Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Californians To Vote On Largest DNA Database 78

Posted by timothy from the you'll-feel-a-little-pinch dept.
mpthompson writes "California law enforcement officials are backing a proposed ballot measure that would give them authority to operate the largest DNA database in the world and collect DNA samples from everyone arrested or convicted on felony charges."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Californians To Vote On Largest DNA Database More

Californians To Vote On Largest DNA Database

Comments Filter:

  • O.J. (Score:4, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @08:54PM (#7800087)
    Word is that they are bleeding O.J. dry to make sure that the database is very very large.

  • fingerprints? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by asquared256 ( 637499 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @08:56PM (#7800099) Homepage
    It's already done with fingerprints... I don't see how this is much different.
    • Fingerprints are problematic: direct contact is required (germ issues) and oil, moisture and dirt can all confound readings.
    • It's already done with fingerprints...

      Fingerprints are on outside the body. Getting a DNA sample involves the state violating the bodies of citizens.

      The authority of the state ends at my skin.

    • Fingerprints can't be planted (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You pretty much have to be physically present to leave a fingerprint. A hair can be planted by anyone.

      Now that PATRIOT allows law enforcement to enter your home without telling you, it would be pretty easy for them to lift a hair and plant it wherever they want. If they have your DNA on file, they can plant the hair, "discover" it at the crimescene, run it against their database and grab you...whereas, without having you in the database, planting the hair would do them no good unless they came up with some

    • Re:fingerprints? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by penguin7of9 ( 697383 )
      It's notoriously easy to get a false positive on a DNA test if the lab isn't following proper procedure. The ways in which fingerprint tests can be screwed up area much easier to understand for laymen and easier to avoid, too. Courts, labs, juries and judges also have much more experience with fingerprints.

  • Hey Clinton! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @08:57PM (#7800102)
    Hey Clinton, better call that chick in Santa Barbara and make sure she washes her dress, and the sheets. Might as well start making calls all up and down the West Coast. It is going to be a long night: you can be sure that Ken Starr read Slashdot too, and he's going to be on this real quick.

  • Yup every Felon (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:14PM (#7800214)

    2006 - Every baby born(for thier own saftey)
    2008 - Every Person who commits a Crime (We HAVE to track them!)
    2012 - Every Citizen (you have nothing to hide do you Comrade?)
    • That's probably about five years behind the schedule for the voluntary (at first) ID implants.

    • Time line - Way off (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      2006 - Every baby born(for thier own saftey)
      Voluntary sample/Registration kits are already available and recommended in the name of safety. It will likely become mandatory by 2006

      2008 - Every Person who commits a Crime (We HAVE to track them!)
      A more likely date will be 2005 when DNA collection becomes part of the standard booking process, as finger rpinting is today. Note that this process occurs before you even get to court, guilt or innocence is irrelavent.

      2012 - Every Citizen (you have nothing to
    • Umm... Would someone please explain what the privacy concerns here?

      Seriously a lot of countries already have fingerprints of all citizens over the age of 16 on file and they have never had any problems, how is this any different and how is it possible to abuse this info?

      Also the idea of insurance companies buying the info is a crock. If they were going to use it they would simply require a blood test before granting the insurance, again the same way life insurance companies in countries with high AIDS rat

      • Lay off the weed its making you paranoid

        Nice troll, but I will bite. You said it yourself, insurance companies insisting on AIDS tests. Imagine I can keep your bottom line profitable - all we have to do is find away to insure the healthy. How could we do this?? If only the Government had a database of all citizens, thier likes, dislikes, crimes, and habits, and thier health too. Then, there you go, we only have to insure the top 1% and make scads of money. On the other hand, we (and all insurance comp

      • Seriously a lot of countries already have fingerprints of all citizens over the age of 16 on file and they have never had any problems,

        To the contrary, any nation where the government forces innocent citizens to be fingerprinted has very very deep problems.

  • Trust us, we're with the government. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Syncdata ( 596941 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:17PM (#7800237) Journal
    Oh, it'll only be used for felonies.
    Two years pass
    Felonies, and extreme, non felonious cases.
    Two years pass
    Felonies, extreme non felonious cases, and lookin funny.
    What's that? Why, of course, we'd never use your toll bridge fast-pass to log your comings and goings!
    • You know that unless you back up a slippery-slope claim with evidence, it's a logical fallacy, right?

      We've been taking fingerprints of criminals - and suspected criminals - for decades, and it hasn't extended to include anything unreasonable. So given that we have a history of doing exactly the same thing, and doing it generally responsible, the burden of proof is pretty clearly on you to demonstrate why this is really a slippery slope.

      • It's proof you wanted. Perhaps I shoulda gotten my href on.
        Government always introduces things with the sweetest kiss, but the honeymoon ends slowly, and predictably. [slashdot.org]
        The problem with databases as they relate to government, and really, any other enterprise, is they start off with very strict guidlines. (EG: Felons only). But once the DB is instituted, then legislature A decides to do one of two things.
        1: Change the law to also cite this other group outside of the previously defined group, or
        2: Change
        • So your proof is that you don't trust politicians, and you count on them always to do the worst thing possible. That's not proof so much as your belief, but that's okay. Your beliefs are your own, and I won't try to change them. Suffice it to say that I don't feel all politicians are necessarily evil, so I think that sometimes the government really does do the right thing (and not just by accident).
          • It isn't that politians are evil. At least not most of them anyway, chuckle. Most of them try to do the right thing. What you are missing is that there are competing interests and motivations, all valid.

            In a genuine slippery slope situation there is a constant pull in one direction not for evil reasons, but from well intentioned people striving for "noble purposes". Everyone has their pet project and sees a way that one small step down the hill is a step towards a "noble goal". A way to help police catch c

      • We've been taking fingerprints of criminals - and suspected criminals - for decades, and it hasn't extended to include anything unreasonable.

        You have a different defintion of "unreasonable" than I do then. I think it's unreasonable that people volunteering to work with kids these days are often fingerprinted and run through FBI checks because of paranoia about child molestation. (Which isn't to say parents shouldn't exercise reasonable caution.)

        I also think it's unreasonable that recovered fingerprint

  • Fine With Me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:25PM (#7800268) Homepage
    I'm sure there will be quite a few "big brother" privacy claims posted, but frankly I HOPE that this happens. I have no qualms what so ever.

    Now, if California wanted to make the database for every single citizen, I would object. If it was for anyone convicted of anything (parking tickets included), I would object. But it's not...

    It's FELLONS. These are not jaywalkers, they are murderers, rapists, duggies (dealers, trafficers, etc), and more. I don't mind this segment of the population losing a little bit of their rights, because they chose to give them up when they decided to commit a crime. I don't mind this just like I don't think felons should be allowed to have guns (I am otherwise very supportive of right to bear arms). They are FELLONS, we shouldn't be crying for them.

    Now that said, there are bound to be false convictions, and this is the one caviat that I have. When a false conviction is found, that person's DNA needs to be removed from the database IMMEDIATLY and any convictions/etc based on the DNA that was collected because they were a fellon (fruit of the poisonous tree). But ONLY THAT DNA. If the person submitted their DNA during the investigation, that obviously gets to stay in the database, it's only DNA collected after they were convicted that should be "tossed" in such a case. If this part is held, I have no qualms what so ever.

    Bring on the database.

    • Re:Fine With Me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:35PM (#7800318) Journal
      It's FELLONS (sic).

      It's felons and anyone arrested on felony charges. Whether or not they're subsequently convicted.

      If someone is subsequently found not guilty, how is that person different than any other innocent person walking down the street? Why should his DNA be in the database and yours not be?

      • The article states: "the measure has extensive protections that purge DNA information when a suspect or convict is exonerated."

        Presuming that such protections are in place a person who is found innocent or in cases where charges are not pressed will have their records purged from the database. I'm not sure if this happens with fingerprints and mug shots today -- probably not.
        • The article states: "the measure has extensive protections that purge DNA information when a suspect or convict is exonerated."

          Then I suppose you'd be OK with the police declaring every person who meets the criminal's description ("a tall Hispanic with a goatee") a "suspect", taking every "suspect's" DNA, comparing all "suspect's" samples to DNA taken from the crime scene or stored from previous, unrelated crimes, and then purging anyone for whom they didn't find a match?

          How is that different in practice
          • These kinds of details of the proposed law weren't described in the article, but I would presume that a DNA sample would be taken at the same time a fingerprint and mug shot are taken. In other words, when an actual arrest is made which is predicated on much more than just "round up all tall Hispanics with a goatee".

            The essence of the proposed law is whether the voting public will view DNA identification as being equivalent to fingerprint identification. I believe that rational arguments can be made eith
      • Oops. Your right, I forgot that part. OK I agree, forget my condition. This is what I get for not reading the article.

        But then again, it's Slashdot. What do you expect ;)

      • Good point. Let's put mine in, too. I don't care if they *do* put us all in the database. I don't understand why I should have the right to be not knowable if my DNA shows up at a crime scene unless I have been previously *convicted* of a felony. By this argument, we want to make sure that those who are committing their first felony cannot be found via DNA. What is the advantage to society that we be unable to find first-time felons, or tenth-time felons who managed to plea bargain down to a non-felony each

        • I don't understand why I should have the right to be not knowable if my DNA shows up at a crime scene unless I have been previously *convicted* of a felony. By this argument, we want to make sure that those who are committing their first felony cannot be found via DNA. What is the advantage to society that we be unable to find first-time felons, or tenth-time felons who managed to plea bargain down to a non-felony each time they commit a felony?

          The answer is easy to understand, but so much easier to ove

          • Look, nobody is overlooking anything here. DNA planting is already a staple of crime dramas. Regardless of who is in the database, you can easily obtain DNA from someone who is, or you can plant DNA from someone who isn't and just report that you think you may have seen them leaving the scene. Go ahead and report their license plate number, which is easier to get than their DNA. Then the police sample their DNA and it's just as if they'd been in the database all along.

            If you can frame someone with DNA (and

            • Re:That's silly (Score:3, Insightful)

              by js7a ( 579872 ) *

              you can easily obtain DNA from someone who is [in the database]

              The fewer people who are in the database, the fewer choices are available to a forger. When everyone is in the database, nobody is off limits.

              or you can plant DNA from someone who isn't and just report that you think you may have seen them leaving the scene.

              And in doing so, either (A) draw attention to yourself as a witness, or (B) raise the suspicions of a frame-up with a needlessly anonymous tip.

              If you can frame someone with DNA

    • I can see your point (as well as I am pleased to see that you are approaching it with an intellectual honesty), so couple more things for you to think about:

      duggies (dealers, trafficers, etc)

      etc being users? Does it really match your libertarian position?

      Do you support the whole "three strikes" approach? Or after serving the time the (now ex-)felon is supposed to pay her ;-) debt to society?

      What about sexual assault cases and Megan law? WHY can those be an exemption?

      Just a couple of thoughts...

      Paul
    • Not all felonies are violent.

      Have you read the law books lately? Do you know what constitutes a felony? It's not just the drooling insane criminals lurking in dark alleys--you mention drug dealers and traffickers, but what about users? Do you think nonviolent marijuana users (even for medicinal use, in California) should be put in a DNA database?

      I know you already conceded this point, but the law would also catalog DNA of those ARRESTED for a felony, guilty or not. There's no reason to think law enf

      • There's no reason to think law enforcement wouldn't twist the law to suit their purposes, such as arresting someone with no evidence just to obtain their DNA. Then, with DNA in hand, they might be able to make their case.

        The police already do this [komotv.com] without a database. Sometimes they have a strong suspicion about the perp, but no 'strong evidence'...The DNA placing the suspect at the scene provides that evidence.

        Personally, I think that a law that would make it easy for the police to find sick fucks like
        • Personally, I think that a law that would make it easy for the police to find sick fucks like this guy is a good idea.

          Oh? Quoting the judge:
          • She agreed that the police broke the law by pretending to be lawyers, but said police are allowed to do that to catch criminals.
          While I'm sure there's a lot more to the statement, she's saying the police are alowed to break the law in order to arrest people. That doesn't set off any warning bells with you?
    • Well then why shouldn't EVERYONE submit their DNA? Hell, I'll even go before you.

      The initiative only requires SUSPICION of a felony to force one to register in this database. (If you RTFA!)

      Interesting? A better rating would be troll-bait.
    • I guess this is probably a troll (the spelling errors are irresistible!), but, it is still important to note that this database would include anyone who is arrested. They can arrest you at any time, even if you've done nothing wrong. Also, "felony" doesn't actually mean anything, so such a database might include people convicted of various crimes less serious (or relevant) than murder.
    • An unpopular thing to do, I know... But you really should read the article.

      1) It's not just Felons (A felon is someone CONVICTED of a Felony crime)

      It's all suspects in a felony crime.. It doesn't take much to be a suspect.

      2) It's not even just people -charged- with a felony.

      Quoth the article (emphasis mine):
      If voters approve the measure, it will allow California authorities to get DNA samples from everyone arrested or convicted on felony charges, as well as from misdemeanor sex offenders -- bot
    • It's FELLONS. These are not jaywalkers, they are murderers, rapists, duggies (dealers, trafficers, etc), and more.

      That's suspected felons.
      So what if they later drop the felony charge and only prosecute the misdemeanor, you're allready in the database, tough luck.

      Wanna bet that most people arrest for drug possesion will be charged with "possesion with the intent to sell" only to have the charges against them reduced after the database entry has been done?

      They convict people making crystal meth on charges
    • Sorry, but it's not fine with me. And the word is spelled "felon" not "FELLON."

      California's Department of Health Services already collects DNA specimens from every child born in the state (under its Genetic Disease Screening Program) and has been doing so for more than 15 years. The potential is there to create a DNA database of every native born California resident and Attorney General Bill Lockyer has already proposed doing so with the GDB program. What started out as something good "for the children"

  • National DNA is going to happen. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:26PM (#7800273) Journal
    I just wonder how long before states, start selling the databases to insurance companies to help with the expenses. States already sell personal information, what could be more personal, than your DNA.

  • Uncharged Suspects? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Radical Rad ( 138892 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:46PM (#7800380) Homepage
    would expand the range of crimes for which felons must submit DNA samples to the state's database to include nonviolent offenders, juveniles and uncharged suspects.

    So when all white or black or hispanic males, ages 25-32, in the City of Los Angeles fit the description of a suspect then anyone of them can be forced to be DNA fingerprinted?

    He dismissed the ACLU's concerns about invasion of privacy as "a straw man argument," pointing out that the measure has extensive protections that purge DNA information when a suspect or convict is exonerated.

    I hope someone will look very closely at these "extensive protections". There have already been many cases where police have demanded DNA samples from innocent people. The DNA test exonerated them but the police refused to then destroy the DNA fingerprint. Also I have no doubts that the police would run blanket checks against other cases in which the innocent donors are not suspects. When a match comes up positive they will claim that it was done "accidentally". I bet that DNA fingerprints would never actually get purged either due to "computer errors".

    • When a match comes up positive they will claim that it was done "accidentally". I bet that DNA fingerprints would never actually get purged either due to "computer errors".

      Such an "accident" would seem to be a defense lawyers dream case as such evidence would be tossed out under The Doctrine of The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. In other words, if the means of gathering evidence is tainted, the ends or fruits of those means and the evidence must likewise be poisonous.

      BTW, do you have any specific referenc
      • Wouldn't they claim that since it was accidental and no intention to violate rights can be proven that they can't possibly be expected to ignore evidence that jumps out at them, similar to finding a gun in a pile of trash that an animal had strewn about?

        And no I can't cite specific references but I assure you I learned about them from reputable sources on television and internet news sites. I hope you are right that they would not be able to weasel their way past the spirit of the law.
  • Don't give this to the state.

    I used to live there. That doesn't matter. Why would you give your DNA up? Don't do it.Fight anyone who wants you to do so.

  • The Beast Turns Inwards ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by leoaugust ( 665240 ) <<leoaugust> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @10:23PM (#7800538) Journal

    Me thinks it is pretty fair. After the decision to fingerprint almost "everyone" visiting the US, it is just fair, and actually just a matter of time before the Beast Turns Inward. "I think people have come to understand that an increase to security is necessary," said U.S. Homeland Security spokesman Bill Strassberger. [cnn.com]

    The Govt can keep the DNA of felons in a Central Database, but the rest of the citizens should be motivated to carry their DNA/Fingerprint ID card just in case they have to prove their identity when there is a security situation. The threat level is already at ORANGE and who knows what will happen when it turns RED !! People WAKE UP ! In fact, for your own protection you can already buy ID cards for the family that will store you DNA and fingerprints. These fingerprint and DNA identification cards are great for all families. Be prepared and have that vital identification information that may be needed in an emergency situation. [safety-ide...oducts.com] Like when the threat level goes to RED !

    Also NCSE provides DNA and Fingerprint Kits either for bulk sales or for use with our e-learning software or Child ID Kits. [im-productions.com]

    FOR YOUR SAFETY Please Order one TODAY ! With your order please give my referrer code ref??###R@D@=sarcastic.

    AGAIN, EVERYONE ! PLEASE ORDER YOUR DNA/FINGERPRINT ID CARDS TODAY !!! Don't Wait!!!!!! Make that life changing phone call today !!!!!!!!!

  • Two sides (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @11:02PM (#7800713) Journal
    This story has two sides. DNA is a god send to those charged with finding criminals. It is almost impossible not to leave some dna at a crime scene even for pros and most crimes are not committed by pros. If the police had access to a database with everyones dna then a hell of a lot more crimes could be solved and a lot faster at a lesser cost and with less change of false arrests or the criminal committing another crime while police are investigating.

    On the other hand is a huge privacy issue. While it is true that the innocent SHOULD have nothing to fear the sad fact is that this is not true. Nor can we assume that even if it is true now that it will remain true in the future. The germans had a registration of who had what religion in the 1930's. We all know how that ended. Can you be sure who is in charge of the US or any country proposing a similar scheme in 10 years? That is now 3 elections away.

    I have little patience with people just concerned with their privacy. Most of them are just people who don't want to be caught should they ever decide to commit a crime. Guess what sherlock that is part of the reason for introducing such a thing. "Commmit a crime and we will find you" as opposed to now, "Commit a crime and maybe we will find you". The higher the chance of getting caught the more people will be deterred.

    On the other hand I do have my doubts if such a system in future might not be abused. So on the one hand yes everyones dna logged will make life a lot harder for criminals. It will also make life a lot easier for anyone seeking to oppress non-criminals in the future. Or people we consider now to be innocent but who might be made to be guilty in the future.

    The answer? I don't have one. Anyone who claims they have one are lying. Don't believe those who guarantee the safe use cause they can't. Don't believe the privacy people cause they are not now the victims of crime. The moment their child is murdered they will change their tune faster then a prisoner on his way to the chair.

    • While I see your point, I can hardly agree with the comparison of the German Regime in the 1930's to the current US Government (Note: this is not to imply democrats or republicans do a better job, just that the way the US Gov't is set up is different, so please don't spam the comments with political propaganda =D). As it was said earlier in the comments, I don't really feel that I have anything to hide. To me, this is similar to a current debate in my state about traffic intersection cameras. If you aren't
      • I don't think the original poster was trying to equate the current US government to the Nazis. All that is being done, is pointing out that you have to be careful about what information the government is allowed to collect and keep. This is largely based on the assumption that, eventually, the government will become corrupt, in one form or another, and such information will be used to oppress people. If you don't want to use the Nazis as an example, just look back at our own history. We have the Japanee
        • Can we say "Unreasonable search and seizure". IANAL, but as I understand it the government needs to have a basis to investigate a person for a crime. Using this kind of database match is, in essance, like allowing the government to investigate people without having any basis to do so. If we allow this to be passed, where does this slope end? RFID tags implanted into every person so that the police can see who was in the area when the crime was commited?
    • While it is true that the innocent SHOULD have nothing to fear the sad fact is that this is not true.

      I have little patience with people just concerned with their privacy.

      Most of them are just people who don't want to be caught should they ever decide to commit a crime. Guess what sherlock that is part of the reason for introducing such a thing.

      You have never commited a crime? Any Crime? Anything at all? Speeding, minor tax evasion, jaywalking? I am gladdened to know that at least there is One Pur

  • Privacy implications broader than the state.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by isaac ( 2852 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2003 @01:09AM (#7801148)
    I wonder what protections this law has against genetic data being disclosed to private parties?

    Lots of states sell personal data (driver's license info, etc.) to private parties. There's certainly no federal genetic privacy law, and I don't know if California has a state law limiting disclosure of genetic information. In the absence of such a law, what's to stop a state from selling potentially lucrative genetic information to well-heeled insurers and credit reporting agencies?

    -Isaac

  • Maybe good if applied more widely (Score:3)

    by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2003 @01:52AM (#7801294)
    I would think it a good thing if it were for all
    US citizens and legal aliens. If such a database
    were implemented the Feds could require, e.g. all
    supermarkets and food vendors in general to
    collect DNA and on the spot verify immigration
    status. This would make it nearly impossible for
    illegal immigrants to buy food, clothes, medicine,
    etc. You could also then investigate anyone
    buying food in bulk and see if they sell it on
    black market which would be sure to form. You
    could then really open a hunt for illegal
    immigrants and clean up US.

  • Good thing for CA (Score:3, Funny)

    by girth ( 40643 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2003 @03:30AM (#7801580)
    Now we have a use for all the Oracle licenses we bought last year.
  • ... You'd have to ignore all that Simpson DNA evidence. And that would be downright wacky.
  • As long as this data is kept secret (no 3rd parties) and information is only kept for the convicted (not accused), I don't think there's a problem here. Don't they do something similar to this already?
    • California does not have a good track record for keeping private data private. See this link from the Sacramento Bee [psych-health.com] to read about how the state's 250,000 civil servants had their personnel records stolen in 2002 by hackers who have never been caught. And the sysadmins of the compromised database servers didn't even notify them for three months (because they were busy "investigating" the security breach).

      This doesn't give me much confidence in the ability of government bureaucrats to maintain the securit
  • We need the plans for the Terminator.

  • Imagine what fun we could have with all this collected data which will be secured from everyone but those savvy enough to get around the security and those who are supposed to be doing data entry and those family and friends of these.

    We could build armies of people genetically gifted with violence. We could run true scientific tests on the effects of environment vs. genes. We could analyze diseases and DNA with a much larger sample. We could set up a huge distributed computer project to run simulations

    • "What if we've had the mark of the beast all along and it was called DNA?"

      That's almost circular logic. According to John's "Revelation," the Mark of the Beast (666 or 999) had to be accepted by the person taking the mark. That suggestion of yours would mean that the immortal soul would have to agree to take the Mark as a condition of entering the material world. Of course, I suppose a creative religious scholar could wrap that concept around with "original sin." Then the Mark itself would lie dormant,

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Close