pick up the Constitution and sanity check the supreme.

      "For the record, however, military matters are well and truly within the scope of the Federal government."

      That actually isn't accurate. The Constitution made a clear separation of military powers, at the time there was no airforce so set that aside for a moment. The ground troops and army was to be composed by assemblying local level militias into a federal army in time of war and then sending them home afterward. It can be assembled for no more than 2 years in time of peace. There is nothing stopping the funding of arms and training for these groups but domestic military power on the ground was deliberately denied to the federal government. This is why a redundancy has been built into the Navy which has the marines (ground troops), blue angels (air force), and a full nuclear arsenal in case they ever get called on this. The navy is the only branch of the military that is actually legally within federal authority, the rest of it is explicitly illegal. You could make a case that the air force falls in the spirit of this since like the navy they are large expensive vessels that protect multi-state borders.

    18. Re: Uh... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      True though I was stating that they have the power, ceded in the constitution, to create a military. What's debatable is should it be a standing army or not. I do not believe that's actually enumerated.

      As for the welfare thing? That's been trampled on as bad as the bullshit about regulating trade between the States. What one was it, the 9th? Was that the one that stated all powers not granted were reserved for the State or the Individual? I seem to think so. (My memory is fuzzy and it's been a LONG day - two days, actually.)

      I think it was Bush who said that it was just a piece of paper. Obama's continued that trend. However, they weren't the first. I don't know who was in power when they did the wheat crop thing and the guy got into trouble for growing and not buying his own wheat. I'm also way too lazy to look it up.

      I'm not positive but I think that's kind of where things started to change. That or, if it came sooner, the war against the South. I hate to say it but I'm pretty sure the States should have been allowed to form their own union and break away from this one. Which ever one of those came first was probably where things really started to go downhill.

      Before you get some silly notions (which you're probably NOT prone to do - but just in case) I should mention that I'm quite specifically not white. I'm about 5/8 Amerindian and the rest is sort of divided almost evenly between African and European blood. I've shared the history of the black part of me before, actually. My family was on the wrong side of the revolution and King George had promised all the "Negroes," who fought for him, freedom. They actually took three ships and ran a blockade and we went to Haiti. We didn't stay there long. Within a couple of years we were brought to Nova Scotia and told to fuck the natives. We did. So, I'm Micmac and Black and some White in there too.

      I say that so that you don't think I'm saying the South should have been allowed to go free because I'm a racist prick. I'm not.

      But the whole welfare clause is very vague. I'm not really sure how a standing army counts. But a military (which is a militia) is well and truly within their realm of regulation. Something about secure the defense... I'd agree that the *current* military is probably not actually what the founders intended. I don't expect they wanted us to be the World's Police.

      Make sense? Sorry if muddled - I'm exhausted.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re: Uh... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "True though I was stating that they have the power, ceded in the constitution, to create a military. What's debatable is should it be a standing army or not. I do not believe that's actually enumerated."

      It actually is enumerated, the federal government is explicitly allowed the Navy and explicitly not allowed to gather a standing army for more than 2 years in time of peace.

    20. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes law enforcement, education, housing, Nasa, healthcare, etc. The constitution only really talks about functions we would today put into the Departments of State, Treasury, and Defense. (where most Intelligence is)

    21. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was Bush who said that it was just a piece of paper. Obama's continued that trend. However, they weren't the first. I don't know who was in power when they did the wheat crop thing and the guy got into trouble for growing and not buying his own wheat. I'm also way too lazy to look it up.

      Wickard v. Filburn was the legal case. The real problem, of course, is that ultimately ignoring the applicability of the law, would necessarily render it subject to a far more greater variety of technicalities than is warranted. A more recent example would be the lawsuit over the healthcare exchanges where certain parties sought to invalidate subsidies based on the premise of federally-run exchanges not being available. Such was not in the interest of justice, but rather a destructive attempt upon the ACA through a tedious bit of pedantry.

      Now Filburn would certainly have the right to present an argument that perhaps the circumstances of regulation would properly exclude his usage, however, that would be a political resolution, and not a judicial one. As a legal one? It didn't hold water any better than Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

      Now as for the Constitution, it is quite truly a piece of parchment (rather than paper) with some words written on it, I believe in some iron-based ink. Remembering that is a necessity, because it is important to avoid sentiments of sacredness or inviolability to the Constitution as what is right, is not simply what is written, but a far more important quality than that. Shall we follow the Law as Written, or shall we follow the Law as Just? The latter is what gives us responsibility for our own judgement and choices.

  2. clarification and sitations please, mr director. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    There's no better identifier than DNA

    uh, for what? identifying markers for genetic diseases, phrenological alternative, neat T-Shirt designs? because if you're talking about identifying criminals its still nowhere near an exact science and depends very greatly on the disposition of prosecution and the care taken during collection as well as a wealth of other environmental factors.

    and we know we can pull out DNA.

    dial it back there Kafka. your job is intelligence, not the blanket collection all mankinds genetic marker for some clandestine plot point to a steven king movie. Why do you need this DNA, how are you going to use it, are you even going about this legally?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  3. What will they expoit next? by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    Hey, maybe The Company is teaming up with a variety of consumer goods makers to integrate micro-miniature, networked DNA collectors in toothbrushes, mattresses, hairbrushes, shoes, nail clippers, steering wheel manufacturers...

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  4. Paranoid much? by liqu1d · · Score: 1

    Have you seen the ugly mugs they have there? I think they're just trying to make the staff prettier.

    1. Re:Paranoid much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many field agents are beautiful. The better to 'oldest trick in the book' you with. Pretty people are useful for influencing others, but there is no shortage of nice looking spies.

      One thing a DNA database does is allow you to see through disguises and perhaps to identify other spies easier.

      For instance. If you got the H1N1 vaccine, then you just took a retrovirus which modifies your DNA. And since each batch is a bit different, you've been geotagged by DNA. Take a DNA sample, and with the right markers you can tell where they were born, where they went to school (thus what ideological propaganda they were exposed to), etc.

      It's one of the many other "benefits" besides health for pushing people to get vaccinated that everyone is supposed to remain perfectly silent about.

  5. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To protect the children, of course!

  6. Re:clarification and sitations please, mr director by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they want to create a disabling strain of acne to take out script kiddies everywhere, once and for all.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  7. CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    They had a duel use vaccination project in pakistan where they gathered blood samples for DNA analysis. The DNA was scanned for similarities to Osama bin Ladin. The notion was that if they found a cluster of people with genetic similarities they would find him... blood relations etc.

    The value to the CIA would be identifying people and associations of blood. It will also reveal unusual genetics in the population... people that might appear outwardly similar might contain genetic markers from a different population and that could give a hint as to someone to watch.

    That is the idea in any case.

    This is military intelligence work... not a legal investigation. The point is to find something that can give you a hint as to what is going on. Not to convict beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The notion was that if they found a cluster of people with genetic similarities they would find him... blood relations etc.

      It's a good thing bin Laden wasn't from Kentucky, where there are 4.4 million people, and 4.2 million are related by blood.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Inbreeding is vastly more common in many other places in the world actually. I also think you mean west Virginia... that's where the banjos are more likely to play. Or possibly in the bayou portions of the Louisianan. That's especially common amongst the remaining french population out there. Its done in part to preserve their culture. Rather impressive to have maintained their old french heritage through all these years.

      Of course, unlike the British that largely have good respectful relations with the angosphere, the French have this tendency to look down their noses at anyone not from Paris. They wonder why they failed as empire builders... The mystery is not so illusive.

      Regardless being able to rapidly and covertly screen DNA can be useful when dealing with terrorists since the genetics of the terrorists are often distinct from the general population. Terrorists like to blend in... They adopt the local dress of the natives and who can say who knows whom?

      Its important to keep in mind that this doesn't stop at top enemy commanders. You could screen for Saudis in Pakistan... Iranians in Israel... Russians in Washington.

      Again, not anything you can take to court. Its not a legal tool. Its a military tool. When the marching orders are search and destroy... this facilitates that objective.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      the genetics of the terrorists are often distinct from the general population.

      ?? There's a "terrorism" gene? I did not know that! Maybe you misspelled "tourist", seeing as their DNA might differ a bit from the locals. But it's still probably still easier to just lift the print off the martini glass.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse... I said no such thing. I was referring to people that are not native to the area engaging in terrorism. This was something we saw with some consistency in Afghanistan where we often had fighters operating from totally different countries in Afghanistan. People from Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc. Simply being able to identify population groups rapidly can help you get a good idea of where to look if you suspect that the trouble is being imported or otherwise coming from outside the country. Typically when acts of terrorism happened it was some sort of infiltrator from another group. It could even be a different tribe in the same country but rarely would you get something like that from that tribe within that tribe's territory. You don't shit where you sleep after all.

      What is more, specifically in the Osama case... the interest was in a particular bloodline. And the reason that was of interest was that it was assumed that if you found a blood relation somewhere there might be other blood relations there as well... and possibly the man himself.

      Nepotism is a common human trait. If you have a genetic signature for the target then you can identity his close family relations and they're likely to have some kind of contact.

      Search and Destroy.

      As to how DNA samples are collected... in the case of Osama, the CIA was using blood samples from free vaccinations in Pakistan.

      We're in the age of portable DNA sequencers. Its a sensor... and like any sensor it can be applied to any purpose. Eyes, ears, smell, taste, touch... The DNA sequencers are obviously going to be applied to offensive tasks just as any other sensor we have already has been. High resolution optics. Infrared cameras. backscatter radiation scanners, seismic scanners applied to detecting nuclear testing, hydrophones... the list goes on.

      eyes peeled, ears cocked, and nostrils flaring...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      People from Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc.

      Yeah, you left out Americans...

      eyes peeled, ears cocked, and nostrils flaring...

      What the hell are you babbling about?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      They had a duel use vaccination project

      It protected against swords and pistols?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If you want to be obtuse then that's your prerogative...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      And if you want to babble nonsense, that's yours...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by KGIII · · Score: 1

      For the record, the burden of proof in your country is "beyonda reasonable doubt." It is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Except in civil cases. In your country, the State must convince the judge or jury that the defendant "more likely than not" committed the alleged offense.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Banjos. Didn't you read the rest of the sub-thread?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I was very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very clear that this was not something you would use in a court case but rather something you'd use for military intelligence in a war zone or intelligence operation.

      So... how much more very clear do I have to be about that to avoid you saying "for the record" after I was so VERY clear?

      Give me a break please. I was so very fucking clear.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it caused deaths and illness by eradicating trust in foreign-led public health programs. It was a travesty and the effects are still felt among local in-need populations today.

    13. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Hearts and minds was a failure. Adapt.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:CIA used DNA to help find Osama by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That was in addition to and not contrary to. It was to clarify and not to argue. I was very very very very very blah blah blah clear about that. At least I figured the "for the record" would be indicative of such. Obviously not, however.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  8. Re:clarification and sitations please, mr director by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re for what? Why do you need this DNA
    http://www.theguardian.com/wor... (Tuesday 12 July 2011)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its so hard to have a productive conversation about real problems within either law enforcement or intelligence, when so many people don't understand the differences what they do and the roles they play.

    Despite there being tons of real information out there, people seem to a) get all their information from pulp fiction or b) apply stories and mindsets from a generation ago (Hoover-era FBI, or MKULTRA-era CIA) to organizations as they exist today.

    "You can't trust the CIA because the CIA experimented with LSD on unsuspecting people" is just as relevant as "Americans dropped nuclear bombs on people" or "Germans killed Jews en masse" when discussing current issues.

    1. Re:Thank you! by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      Well, one difference I can think of is that the people who ran the CIA when they were doing that trained the people who run the CIA now. I have heard from people who would know that these organizations develop cultures of their own which are very resistant to change.

  10. Okay, buttheads.. "Uhhh huh huh huh!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  11. This is better ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... than their usual method of collecting DNA by clipping the finger tip off of an interrogation subject with garden shears.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Really? Do you get paid to shill? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

    All you need to do is read the top of the linked article to see how shitty our Government and people have been behaving. Not only does the CIA have front companies for harvesting DNA without the person's knowledge, but the first thing they say is A White House official says the CIA will no longer use vaccine programs as cover for spy operations. Good grief, the only reason they announced it is BECAUSE THEY KEEP GETTING CAUGHT! It also does not mean that they will actually stop using vaccine programs as cover, just that they claim it will.

    You attempt to paint MK-Ultra as theory, when the papers were finally released. The CIA did drug people without their knowledge using LSD. They were caught smuggling drugs into the US and swapping those drugs for guns to send to South America. Not fantasy, not theory, facts.

    Blah blah but the cowbows and indians blah, you need police with super powers blah. Shut the fuck up. If you are a paid shill you need to give your master back your money, you sure as hell don't know enough to earn it. If you are not a paid shill, seek medical help.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  13. Re:clarification and sitations please, mr director by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    Yes I remember that imho thats killed a lot of people by hampering actual vaccination campaigns.

    Not to mention the doctors that have been killed under suspicion since then.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  14. Spies Are Silly by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I don't think it is at all difficult to sniff out millions of criminals without using DNAS or other spooky tactics. The problem is that once you grab a bad guy just what have you got? There is a man doing a 20-year sentence in Florida. And they really mean 20 years. He should not be in prison at all. But they say it costs $40,000 per year to keep him in prison. Due to his age, that estimate is actually quite low, as his medical issues are increasing. So that one inmate will certainly cost the public over one million dollars and probably a great deal more than that as he will be a public charge when he is released if he lives that long. So the question becomes, how many inmates can we afford? I know that some people will jump to the notion of fines and community service. That will never work. The simple reason that most criminals are criminals is that their personal misery is simply too great. Economic penalties or added stress will amplify the frequency of criminal actions. TYhe only way to break the pattern and perhaps save our nation is to uplioft all of the people so that in their lives there is adequate money to lead a good life without strain and fear. Some will swear that I am wrong yet nothing so far in the US has worked to control criminal activities.

    1. Re:Spies Are Silly by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Wait. What?

      Are you advocating we incarcerate nobody? Are you saying there's a point where we have to just give up because it's too expensive and that anyone convicted after a certain financial criteria has been met just remains free?

      Let me just be the first one to say that's a dumb idea.

      Now, we (Americans) have way too many people incarcerated. True. However, we can't opt to not incarcerate large groups of people just to lower the budget. That's... Umm... Well, that's not justice. That's not even remotely justice.

      So, how about we try incarcerating fewer people? Like, let's not incarcerate people for crimes that have no identifiable victim. If a victim, or a representative of that victim personally, can not come forward to make an accusation then how about we not incarcerate them - or even prosecute them? I know, that'd mean those nasty drug dealers might not go to jail unless they had a victim or personally represent a victim. That's crazy talk, I know... But, I don't think it's any less crazy than just reaching a certain financial criteria and then offenders go free after that point.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Spies Are Silly by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered why we have so many more prisoners per capita than any other country in the western world? It's not because our population is more evil than everywhere else's. No, there are two possibilities: either (a) other countries are failing to incarcerate a lot of people who deserve it, or (b) we are incarcerating a whole bunch of people who don't deserve it. Given that other countries don't seem to be overrun with criminals and lawlessness, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  15. Total bullshit by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is just some companies propoganda. It's duck soup to recover DNA from any skins sluffing. You don't need any special product. Total astroturf to hitch their wagon to the CIA and sucker slashdot to put it on the front page.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  16. Re:clarification and sitations please, mr director by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    There's no better identifier than DNA

    uh, for what? identifying markers for genetic diseases, phrenological alternative, neat T-Shirt designs? because if you're talking about identifying criminals its still nowhere near an exact science and depends very greatly on the disposition of prosecution and the care taken during collection as well as a wealth of other environmental factors.

    True... a good photo/video (or even credible eye witness) is still a much better identifier than DNA, especially in the minds of most juries.

    and we know we can pull out DNA.

    dial it back there Kafka. your job is intelligence, not the blanket collection all mankinds genetic marker for some clandestine plot point to a steven king movie. Why do you need this DNA, how are you going to use it, are you even going about this legally?

    No, his job is a research biochemist working on extraction of DNA/biological markers from skin as pure research. You are quoting the CEO of the company, not the CIA investors.

  17. Re:Really? Do you get paid to shill? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    HTS-Noob, is that you?

    Huff Raid,

    -&TotSE

  18. pry from my cold dead hands? by Idisagree · · Score: 1

    I'm kinda attached to my DNA, I'd rather the CIA didn't collect it for any purposes!

    1. Re:pry from my cold dead hands? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL You really think they don't already have it? Did they collect a blood sample when you were born? Any other time? Never? (Blood's not actually the greatest way to get DNA, so I'm told - but it works or so I'm told. I'm not a DNA-octologist or nuffin.)

      At any rate... Do you live in a first world nation? Yeah? I'm betting they either have it or can have it pretty easily - with or without your consent or even knowledge. I enlisted. They took blood. I'm betting they kept it. I'd not be remotely surprised to find out that they kept it. If not, I've been to the VA many times and have had buckets of blood taken over the years. I've pissed in a thousand cups. I've even pooped in a jug. There's perfectly good DNA in them there poops.

      I seriously wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that they'd kept a sample or just run it through the magic DNA-getting machine, possibly on the poop setting, and just kept that. I would be a little surprised if they'd kept a stool sample.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  19. Why does the CIA have a venture capital branch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the CIA have a venture capital branch?

    Who allowed them to do this?

    1. Re:Why does the CIA have a venture capital branch? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In order...

      Lots of reasons - a Google away, probably.

      Your government. They always have.

      Business owners make good spies as well as having "off-the-books" income is a good thing for people who want to keep a part of their budget a secret. I kind of doubt the veracity of this story, by the way. However, the idea of a CIA front is nothing new. Some of them are even profitable. Businesses make good fronts. People come and go, they get invited to certain parties, and things like that. Hell... The CIA had its own airline for a while. Yeah, the CIA had an airline... Think about that.

      It's a damned handy thing for them to have and I have no problem with the concept. (I do have problems with abuses.) The CIA is neither the NSA nor the FBI. In fact, they're very different. This is not only something that they've done for years but it's something that has always been done - since before we even had a CIA. (Gentlemen don't read other people's mail. There was a time - and we were really naive 'cause everybody was reading our "mail.")

      At any rate... This story? This story is bullshit and makes no sense. This story is just retarded. This story is propaganda or a lie. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that this story is bullshit. Haven't you seen the movies where the "company" is represented by a pudgy old guy who owns a bookstore? Haven't you read a book? This is not only common practice but it's a veritable trope in media. The stereotypical art-dealer cum spy who works in London but travels to Rome, Versailles, Berlin, Vienna, and Moscow on a regular basis? The wine maker in southern France? The guy who owns a bunch of houses (some of which are safe-houses) all across South America? Or, the newspaper that is actually an MI6 operation?

      There's a good series, excellent documentaries too, called "Secrets of War." It's about 65 hours long before you get into the final season and then I think it's like 114 hours long. It's well worth watching and touches on some aspects of this. The last one that I mentioned? Yeah, that was in New York during the run-up to WWI but it wasn't MI6 at the time. It was handy, newspapers sent a lot of cables overseas.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."