What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA? 595
NevDull writes "As creepy as it may be to deal with identity theft from corporate databases, imagine being swabbed for DNA samples as a suspect in a crime, being vindicated by that sample, and never even being told why you were suspected. This article discusses a man, Roger Valadez, who's fighting both to have his DNA sample and its profile purged from government records, and to find out why he and his DNA were searched in the BTK case. DA Nola Foulston said, 'I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.' -- convenient as she wasn't the one probed without explanation. The article then mentions that 'In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.' What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?"
Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
In a country where the federal government has been concentrating power in the capital, I can't see where she gets such bizarre ideas.
We're heading for a country where everyone is a potential suspect, eventually. And when the congress pulls and late nighter and the president flies back to the capital to quickly sign a bill allowing the government to barge past states rights and personal descisions it's discomforting. It would probably be a small matter to bury into a large bill some little thing that allows the transportation of all DNA evidence to be conveniently sent to the Foggy Bottom and squirreled away somewhere, where it could be called upon the next time someone needs a roundup of the usual suspects and a filing error could easily send anyone off to Gitmo.
This will never fly (Score:3, Insightful)
There is something called the 5th amendment, protection against self incrimination.
Here it is, in case people forgot:
Been doing it for awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this pretty much the same thing?
fingerprints? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not one-way hash for DNA DB? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like much of the angst over a national DNA database is the potential misuse of the sequences, e.g. raising insurance rates or selecting against carriers of X. If the goal of criminal DNA databases is to match samples from crime scenes, why not use a one-way hash of each DNA fragment? That way, the actual DNA sequence wouldn't be kept. The hash could be constructed after removing common sequences, but I'm probably missing something aside from sequencing issues (which should be more automated in future). And this doesn't address larger issues on DNA matches...
Re:This will never fly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This will never fly (Score:5, Insightful)
How is DNA any different?
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly, an appropriate quote (Score:5, Insightful)
-George Orwell
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the difference. If someone steals a database of fingerprints, what can they do with that? But if someone steals a database of DNA, and for example an insurance company gets it, can you gaurentee they won't have different rates just based on the genes you are born with. And what if they discover that gene X, Y, and Z found together cause a 25% increased chance the person with those genes will be a murderer. Do we want a society, where just being born with certain genes is enough to warrent government keeping tabs on that person? I know, I know, if it is for public saftey, it must be okay. Just like major cities are installing 1000's of camera's on streets to keep track of what is going on. And California banned the .50 caliber rifle, which has never been used in a crime that I can think of (although getting a handgun is easier and used in more crimes). It seems to me, that in an attempt to make society more "safe", we are making society more ripe for some dictator to take control. I know, I must be wearing a tin foil hat, because coup's have never happened. I for one completely trust people with power not to get corrupted, ever.
Nothing, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
You leave your fingerprints everywhere. You don't cry like a baby about people having access to your fingerprints. You likewise leave bits of DNA all over the place (ala Gattica).
Please show me where we are guaranteed the right to total annonymity (sp?) all the time everywhere. Better yet, retroactive guaranteed annonymity always everywhere all the stinking time!!! It doesn't exist. It's a paranoid pre-conception!
DNA instead of passwords. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends. A regular DNA fingerprint doesn't really reveal anything about your genetic disposition, so it's not such a big problem. However, it's not clear if DNA fingerprinting is as resistant to collisions as it is generally perceived to be. It's fine if you match one sample against a few hundred suspects connected with the case; it's very unlikely that there is a false positive. But if you match thousands of samples a day against a database of millions of completely unrelated DNA fingerprinters, the odds of a false positive increase significantly.
The DNA isn't the question here... (Score:4, Insightful)
That the DNA didn't "solve" the case was inconsequential because the DNA did helpe the police confirm who the guy was.
The question that should be asked here is not "Should the police be able to take samples of your DNA when you're arrested?" No brainer, you can already take fingerprints.
The bigger question here is: Can the police KEEP your DNA on profile *AND* can they keep the results of what they found while searching your house?
What if they found illegally downloaded music in his house? Could he be tried for that? Should those records be kept from the first search?
DNA aside (and IANAL) the current law is yes and yes.
Problem is matches aren't always exact (Score:5, Insightful)
So a hash would only be useful for dead on matches. Now maybe we decide that's all that the police should have, but you can see why they'd argue for more the orignals, as they are more useful.
It's going to be a long time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'll bite. States rights are non existent, and have been for some. Just last week the SC ruled that it's illegal for any state in the union to put to death a 17 year old who commits multiple premeditated murders. Try to have your state lower the drinking age to 19, or opt out of Social Security, or pass a law against abortion or (insert idea here). This cuts both ways politically. But unfortunately the different party wings only howl when it comes to an issue that they care about. The rest of the time they have no problem with the Feds imposing their will.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mod me to hell and back... (Score:5, Insightful)
The police have pleanty of tools to solve crimes. They don't need any more. It comes down to one thing. Either we are a free and open society, or we become a police state. If we make the police so powerful, that the People can no longer fight back if the cause ever comes that they need to, what will we be? Will we be no more able to fight for our own freedom than Iraqi people could fight for theirs under a dictator? The reason we limit the power police have is the same reason we limit the power politicians have. It is to protect against the over ambitious, the Joseph McCarthy's of the world. The easier it is for a group to take control of a society, the more likely they will do so. All the police camera's in larger cities, put in place to fight "the war on terror" do nothing but track citizens, not terrorists. DNA is one more way of keeping tabs on people.
I have one question. How would history be different if DNA technology was avilable in the 1950's, and if all black people were forced to submit DNA. Then government decided to do more than just bug telephones and listen in. The possibilities for abuse are too great.
Innocent...UNTIL (Score:4, Insightful)
We are moving towards a police state, and society has overwhelmingly chosen "safety" over privacy, liberty, and freedom. It is only a matter of time before the govt requires all residents and citizens to be in such databases.
Re:Tin foil hat time... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no big evil conspiracy. The people at the DMV who take your finger prints aren't snickering to themselves saying "Heh, heh, I have that bastard's prints! We own him now! We can frame him for the murder of OJ's wife!" They're thinking "Christ, is it Five yet?". They go to Home Depot on the weekend, they step in dog crap on occasion, they get paper cuts and hug their kids goodnight.
Paranoia mistakenly assumes a great deal of competence, cunning, and motive in the average worker.
No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone gets tested for fingerprints or DNA the same basic procedures apply. Some countries allow the data to be gathered for a single investigation only. Others allow the collected info to be cross matched against the "open cases" database.
Personally, I think this something that is far less likely to be abused. I'd rather a few more crims get pulled out of society.
Re:Fingerprints? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what they are afraid of is that they will show up as a false positive and then face charges based on "incontrovertible" DNA evidence.
In fact, what has come out in many legal cases so far is that handling and processing DNA by forensic labs often leaves a lot to be desired.
Re:Too Many Worries To Be Effective (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to be eliminated as a suspect. I want to be presumed innocent until a court convicts me.
Have you ever thought about the abuses in the system? Can you GAURENTEE there will never be abuses? What if our politicians pass laws making certain websites illegal, and people try and access them in an internet cafe. All the police would have to do is go through the internet cafe with a small vacum cleaner. What if abortion is overturned in the courts. Do we want the police swabbing the DNA off coat hangers? And what if I happen to have a combination of genes that is highly concentrated in prisions populations, and some politician decided that gene is a gene all criminals have. How far could they legislate. What could they do?
The point is I don't trust the police or government. It is the healthiest attitude to have. Force the police and governemt to work within the rules that exsists. Police catch people all the time, DNA won't make us any more safe. But the potential for abuse is too great.
And for those who want a DNA database, what about all the "criminals" in prision, on death row who are adamant about their innocence and are begging for DNA testing, and the prosecutors who refuse their requests saying they had their day in court.
Re:The solution is easy (Score:3, Insightful)
If you clone a guilty person, at birth the clone will be innocent.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, don't be surprised if the police find enough reason to get a warrant for your DNA and it happens anyways.
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:1, Insightful)
That's probably because there is a higher probability that you have actually commited the crime. Go figure, huh?
Re:No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, probably because of the devious ways government can try to accumulate such things, "for the common good". Also worth noting is the amount of energy with which they pursue such things. If there's a lot of power behind something you probably should be paying a lot more attention than usual.
Re:This will never fly (Score:2, Insightful)
When you take my photo or my fingerprints, you are not taking part of my flesh.
The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. It's that simple. You can pick up my dead skin flake or hair or whatever when it falls off me, but I will resist if you try to stick a swab or needle in me to take your milligram of flesh.
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why not one-way hash for DNA DB? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good hashes are designed to exhibit an avalanche effect. Since most human's DNA is 99+% similar to each other's, the minor human-human changes should produce major hash-hash changes.
I am not a cryptographer; I have read Schneier's "Applied Crypto", and do have a lot of math background. That out of the way, my understanding of such things leads me to believe that it is easy enough to design a non-colliding one-way function. Since we're not really interested in the data-compressing property of hashing for this, but simply in the "verification without knowledge" that hashed values allow us, a 1:1 one-way function would suffice. Given a 1:1 one-way function, false positives don't exist.
Now, the problem with a 1:1 function is that you can create a reversal table that will provide provably correct outputs. Ways to get around this: salt, pseudorandom pads (essentially equivalent to salt, really), obscurity methods, etc. Also, the need to worry about this varies with how much DNA information you're storing - considering the estimated valuable lifetime of such information (lifespan of the owner plus a bit) we need to account for the likely improvement of computing in that timeframe. Which is likely to be significant. If we were hashing the *entire* DNA sequence from an individual, that might be enough information to be non-trivial even 200 years from now (an optimistic value-lifetime estimate). Or not. That'd remain a problem in such a setup.
But false positives aren't that big a deal, if you're thinking ahead.
Re:This will never fly (Score:3, Insightful)
If I roll your hand in ink and blot it, I know whose ink I am looking at.
If I snap a photo, I know it's your photo.
If I don't clean my pipetteman and mix your DNA and someone elses . .
you can't deny that your sample is glowing on the chip when probed with DNA recovered from the scene. It's not your DNA glowing, it's the contamination.
Who cares, this case is closed. Don't drop the soap.
Re:Nothing, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what America has become. My Aunt is a professor in criminology and you would not beleive the mentality of her students. She is in shock over the mentality of our youth. The way our youth seems to have this nazi mentality of "If you didnt to anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
LIFE is not that simple. LIFE is complex. Put a camera on a street corner... catch someone running a red light. He must be guilty! What the camera did not pick up, is that the driver was blinded by the evening sunset and could not make out the light.
Things are not simple. Thats why we remind each other the Salem Witch trials. An individuals rights are to be protected because the MOB mentality of "if you didnt do anything, you're ok" is complete bullshit.
NO ONE EVER SAID being found guilty is a state of reality. An individual should have every tool to protect themselves and presumption of innocence. EVEN at the risk of allowing a criminal to slip through the cracks of justice. I would rather have a criminal get away with a crime than sent an innocent man to jail.
I'm in California (Score:3, Insightful)
It's scary. All they have to do is arrest you for a crime - without any real evidence - and then you are labeled a sex offender for life.
To my surprise, nobody I know - other than my wife - was with me on this one. Most people here equate it to fingerprinting. If you get fingerprinted, then they keep it forever. This is vastly different though. They are not only keeping identifying information, they are labelling it "sex offender", making it a matter of public record, and maintaining that record regardless of conviction.
This has potential for abuse written all over it.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:1, Insightful)
The *default* should be to take care of such a person unless proof is shown that she wanted to die.
I've seen interviews with Michael Schiavo and the guy is, for lack of a better word, slimy. He seems to have no sympathy whatsoever for Terri, and I find it hard to believe that someone would work so hard to end another's life. Once her parents started the legal battle, any sane person would've said: "fine, I'm outta here". Divorce her and let her parents handle her care.
But he'd rather spend millions on lawyer fees to make sure her life ends. There's something very wrong about that.
Re:all too true (Score:3, Insightful)
but yeah you have absolutely got to think of the children!
There are no innocents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were on a jury, would you convict on DNA evidence alone? I think most people would because of the media hype about how perfect the system is and we will get a lot of innocent people in prison with these databases.
Re:Sadly, an appropriate quote (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:3, Insightful)
State accumulates DNA on all residents. Insurance company files FOI request and gets all the data, then refuses to issue health insurance for anyone they think might have a genetic predisposition for certain diseases. Since many now think that homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals are more likely to get AIDS, they might refuse to insure all persons whose DNA might imply homosexuality.
Not to be pedantic, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:5, Insightful)
>matter the disclosure of which would invade that person's
>privacy ordinarily will not be disclosed
>Also due to the fees involved making such a wide request
>would be hideously expensive
What stops the insurance company from raising their signup fee to include the check, and raising the fees of people who do not submit to having the check made? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You Keep Using This Word "Innocent" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Target practice. I defy you to name a single crime committed by a civilian with a legally owned
Why don't we ban Ferraris? They are more car than you need. They are obviously designed only to break the law. You should have to prove legitimate uses of any products before you are allowed to buy them. Formula 409 is a little too toxic. It should be banned because a little scrubbing and lemon juce works just as well. Ban tartar control toothpaste because it doesn't do anything you can't accomplish with a little more brushing, and you obviously don't need all that power.
Oh, I am not now, nor ever will be a member of the NRA and I do not own a gun. I just think that both sides of the issue are populated with people that are nuts.
Re:Too Many Worries To Be Effective (Score:2, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. I for one would rather police not enforce stupid laws that people disapprove of. Just as civilians can exersise civil disobediance, so should law enforcement be able to.
'I was only following orders' does not excuse police (or army for that matter).
Re:Nothing, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
That is not true. Perhaps you were there before the perpetrator. You took off your hat and lost some hairs and dandruff then went about your business. The crimal comes along, does the crime keeping his hat on.
The only DNA there is yours and the victims. Guess who's getting their door knocked down by the cops....
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's going to be a long time... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not worried about possible crime I will commit against myself, it's crime that someone else will commit against me by misusing data the government has about me.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
The feds take a large amount of taxes from everyone already, so there's no hope of the states supporting their own road system.
Reduce it to the following situation and then recosider your statement:
The feds take the states' citizens' money.
The feds offer to give it back if they say "how high" when the feds say jump.
It's not like the state can say "OK, we'll pay you that much less in taxes then.". If Cali opts out, all the other states are basically just confiscating Californians' money.
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:1, Insightful)
Didn't appear to have happened that way in OJ's case.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't kill a man thinking there was any doubt as to his guilt.
BTW, I actually did not follow the case that closely. I don't care about stuff like that - it's all bread and circuses to me. What I never heard though was that there was anything like clear, compelling evidence that he was almost certainly the killer.
Wrap your head around the possibility that it's morally wrong to put a man under the death penalty just because there is a very strong suspicion that he is the killer. That's not enough - the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Is Scott Peterson the murderer in question? I have reasonable doubts that make it impossible to arrive at that conclusion. YMMV.
The 12 people that matter found him guilty. But then they found all of those people that are now exonerated by DNA evidence guilty too.
I think it raises a lot of questions about our degree of certainty within our system of justice - don't you? I don't know if it still holds, but Illinois suspended carrying out death penalties until DNA evidence could make more headway into the legal system. What was happening was that we were putting to death mainly men of color with little to no evidence - and we now know that we were sometimes doing it wrongly, that we had the wrong men.
I would think that all people that care about TRUTH would be offended at that fact.
There are no innocent people? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I was joking.
Gun control and DNA (Score:2, Insightful)
I also wonder how many people who have a gun feel that the government keeping DNA is ominous?
Re:No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know. But ask Alfred Nobel.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
"The verdict, let it be said, was well within reason. Circumstantial evidence plus motive justified the finding of guilt. The defense failed to knock down the charges against Peterson with fresh evidence."
See, that's what happened right there. The expectation - mainly because of the media frenzy - was that Peterson had to overcome a fundamental presumption of guilt. The exact opposite is supposed to happen, a presumption of innocence is supposed to be a substantial hurdle for the prosecution but in reality it operates as more of a mere dip in the road. Juries want to rubber stamp what the government claims; and more importantly they will follow the non verbal cues given to them by the judge. This is all pretty well documented.
People locally really wanted that Peterson guy to "Frey" - and that joke is all over the internet. Google it up and you will have a deeper understanding of what went down. I would even argue that there was an issue for the jurors to NOT find Peterson innocent. A lot of negative attention would have been heaped on any juror that wanted to find Peterson "not guilty." The social demands and pressure are overwhelming.
Re:It's going to be a long time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a bit a stretch, but the bottom line is of course that you may have something to worry about even if you're innocent. Because your governement or your police officers might not be innocent..
Government Databases (Score:2, Insightful)
The question boils down to "Is the storing of DNA a further reduction of my personal freedom?" I feel the answer is yes, but not in a substantial way.
When you consider the info that is tracked on you, then you realize that there is nothing that is not available now. Tax forms, credit applications, credit/debit card purchases, payroll/hr info, auto tags, drivers license, concealed weapons permits, passport, insurance questionaires, etc., you soon realize that if the government wants to know all about you they will.
There is no privacy. You eat government approved food, drink approved water, drive approved cars, live in approved houses, brush your teeth with approved toothpaste, work in approved environments, wear approved clothes (fire retardence, etc.), see rated movies, go to licensed professionals, and on and on and on...
If they chose to they could tell you what you eat, where you go, who you are with, how often you have sex, what your preferences are in paint colors, clothing, autos, and just about everything else.
This is called "Your Tax Dollars At Work".
Adding your DNA to the list of things that they know about you will just give them a common identifier for all these other things...rather than using your name on the file, it will have your DNA imprint.
When you really see how you are controlled, very like a rat in a cage, you will see that this is just the next step.
Someone once said that the illusion of freedom is more important than freedom itself. So you are told you can vote, and move from one state to another, and all of these things...but is that freedom, or the illusion of freedom in a controlled society...sorry if I am a little off topic...one of my pet peeves!
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
They are there to judge the quality of the state's case.