Washington State Wants DNA From All Arrestees 570
An anonymous reader writes in to say that "Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting would have to give a DNA sample before they are even charged with a crime if a controversial proposal is approved by the Legislature. "It is good technology. It solves crimes," claims Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned. Others believe that this is just another step in the process to build a national DNA database with everyone in it."
Yeah, yeah, heard it all before (Score:5, Informative)
"Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned."
This is not what happens in the UK.
So far it takes a lot of pressure to get entries deleted once you are on there, and you don't even need to be arrested to be on there.
The European Courts have said that this is not right and that they should remove entries that don't pertain to criminals, but I don't think there is any rush.
Too much "think of the children" and "think of the raped woman" going on for privacy and human rights to get a look in.
Even if they did, we all know these databases are hives of incorrect data anyway.
Re:Yeah, yeah, heard it all before (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There's no way they'll abuse this (Score:5, Informative)
State hits crime lab on DNA cache, Some files improperly kept, IG says
The State Police crime laboratory is storing the DNA profiles of hundreds of people whose crimes do not warrant it, according to an investigation of the historically troubled lab, raising the specter of what one civil libertarian called a "shadow DNA database."
- SR
This is how it started in the UK (Score:3, Informative)
Is this really that bad? (Score:3, Informative)
At first I thought "No way am I going to let them take blood from me if I'm arrested!", but after reading the article all they do is swab the inside of your cheek. It really is less invasive than fingerprinting.
I've been fingerprinted twice, once after being arrested and once after applying for a federal job. The first time was the worst, the machine couldn't read my print AT ALL, so the officer tried pressing harder. That registered a faint image of a finger print. So they gave me some gel to clean my fingers, that did nothing to help so the officer continued to press harder and harder. We finally got one print to show up after a few minutes when the officer forced all of his body weight onto my finger. ONE PRINT, then it was on to the next 9 fingers...
Second time didn't require as much force, but we had other issues, my finger wasn't rolling right. The person operating the machine had to do each finger 5+ times to get the machine to actually accept the print.
I know they're not going to do away with fingerprinting and replace it with DNA samples (DNA isn't a unique identifier), but they already take fingerprints and mugshots before you're found guilty. So what's the problem with taking a little bit of spit?
Re:There's no way they'll abuse this (Score:3, Informative)
We forget that minors and students are still people with the same constitutional rights as adults. Just because we force them to go to school, doesn't mean their other rights are negated at the door.
Umm. No. While maybe you think that children should have the same rights under the constitution as adults they actually do not have the same rights as an adult.
Re:There's no way they'll abuse this (Score:3, Informative)
As long as the police are not giving this to my insurance company so they can deny me insurance then I am down for it. I don't break the law.
Re:There's no way they'll abuse this (Score:1, Informative)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -- Jefferson
"When Government undertakes a repressive policy, the innocent are not safe. Men like me would not be considered innocent. The innocent then is he who forswears politics, who takes no part in the public movements of the times, who retires into his house, mumbles his prayers, pays his taxes, and salaams all the government officials all round. The man who interferes in politics, the man who goes about collecting money for any public purpose, the man who addresses a public meeting, then becomes a suspect. I am always on the borderland and I, therefore, for personal reasons, if for nothing else, undertake to say that the possession, in the hands of the Executive, of powers of this drastic nature will not hurt only the wicked. It will hurt the good as well as the bad, and there will be such a lowering of public spirit, there will be such a lowering of the political tone in the country, that all your talk of responsible government will be mere mockery... "Much better that a few rascals should walk abroad than that the honest man should be obliged for fear of the law of the land to remain shut up in his house, to refrain from the activities which it is in his nature to indulge in, to abstain from all political and public work merely because there is a dreadful law in the land."
--Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council, at the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill, Feb 7, 1919
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-35.htm
Future knowledege (Score:1, Informative)
Here in the UK there is a national DNA database, and I think it's quite terrifying.
The problem isn't so much what it represents now, but what it could hold. There is a huge amount of research going on into DNA, and all the time scientists discover how to determine more and more about a person from their genetic makeup.
Clearly as time passes the amount of information that can be extracted from the database can potentially increase greatly depending on how it is stored.
And the government doesn't have a good reputation in keeping data safe. So assume the data is leaked at some point, and some 3rd party is now able to scan the DNA records of some significant portion of the population for their own purposes.
The fact that we simply do not fully understand the coding of DNA right now makes collecting a database of it a very worrying prospect for me. Even if they only stored a MAC of the DNA, we'd still have to worry about rainbow tables and the ever increasing computing power available to almost anyone (via Amazon EC2 or a botnet).
Clearly DNA does hold some benefits in policing, but it should be retained only for people with convictions and even then destroyed some time after they have repaid their sentence.
Re:There's no way they'll abuse this (Score:2, Informative)
Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.
Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".
Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.
Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.
Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.
Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.
Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.
Re:Let's Start With The Cops! (Score:3, Informative)
Not just bad on tv.... (Score:4, Informative)
Coincidentally in the NY Times today there is an article on how bad forensics labs really are [nytimes.com]. A good read.
Re:There's no way they'll abuse this (Score:3, Informative)
I posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge here (not enough slashdotters with kids):
Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.
See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org] [ncsl.org]
Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.
-Isaac
the US military takes DNA from every member (Score:3, Informative)