Convicted Hacker Adrian Lamo Refuses to Give Blood

CaliforniaCCW writes "Hopefully everyone here remembers the case of Adrian Lamo, a so-called 'gray hat' hacker who plead guilty to one count of computer crimes against Microsoft, Nexis-Lexis and the New York Times in 2004. He got a felony conviction, six months detention in his parents' home, and two years of probation. Today, as a condition of his probation, he must provide a sample of his DNA in the form of a blood sample, something which he has refused to do. Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

all they have to do is supply the blonde!

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

You have a fatal error. You are assuming the Slash crowd would know what to do with the blonde! I mean, it's hard to get DNA when you ask her to play WoW with you.

Re:if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA

You take photos of her and stick them on a web page. I'm sure he could then "take the DNA extraction into his own hands" (sorry).

In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

Here, if you are arrested (i.e. commit an arrestable offence and are caught) they can take your fingerprints and DNA and photo: permanetly. It is *not* deleted if they don't charge you or you are found not guilty.

Here's the really neat bit. Since January this year every criminal offence is arrestable. This is includes littering and speeding...

So there is at least one area in which the UK with it's New Labour government leads the US with it's rabid Reuplican one: destroying it's citizen;s civil liberties.

And then how far are we from Secret Police?

What would worry me even more is if they started moving towards a bastardized old school "inquisitorial system", and start keeping people in remand for a long periods of time for trivial matters. Say they catch you j-walking (or something equally trivial): you are arrested, your DNA is taken, and then they start fishing to see what else they can charge you with. Things start to get blurry and you end up with some sort of Guantanamo Bay situation. Don't get me wrong, I don't like terrororists. But I also don't like secret police and secret trials... that gets too close to Nazi Germany, and Soviet (and some might increasingly say the new Putin-ized) Russia.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

And most people don't understand probability. Say there is a one in on million change of your DNA matching someone else's in a test (the tests aren't perfect, and they don't compare the whole of your DNA, so it isn't only identical twins that match).
The police get a DNA match on a sample at a crime scene, and you are the only match in the database. What's the chance that they have the wrong person?

Most people will look at the 1 in 1,000,000 figure and think it's almost certainly your DNA. In fact with 60,000,000 people in the UK the chances they have the right suspect based on DNA evidence alone is only one in 60.
If other evidence leads them to suspect you, then they do the test and it matches, then there's a very high chance you were at the scene. But if the only reason you ever because a suspect was because your DNA was in the database already, possibly from an earlier investigation where you were cleared of any suspicion, and the other 59 matches weren't, the situation is very different. Once the police are convinced you are guilty, the chances of them "finding" supporting evidence goes up and the amount of looking for the real culprit goes down.

Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this.

Things have changed.

Actually, the law was changed in 2001, but the law lords only ruled it legal [theregister.co.uk] to permanently keep DNA records of cleared suspects in 2004.

The register has followed this story [theregister.co.uk] in some detail. (See the links at the bottom of that page.) There has also been some coverage in mainstream newspapers. [timesonline.co.uk]

Patented?

Quite possibly his DNA has been patented by one of the big bio tech firms, and he is just trying to avoid costly litigation.

Re:Patented?

Ah, yes, but don't forget that the government is largely immune to patent litigation, and so are government contractors if it suits the politicians' pet projects well to do so. Check out the fibre optic flexible waterproof splice incident reported in rece

DNA versus Fingerprints

On the one hand there is clear neccessity for the governement to establish a foresnic identity system. Finger prints, photographs, age, weight, height, eye color, build, race and gender are all legitimate and well established metric the government collects and wisely uses in our collective best interest.

One the other hand, DNA is quite different. You can learn from DNA things the govenrment is not entitled to know. Your lineage, your health prospects, your allegries, and any number of personal attributes. From blood you can learn even more. e.g. are you HiV positive.

So saying DNA and bllod are one more in a long line of useful tools is not a gimme. We have to think it through.

It is quite clear that infinite knowledge of people is not neccessarily in societies best interest. Or at least our society does not agree that it is. And crime deterence is not the sole purpose of governement. protection of privacy and civil lberties needs to be considered. For example, even prisons and navy ships, the most well watched populations on the planet, do not fully prevent crime. And we certainly would not be willing to subject ourselves to that kind of scrutiny just to reduce crime. So there must be a trade between security and liberty and risk. One should not just blindly always trade liberty for security becuase the trade off is without limit.

Yet coming back to DNA. unlike everything except finger prints, it's something that ubquitously taints crime scenes, and it's utility is thus so much above any othe rmetric it's foolish not to atleast consider a DNA databse of former felons and possibly even citizens at large. One solution to this might be DNA hashing. perhaps there is a way to hash a DNA sequence in a manner that would be sufficient to establish presence at a crime scene. Or maybe atleast probable cause for further testing of a particular individual without actually having the governement retain DNA samples of innocent people.

An approach to this would be to identify a long list of biological diversity markers then weed out all the ones know to be associated with any health condition. Then hash these in a way that preserves just enough features to establish likely identity between two samples without revelaing any further details. The govenrment would be required to destroy the original samples and to delete any of the pre-hash specific information. This would have to be done in a manner we can trust them to actually execute this policy. I think this could be done and just to make the point, here's how. Have all testing done in labs in non-networked computers with small hard disks. This would be a physical layer to prevent overt records retention. One could of course imagine ways this could be subverted on a case by case basis but it would impede wholsale collection.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

This would have to be done in a manner we can trust them to actually execute this policy.

The problem here is that we can't trust the government. We already know that. They said that the SSN would only be used for social security. They said that there would be no new taxes. They said that there were weapons of mass destruction. They said that eminent domain was a tool never to be used for commercial interests. They said that no citizen could be held without a right to a hearing or the ability to contact a lawyer. They said that no person's privacy could be invaded without a warrant. They said the patriot act was only to fight terrorism. They said that they would make no law regarding the establishment of religion. They say that intrastate commerce is magically interstate commerce. I could go on for pages.

They lie. They lie all the time. They're not lying for our benefit, either — they lie to do us harm, to hide things from us, to get certain people into office (or keep them there), they lie to take our property, our freedom, to erode our rights, and to diminish our ability to hold them accountable.

You give them your DNA, and they'll swear up and down that they'll hash it and throw away the raw data. But mark my words, that DNA will appear in a database not too long afterwards in the hands of not only the government, but your insurance company, your employer, and your potential spouse.

Anything you do to extend the power of the government will be misused. Anything. Our government is completely, utterly, absolutely out of control.

All large organizations attempt to control us

Well said and a reason I respect Libertarians although I do not consider myself one. And why don't I consider myself a Libertarian? Because big private corporations ALSO work hard to screw us and the world over, do Microsoft, Enron, Nike, Global Crossing, and large oil companies ring a bell? The real problem is allowing any large organization public OR private control over your life either physical or economic. And yes we may be reliant on corporations for computers, medicine, etc, and the government for roads and other infrastructure, but the goal should be to give large organizations the absolute minimum control over our lives we need to survive.

Libertarians who fail to realize the corrosive effects of private greed are blind, and leftists who fail to realize the terrible power of the state to oppress us are also blind.

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

As the consumer of the end products of multinational corporations in the belly of the empire of course you are living large, and the people making crap for you in the third world, not so much...

For example Shell in Nigeria:

"Oil Spills

Although Shell drills oil in 28 countries, 40% of its oil spills worldwide have occurred in the Niger Delta10. In the Niger Delta, there were 2,976 oil spills between 1976 and 199111. In the 1970s spillage totaled more that four times that of the 1989 Exxon Valdez tragedy12. Ogoniland has had severe problems stemming from oil spillage, including water contamination and loss of many valuable animals and plants. A short-lived World Bank investigation found levels of hydrocarbon pollution in water in Ogoniland more than sixty times US limits13 and a 1997 Project Underground survey found petroleum hydrocarbons one Ogoni village's watersource to be 360 times the levels allowed in the European Community, where Shell originates14.

Pipelines and construction

The 12 by 14 mile area that comprises Ogoniland is some of the most densely occupied land in Africa. The extraction of oil has lead to construction of pipelines and facilities on precious farmland and through villages. Shell and its subcontractors compensate landowners with meager amounts unequal to the value of the scarce land, when they pay at all. The military defends Shell's actions with firearms and death: see the Shell Police section below.

Health impacts

The Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team observed increased "discomfort and misery" due to fumes, heat and combustion gases, as well as increased illnesses15. This destruction has not been alleviated by Shell or the government. Owens Wiwa, a physician, has observed higher rates of certain diseases like bronchial asthma, other respiratory diseases, gastro-enteritis and cancer among the people in the area as a result of the oil industry16.

The Shell Police and the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force

Both Shell and the government admit that Shell contributes to the funding of the military in the Delta region. Under the auspices of "protecting" Shell from peaceful demonstrators in the village of Umeuchem (10 miles from Ogoni), the police killed 80 people, destroyed houses and vital crops in 199017. Shell conceded it twice paid the military for going to specific villages. Although it disputes that the purpose of these excursions was to quiet dissent, each of the military missions paid for by Shell resulted in Ogoni fatalities18. The two incidents are a 1993 peaceful demonstration against the destruction of farmland to build pipelines and, later that year, a demonstration in the village of Korokoro19. Shell has also admitted purchasing weapons for the police force who guard its facilities, and there is growing suspicion that Shell funds a much greater portion of the military than previously admitted. In 1994, the military sent permanent security forces into Ogoniland, occupying the once peaceful land. This Rivers State Internal Security Task Force is suspected in the murders of 2000 people20. In a classified memo, its leader described his plans for "psychological tactics of displacement/wasting" and stated that "Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken."21 Since the Task Force occupied Ogoniland in 1994, the Ogoni have lived under constant surveillance and threats of violence. The Nigerian military stepped up its presence in Ogoniland in January of 1997 and again in 1998 before the annual Ogoni Day celebrations."

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html [essentialaction.org]

YOU don't killed and exploited by private corporations, others not so much.

Or Nike in Indonesia:

"JAKARTA, Indonesia -- Workers at nine Indonesian factories under contract by U.S. sportswear giant Nike say they have either suffered or have witnessed sexual and verbal abuse.

Laborers also say they were asked to work

Re:All large organizations attempt to control us

Libertarian dude sed:

"You quote Shell using the local police and/or military for their purposes. Were I a local, I would blame the government here; just as the company that wants my land to build a hotel on is not at fault, the government is at fault if they allow it to be taken."

And do you honestly think that Shell wouldn't have hired mercenaries to do the same thing if that had been cheaper or easier? As the record obviously shows Shell as a company is quite willing to do ANYTHING to continue their operations in the Niger delta. The point is, is that Shell is quite willing to kill innocent people to continue it's oil drilling operation in Nigeria. It is exactly this sort of case that makes me mistrust Libertarians despite their excellent well honed admirable contempt they hold towards the state. When it comes to HORRIBLE deeds committed by corporations suddenly Libertarians are as slippery as Bill Clinton talking about what the meaning of is, is... Lets see some more honesty here, BOTH corporations and governments will commit horrible deeds when they think they can get away with it, only by holding BOTH corporations and governments to merciless scrutiny and calling them on their bad deeds will we see any decency, liberty, and a sustainable way of life. Making apologetics for the owners of Nike's production facilities quite literally raping their own employees only makes you look like an asshole, which is really too bad because your original post about not trusting the government not to misuse DNA data was quite excellent. I no more trust Nike to subcontract to other private shoe making corporations that will respect human rights than I do the government to hold my DNA data or my phone records. NEITHER the government, nor Shell, Nike, Haliburton, Bechtel, Microsoft, Monsanto, Maxxam, Wal-Mart, Exxon, etc have earned my trust by engaging in consistent ethical behavior. If you wern't blinded by your Libertarian ideology you would be more honest and admit that, yet for you suddenly crimes become non crimes when committed by private corporations. THAT is why I have some respect for Libertarians outspokenness about the evils of government but do not consider myself to be a Libertarian.

Please apply the same high standards to the conduct to private organizations that you apply to governments, thank you.

Re:DNA versus Fingerprints

It's the private companies that abuse the social security numbers, not the government.

This is not true. The DMV asks for it, it's on government medical forms, etc. It is used today as a way to uniquely identify each American completely outside the context of social security.

They said that there were weapons of mass destruction.

It was not the government who said that, but croporate oligarchs who wanted to get Iraki oil.

This is also obviously false. Colin Powell was acting on behalf of the government when he gave a speech to the UN detailing the reasons we know Iraq to have WMDs, and implying there was much more evidence that was too secret to share (which has also, now, been found to be a lie.)

And it is the courts who said that, not the government.

Courts are part of the government. The US government is comprised of three separate (ha!) but equal (ha!) branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

The logic escapes me

He was convicted of a computer crime. How likely is it that, if he does something similar in the future, it will be of any help to the authorities that they have his DNA on file? I suppose, though, the same goes for fingerprints. If the law is not specific on the subject, I think he has a right to refuse.

Re:The logic escapes me

Actually, the law is specific on the subject. If you are convicted of a felony, they have a right to keep your DNA on file. I don't think there are any exceptions made for white collar crime.

Re:The logic escapes me

Well, F me for not Ring TFA. He is refusing to give a blood sample, not refusing to give a DNA sample. His reasons for not giving a blood sample are religious. He offered instead to give hair and nail clippings, both of which he brought in, both of which were refused. So long as he is willing to comply with the law, even if not with the the particular collection method, I think he'll win this.

Re:The logic escapes me

He is probably well-aware that hair (minus a follicle) and fingernail clippings are both just keratin (chitin?) and contain no biological material or DNA of any sort. (those are the only main two substances he could give a sample of without giving away his DNA, and he knows it) A hair with a follicle however, contains DNA. That's why he brought them in instead of offering them on the spot, to make sure he didn't lose a hair with a follicle etc. He knows what he is doing, and it's highly unlikely that religion is his main concern. (unless it's against his religious beliefs to get caught a second time...)

Puting that aside for the moment, I am very much against the manditory collection of DNA except in the event you are the suspect of a crime and DNA would prove your innocence/guilt. Pre-emptive DNA harvesting for the purpose of establishing a database should not be legal.

http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp

Which nation are you from?

In the US, at least, Constitutionally-recognized rights aren't all lost upon a felony conviction, though you're limited in some of them. That's why it's illegal to experiment on prisoners, or torture or kill them.

Nor do you give up the rights administered by states. You can still vote, in most states. See the list at http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp [righttovote.org]

Re:The logic escapes me

I wonder what his religion has to say about breaking the law.

If we are talking God's law in conflict with man's law... you might become a martyr, get a spiffy statue. The Christian bible is mighty clear on the no killig bit, it's rather vague about thy neighbors server.

Re:The logic escapes me

And this is said while the FBI is raiding the home of the former number 3 at the CIA; the Vice President is about to be indicted for outing a CIA operation monitoring Iranian nuclear bombmaking; the entire administration has created a nationwide spy operation they didn't feel Justice lawyers needed to be consulted about; the Admin has been running covert special forces ops in Iran for over a year - an act of war, illegally done in secret; the Pres has been outed for secretly delaring war on Iraq on false pretext, killing over 30 thousand civilians...

What does religion have to say about all that? And why does the "law" care more about a teenager pulling pranks than about slaughtering 30 thousand people for no reason at all?

I should respect the law, why? The President has adopted Nixon's notion that the President IS the law, and therefore cannot ever break the law. I guess I just suppose this kid is the law, and cannot break it either. Either statement is equally constitutionally correct.

When the law is obviously manipulated to smash the relatively innocent and pardon the murderous, who cares about it anymore? The law enforcement agencies obviously don't. Powerful people make a call, a kid goes to prison, make another call, and 30 thousand people dead don't count, even as a news story.

Re:The logic escapes me

I don't think there are any exceptions made for white collar crime.

Would you find it logical if a convicted burglar, rapist, etc. would need to supply, for example, the MAC addresses of all his computers?

It's not about white or blue collar crime, but about whether the type of "identification" supplied would actually be useful for the type of crime.

What will DNA help if the crime does not involve physical presence?

Re:The logic escapes me

He was convicted of a computer crime. How likely is it that, if he does something similar in the future, it will be of any help to the authorities that they have his DNA on file?

Not likely at all.

This isn't about his crime and prevention/ease of conviction. This is about gathering DNA of everyone they can. Pictures, fingerprints, blood samples, they want it all, from everyone. They start with convicted criminals, because no one cares about their rights. Then they added people flying in (only pics and fingerprints for now, baby steps, baby steps).

The phone calls of everone, add a lil' voice recognition software, cameras all over the place, GPS transponders in every car, RFID in every compulsory ID cards.

They're creating a perfect police state, and we're letting them.

Frog soup

Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies.

When they came for the felons, I said nothing, because I was not a felon...

Re:Frog soup

You are presuming that all those in jail have comitted crimes. The evidence I have seen leads me to doubt that.

To me it appears that frequently being in jail is the result of annoying someone with power, and not having sufficient power to escape the consequences. This can be as simple as a black or brown person driving a car.

OTOH, even when you are rich, justice may be difficult to get. It's not criminal law, exactly, at least not yet, but consider SCOX vs. IBM. IBM has been trying for three years to find out what they are being accused of, and hasn't yet gotten a straight answer. *Someone* is funneling money to SCOX, but just who is doing it is still a matter of speculation.

Given the rediculous state of our "justice" system, I wouldn't be too quick to presume that someone labelled a felon has done anything reprehensible. Look up plea-bargaining and study a few of the examples. If you aren't powerful, they can threaten you with next to no evidence, and usually get a conviction if they want one...if only by coercing you to agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge so that they don't, e.g., formally accuse you of reping poodles. They don't need to prove you guilty to ruin your life permanently.

OTOH, communication has sped the transmission of information. Now we hear about news from distant cities as if it were local. Things probably actually aren't any worse than they ever were. Probably. But the also don't appear to be any better.

who isn't a felon?

What you're saying is "gypsy, Jew, black, convicted felon, they're all the same".

Has it ever occurred to you that the legislature can in principle make you a felon just by passing a law against breathing air?

This is not a joke. It's happening already. My guess is that well over half of all Americans have committed a sufficient dollar amount of music piracy to qualify as felony. The fact that you personally think that you are capable of avoiding felonies is irrelevant. If the government wants to make you a felon, then believe me, you will be made a felon.

There are cases on the books where even the text of the laws themselves are not available for you to read. Google for "secret laws" if you don't believe me.

Crossing a line?

I can't exactly say why, but taking an imprint of my finger doesn't seem like a big deal where taking my blood and analyzing my DNA seems a bit invasive.

Maybe they had the same debate back when the line was between taking down a physical description and taking an imprint of my finger. We all know how that one worked out.

Re:Crossing a line?

Easy. We're pretty sure we know the extent of information that can be determined about you by your fingerprints. Not true for DNA. Not only do we not know the complete extent of information that can be determined from your DNA, with what little we do know, it is already too much. More than mere identification, for sure.

Re:Crossing a line?

and since when does the government expect everyone to give their fingerprints?

Not "big brother" government, but have you ever heard of the "CHIPS" program?

Basically, the local PD come into a school (usually at the request of the PTA or some other group of well-intentioned but grossly misinformed parents) and fingerprint everybody.

They do this on the pretext of helping track down kidnapping victims.

Anyone care to guess how many (still-living) kidnapping victims this has recovered, out of the thousands that vanish yearly? If you raised your hand, you've come pretty damned close.


But such programs happen on a strictly voluntary basis, right? Now who wants to guess how many kids have experienced some form of punishment, up to and including suspension, for refusing to cooperate - If you only raised one hand, you've missed by a few orders of magnitude. Good luck finding hard numbers on this one, though - I myself count as an undocumented statistic, having refused to give my fingerprints in... third grade, I believe. As punishment, I didn't get to go on the field-trip to tour the police station (hey, sounds minor, but to an 8YO, suspension merely means a day off from school, while social exclusion and missing a field trip means the end of the world).

You think that's bad...

If you think that is bad (having to provide DNA after being *convicted*) you must not have been to jail in the United Kingdom...

Over here if you are arrested for things like littering, speeding, drunkenness and other minor infractions the police are legally entitled to take a DNA sample (and they DO from just about everyone).

You can refuse the order either... If they want a sample they are getting a sample...

Felons don't have the same rights...

I'm pretty sure that because he's a convicted felon, that he doesn't posess the same rights as a regular citizen. I don't think he can even vote. Bummer to get caught.

Some do. Some don't.

Did they take a DNA sample from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham when they put him in jail for taking bribes from defense contractors?

This guy didn't do close to anything as bad as Cunningham.

Goverment's bio databank

> "Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

I'm still yet to be convinced that the government should, or needs to have, a record of everyones fingerprint, let alone DNA.

WTF?!?!

is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Why the fsck should *everyone* provide fingerprints to their government?

Re:WTF?!?!

well if there was a national register of DNA and finger prints then it would be rather quite easy to find the person who committed any crime... it seems like it would cut the spending which is needed on poilce resources and because of the huge increase in

Re:WTF?!?!

This is, of course, assuming that you WANT your government to treat everyone like a criminal.

I'd prefer that they didn't. If they want my DNA or my fingerprints, they can bloody well get a warrant signed by a judge. If they can't get that, then the Constitution protects my privacy. Bloody annoying, that Fourth Amendment. Requiring that "due process" and all. After all, law enforcement is entitled to be autocratic and lazy and just demand whatever they want on a pretext.

Pretty soon they'll want to put black boxes in your car.. oh wait, we already have those. Then they'll want to video tape you for the sole reason that you've driven down a street.. oh, we've got those too. Then they'll want to know about every phone call you make whether you've been accused of a crime or not.. oh, wait, we just found out about that one this week.

Amazingly enough, there are people who think a police state is a GOOD thing. I like to call those people "idiots" and would like to extend the police state to regulating their ability to breed, telling them it's to prevent terrorism. Fixes the problem neatly and ironically.

We'll just need about 10,000 copies...

Well, the way I see it, a government could perform executions by requesting 10,000 copies of a DNA sample, if a person is required to give DNA to any government person that wants it. It's kind of hard to kill someone with 10,000 index finger print copies... It'd just waste a lot of time.

from the article:

According to his attorney, Lamo's refusal is based on a religious objection to giving blood, and he's willing to provide his DNA in another form.
"He went in there with fingernail clippings and hair, and they refused to accept it, because they will only accept blood,"

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek

I could swear the standard procedure is to swab cells from the inside of ones cheek.

That is how California does DNA collection. Not only is it just as effective, it doesn't require someone with special training in needle handling.

As a side note, California voters passed DNA collection into law 62-38 with Prop 69 in 2004. It specified that DNA be collected from any adult or juvenile convicted of a felony offense; any adult or juvenile convicted of any sex or arson offense, felony or not; and any adult arrested for any murder, voluntary manslaughter, or felony sex offense, or attempt to commit any of those. Those on parole or probation, or who are arrested for any offense and have a prior criminal history, are required to provide samples as well, if they have past offenses that are on that list. In 2009, this expands to any adult arrested for or charged with any felony offense at all. The costs are offset by a 10% addition to criminal fines imposed by the courts. Any person who has been released without being arraigned within the lawfully allowed time, or who has been found factually innocent or not guilty, or who has had their case dismissed, may make a written request to have the samples destroyed and the database expunged of searchable DNA information.

As of the end of last year, 631,913 DNA profiles have been collected, 368,307 of which have been analyzed and uploaded into the database. More than 2000 investigations have been assisted by this, including many cold cases that have been solved through DNA matching. I have read numerous stories about rapes being tied to existing prisoners, and several murderers have been caught based on the evidence. Several times it has been after their release from prison on other, lesser charges, because there's a backlog in the DNA work that is expected to be largely caught up sometime in the next few years.

Well

I can see his line of thought, why would they need his DNA when his crime didn't involve anything that would require him to be traced via DNA. Seems like they need samples of his IP more ;). On a more serious note, it is worrying to see a trend in the creation of nation-wide databases of DNA, although it could be argued that they are very effective in tracing criminals, it also goes against some of the basic freedoms that we enjoy in living in such a country.

Re:Well

As has already been mentioned several times, those "basic freedoms" you speak of apply to law-abiding citizens; there is no such protection for convicted felons. And, indeed, he plead guilty.

There is plenty of freedom at work here. His freedom to refuse. Note that they are not tying him down and forcing a needle into his arm. His freedom to choose more court proceedings and possibly a five year prison sentence over violating his religious beliefs.

The law is the law, but in this case the law is probably pretty weak, since he did offer up his DNA in another form. I am willing to bet that a judge might very well order the probation department to accept his alternate DNA, if he behaves himself.

If it's a condition of his probation...

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.

On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.

Something everyone should provide to government?!

"Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

At birth, "just in case", huh?

Here are two particular movies the submitter urgently ought to get for the weekend:

1. GATTACA [imdb.com]
2. Minority Report [imdb.com]

Hopefully he'll be able to do so while neither a blood sample nor a fingerprint are considered "something that everyone should provide at video rental" just yet.

Retention policy?

On a related note, what's the law regarding retention of stuff like DNA data, fingerprints, etc? For example, if my next door neighbor got murdered, I might get asked to provide my fingerprints to rule me out as a subject. I might be willing to do this (provided I'm not actually guilty) but what happens afterwards?

Are there restrictions for situations like this that only allow the authorities to use such data for only a specific case? Or does my data get permanently entered in a general database, to be automatically scanned for any and every crime in the future?

I'm not against cooperating with the police, but if it's the later, I'd be extremely wary of volunteering for such things.

"DNA dragnet" on the cape, cops watched declinees

On a related note, what's the law regarding retention of stuff like DNA data, fingerprints, etc? For example, if my next door neighbor got murdered, I might get asked to provide my fingerprints to rule me out as a subject. I might be willing to do this (provided I'm not actually guilty)

A woman was raped and killed in a small town on Cape Cod. So what did the police do? Set up DNA collection stations around town and asked men to submit DNA samples. [google.com] "Well, nobody said 'if you don't submit a sample you must be guilty'"m you say? WRONG.

"A few people have declined to give samples, according to news reports. Police said investigators will closely watch individuals who fail to "volunteer" their genetic code."

"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us taking your DNA."

"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your car."

"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your house."

Doesn't work that way. NEVER has, NEVER will. If I'm innocent I don't HAVE to give you my DNA, or let you search anything- I'm INNOCENT. If the police or prosecutors of a crime wish to collect evidence from you or your personal property, they need search warrants- and they don't just hand those out for shits and giggles over at the local court. What is frightening is that 5-10% of the population of Truro apparently felt it was OK for the police to just ask for their DNA- and gave it!

Other means of DNA

If the NSA can tap your phone. Surely the cops can tap his toilet. Instant DNA.

Probation

It's a condition of his probation. If he doesn't want to give it, that's up to him: Probation revoked.

False Dichotomy

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Nice transitions from convicted felons to "everyone" there.

Re:If CSI has taught me anything...

You can't use the red blood cell component of blood for DNA, because red blood cells do not have a nucleus. When they undergo their final divisions they cast off their DNA to make more room for oxygen and nutrients. Just before this they "bulk up" by making a lot of the proteins they will need when serving as a red blood cell. Later in their life, when the protein supply is exhaused, there is no DNA available to template to make more, and the cell is useless and dies.

There's a lot more in blood than just red blood cells though. The white blood cells have DNA for example, so you can get DNA from blood very easily.