Slashdot Log In
Convicted Hacker Adrian Lamo Refuses to Give Blood
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat May 13, 2006 11:19 AM
from the not-so-juicy-cases dept.
from the not-so-juicy-cases dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA (Score:5, Funny)
Patented? (Score:5, Funny)
DNA versus Fingerprints (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:DNA versus Fingerprints (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
The logic escapes me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Frog soup (Score:5, Insightful)
When they came for the felons, I said nothing, because I was not a felon...
Parent
Re:Frog soup (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Crossing a line? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Crossing a line? (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Parent
You think that's bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some do. Some don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy didn't do close to anything as bad as Cunningham.
Parent
WTF?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fsck should *everyone* provide fingerprints to their government?
Re:WTF?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
from the article: (Score:5, Interesting)
"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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Something everyone should provide to government?! (Score:5, Informative)
Here are two particular movies the submitter urgently ought to get for the weekend:
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.