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.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
What of the poor sap who has an affair with someone who happens to get raped/murdered on her way home.
That his sperm has been found in her body and definitly matches means he's guilty?
How do you prove you had consentual sex with a now dead women. There are many such instances were the DNA found at the scene does not mean guilt. It seems to be the rule of thumb these days. If the DNA is there you are deemed guilty.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously this rarely applies on Slashdot...
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
While I understand where you are coming from, I think you may be naive to the point of stupidity.
You would come forward as a good person, as a good citizen, as someone who seeks the truth.
The police have no such agenda. Their agenda is to provide society with a sense of law and order. That they regularly pin crimes on the most likely suspect is proof of the fact. No one knows the truth, the truth is rarely "outed" during a trial. We solve crimes by pinning them on the most likely person. It gives the appearance of law and order. The most likely suspect is often merely the last person to a see a victim alive, a close family member, a husband, a good friend. God help you if you fail to have an alibi, if you were sitting at home alone watching TV.
Now I could give a shit about Scott Peterson, but take the example anyhow. Scott Peterson had a pregnant wife, Laci. Many couples become estranged during a wife's pregnancy. Scott took a lover, Amber Frey. Juries don't like cheaters. Cheaters are liars and untrustworthy. FWIW, a very large number of people cheat all the time and we all know that fact. Laci was eventually found in the San Francisco bay, a place where Scott Peterson went boating on Xmas eve. Now, I don't know about you - but many people made much of the fact that Scott went boating on that day - as if it were beyond belief that someone would do such a thing just because he needed to get away or to think for a while. To wrap up, Scott Peterson was convicted because he was cheating on his wife, and was seen boating on the vast body of water in which Laci's body was later discovered. I am not saying that there aren't more details, but those are the main details.
They pinned it on him and gave him the thumbs down routine. The man will die largely based on mere speculation. There's not a single piece of incontrovertible evidence in the whole case. There's an alternate defense explanation for everything the prosecution claims.
A culture of spectacle and sacrifice doesn't care about the truth, it cares about appearances. We pin crimes on the most likely to be guilty, not those that are truly guilty. And there may be a universe of difference between those two categories. Is Scott Peterson "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? Hell no, but society hates to imagine that there is a murderer loose somewhere. Society likes to nail someone so that the collective can rest easy at night.
Now it turns out that one of my old professors at law school is one of the point men for the whole DNA as evidence movement, his name is Larry Marshall. His big break for DNA evidence came in the Rolando Cruz case. Read about it here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_prof
The salient bits are: "...under pressure from the community and in the midst of an election year..." and "...a sheriff's department lieutenant recanted testimony he had given in previous trials." Wow, do I mean it's often just politics and cops that lie? Hell yeah...
I quit law school because Larry Marshall gave a speech in which he informed all of us idiot law school students that the most important thing about the practice of law was how the judge was feeling, what kind of day the judge was having. Did the judge just have a fight with his wife? Is he feeling poorly? Does his stomach roil because of the steak sandwich he had at lunch? That's the guy that will decide all of your motions. He probably won't even read your motions except for during the five minutes before he must render a decision while he trembles on the toilet seat before entering the courtroom. If anyone read anything, it was some poor fuck law clerk that rendered an opinion via post-it note on how the judge should decide the issue.
You know how you play 3D shooters instead of doing your homework? Judges are just like you...
So, would I come forward and admit I was the last person to see some now dead chick alive? I would like to say yes, but the real answer is no. In the adversarial process, you are a suspect until you are excluded as a suspect by the evidence. Does that sound like "guilty until proven innocent"? Yes, it does sound a lot like that.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
They are there to judge the quality of the state'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
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 presum
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, 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:3, Informative)
Bad example, since the drinking age is already set by states. There is no federal drinking age.
It happens to be 21 because federal highway funding to the states is tied to compliance with setting it to that age. However, there was a span of time where certain states such as Louisiana had a lower legal age. (The theory is that Louisiana makes more money off alcohol sales during Mardi Gras than they get from highway funding, but who knows)
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:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if you read South Dakota v. Dole, its pretty clear that your state is quite free to set the drinking age wherever it likes. (As long as it does not mind paying for its own roads.) Other cases such as Morrison & Lopez, (which held that Washington D.C. cannot make it a crime to carry a firearm in a school zone, or create a civil cause of action for abused w
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are a law abiding citizen, never beat your
wife or dog or kids, always pay you taxes on time,
never have a difference of opinion with your
neighbor or coworker or politician, attend church
or mosque or synagogue every week, never engage in
extramarital or kinky sex, then you really don't
have anything to fear.
But if you deviate from the straight and narrow
path dictated by the government or society's
"norms", you might risk being considered as a
suspicious person, or worst yet as a "security
ri
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Funny)
"This one's cut out for Navy SEAL!"
"How do you know?"
"DNA shows high strength, agility, good swimmer and an excellent natural armor class"
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had bothered to RTFA, you'd know that out of 18 DNA-drag nets, only ONE actually helped collar someone...and it was limited to 25 people that had access to the victim. The rest (where thousands of samples were collected) DID NOT HELP AT ALL.
So, whats the point?
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 f
Re:No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:3, Interesting)
Harder to do that with DNA. Instead, you get some "expert" coming in to say "yes, the DNA matched." And then you end up like Houston, with dozens of cases that turned out to be total bullshit. Hundre
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.
Re:No different from fingerprint info etc (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/referenceguidemay99.h t m#how [usdoj.gov]
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.
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to Fear (Score:3, Funny)
President. The real George W. Bush's body is in the concrete foundation of Arlington Stadium. It's all a very long, convoluted plot to seize the Whitehouse and ... whoops, boot coming through the door, see ya
Cluster and Classify ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do some analyses to enable you to categorize from an unlabeled sample.
<cyn> Imagine how useful that could be!</cyn>
I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.
Yes, I am.
CC.
Re:Cluster and Classify ... (Score:2, Informative)
If you can ever find Walk Kelly's Pogo strips from the 70's, he nails Agnew for this very line of logic. Guess who isn't the one locked up in the jail? It is a bit like Nixon, again, isn't it?
Re:Cluster and Classify ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course there would still have to be a system in place that keeps them only adding data to that database when it is taken for a valid reason.
Re:Cluster and Classify ... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Convicted
2. Not Convicted because the computer hasn't hiccupped yet.
Let's see, how many different DNA labs have had their hands slapped for fabricating their results? Like the one in the city of Houston, Texas. (Where they are completely overhauling their labs because of problems.)
How many times has it been found out that someone went to jail not because they are guilty but because someone else wanted them out of the way?
How many death r
Re:Cluster and Classify ... (Score:2)
Re:Cluster and Classify ... (Score:2)
That would be almost everyone with a Y chromosome...
The solution is easy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The solution is easy (Score:3, Insightful)
If you clone a guilty person, at birth the clone will be innocent.
What do to with innocent people's DNA (Score:5, Funny)
I shall use it to create (Score:5, Funny)
No bad can come of that...right?
It's just data... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
Re:This will never fly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This will never fly (Score:5, Insightful)
How is DNA any different?
Re:This will never fly (Score:4, Informative)
People are afraid because they think that all it will take is some lab person to testify that the dna matched and they will be convicted.
Of course we've never had a problem with that before [cnn.com].
Re:This will never fly (Score:3, Interesting)
Who says it is?.
This same argument has been going on in regards of what to do with photographs and fingerprints of people after they are aquitted.
After a person is cleared on the offence there is no additional benefit to society to keep their personal information which outweighs the invasion of privacy that person suffers for having that information be on the "Record".
For an innocent person, having their fingerprints show up in a criminal database is an invasion of privacy. Tha
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.
All your base pairs..... (Score:2, Funny)
Been doing it for awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this pretty much the same thing?
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironic that the places with *incredible* problems with machine politics are the ones whose policies are more protective of the citizenry, isn't it?
(Excepting of course the sad tendency of Chicago cops to get promoted for beating the heads of innocent citizens to a pulp, and the sad tendency of Detroit politicians to never have to actually *do* anything to improve their city an
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.
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:3, Funny)
-nB
Re:Been doing it for awhile (Score:3, Informative)
Type III protects against 7.62 mm full metal jacketed bullets (U.S. military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.7 g (150 gr) impacting at a velocity of 838 m (2750 ft) per second or less.
If that's not enough, you can step up to type IV. But there exists no armor qualified to stop
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:Been doing it for awhile (Score:2)
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.
DNA is largely similar for close relatives (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DNA is largely similar for close relatives (Score:3, Informative)
No, what they got was sufficient cause for a warrant.
They used the daughter's DNA to obtain a warrant for *his* DNA.
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...
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.
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
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too many "easy" counterargs (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, an appropriate quote (Score:5, Insightful)
-George Orwell
Mod me to hell and back... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, let me guess. Same as the disposition of the photographs and fingerprints of the innocent?
I don't get it. How is the potential for abuse any higher just because the sample is DNA? To me, the benefits of being able to solve a years old case based on DNA samples outweighs the risks of abuse within the system. Lets give the cops the tools they need to put the crooks away. Just make sure there are no loopholes in the law that would allow
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.
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!
Who else gets to access it? (Score:2)
there are no innocents (Score:3, Interesting)
if the people have given the state the right to spy on them, tag them, track, divide and thus conquer them, then the people have lost their innocence. it will be difficult to find it again because corruption doesn't kill innocence, it defaces it and leaves it the subject of mockery. in this way, the mean spirited ride the tides of entropy over their and in fact all unborn children.
can corruption be eased-off, or must it be broken?
innocent? (Score:5, Interesting)
"No one is innocent!" --Agent Rogersz, Repo Man
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.
Armed Forces Members Probably In Same Boat (Score:5, Interesting)
It has been 8 years since I was discharged. Want to bet that my information is available to law enforcement, even though I have never been convicted or accused of a crime?
It's going to be a long time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 no
In Michigan (Score:4, Informative)
Same law in the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, he's also going to track our daily movements through automatic CCTV facial recognition & the ID Card audit trail.
This law has been passed by House of Commons and is currently being debated in the House of Lords. Unless the Lords block it, I'm emigrating somewhere less Orwellian. Anyone want to swap citizenship? I'm serious...
Data never goes away (Score:5, Interesting)
All of this means that any law or policy that increases data collection is not only dangerous, but the data usually gets used for other things beyond the original purpose - information *does* want to be free. Anything that hangs an unique identifier on data, such as a National ID Card Number (or SSN, or SIN, or driver's license number), makes it easy for data to be imported into other systems and aggregated together. Anything that hangs a non-unique ID onto something, like a firstname+lastname, increases the chances that data will be imported into other systems incorrectly, combining your data with known criminal SameFirstInitial+DifferentMiddleInitial+SimilarLas tname who lives in a different city. In both cases, you'll never get the data expunged.
On the other hand, Moore's Law also means that applications that used to be unthinkable are now routine. When mainframes costs tens of millions of dollars and needed to be fed punchcards and stored stuff on magtape, writing database applications took a couple of years and a large budget, so only critical applications that could be used by lots of people got written. These days, a cheap desktop computer can hold lots more data, and any random civil servant can run a Spreadsheet query or simple fill-out-the-form database application for anything they feel like, such as tracking their ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend's phone bills. And most of that data could really fit in a pocket-computer as well, so next year that same civil servant or telemarketer can take a picture of your face or license plate using their camera-phone and look it up for some arbitrary reason (currently it takes a laptop for the license-plate lookup, and it's being done to nail parking ticket non-payers.)
I'm just wondering if criminals will use a DNA (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't want to use an M80 just get a spritzer bottle full of some DNA containing fluid and spray it everywhere all over a crime scene. I wonder if you could extract DNA sequences from barber shop cuttings and do this?
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.
DNA matching accuracy (Score:4, Interesting)
When properly used, this is not a problem. "Properly used" means that you find your suspects using traditional methods, and afterwards run a DNA test on them. Get a match there, and you've got your criminal. It's a Bayesian thing, basically.
What is not proper is to start with DNA, and test the criminal's against all the people you happen to have DNA on file for, looking for a match.
Using DNA to find suspects is only good when you either have a comprehensive database that has DNA from everyone, or your tests are so accurate that they really do uniquely identify people. Like I said, I don't know if they are accurate enough for that. A few years ago, they were not.
Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to at least have the right to know exactly what personal data any organisation has on you (a right enjoyed by the EU)
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.
I voted against this thing... (Score:5, Informative)
(a)A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or her DNA specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program pusuant to the procedures set forth in subdivision (b) if the person has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person [for inclusion] and there is otherwise no legal bases for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile.
(b)Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense, and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:
(c)(1)The person requesting the data bank entry to be expunged must send a copy of his or her request to the trial court of the county where the arrest occured, or that entered the conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the [lab], and to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition or writ.
Emphasis mine. So even if you jump through the damn complicated hoops, a judge can just say "No" and you are done--it's there for good. That's some great law, California! As for the earlier poster that thinks this is OK because we leave DNA everywhere anyway, like Gattaca--that movie did not represent this situation as a GOOD THING. It was a dystopian vision, not something to begrudgingly accept.
This is going to be a big issue FAST (Score:5, Informative)
What happens if mass testing becomes "routine" throughout the US? The fair and proper terms for the disposal of DNA samples of vindicated people is going to become a big, big thing. And please, don't give me "if you're innocent you have nothing to fear". DNA evidence can easily be altered or corrupted within the first few hours of collection. Especially if you have a sample already in hand. A very uncommon thing today but who can say about tomorrow.
We all know the answer to these questions:
Will the DNA sample of a vindicated person be disposed of after the trial, after all appeals or never? Never
Will the refusal to voluntarily give a DNA sample subject you to further scrutiny than a similar person who willingly submits? Yes
Will employers someday within the next ten years require a DNA sample for employment, similar to how most major retail chains require a test for legel and illegal drug use (Like Wal-Mart or Home Depot)? Yes
Will the US Congress do anything to protect the rights of the individual into this intrusion into one's privacy? No
Welcome to the New Amerika. Please leave your quaint notions of personal freedom at the border.
Here and Now : Truro DNA Case - 1/12/2005 [here-now.org]
Boston.com / News / Local / DNA testing troubles some in Truro [boston.com]
CBS News ACLU Slams Mass DNA Collection [cbsnews.com]
USATODAY.com - ACLU seeks end to Mass. DNA collections [usatoday.com]
Cape Cod Times article: "New England town abuzz over DNA dragnet" [unknownnews.org]
Not to be pedantic, but (Score:3, Insightful)
This hits close to home - literally (Score:4, Informative)
The police came to his house. His wife opened the door. The police asked if they could have a swab of his DNA. He didn't resist, and the police were very polite through the whole ordeal.
Now, in this case there was no police brutality, no coersion, no force, etc. Just a simple "may we get a swab of your DNA". My uncle had the right to say no, but obviously the police would have held him under the microscope.
There are really two separate issues in play here.
First, do the police have a right to request DNA evidense from a potentical suspect. I believe they do have the right to ask. I also believe the fifth ammendment gives the right to not incriminate yourself, so you do have the right to say no. The police will still consider you a suspect, but that's the way the law works.
Second, (and more importantly) once the police have cleared your name, does the DNA evidense get thrown away or warehoused? Everything said in the local papers and news has been that the evidense will get thrown away, but it would be nice to have some confirmation of that fact. I'll tell you that if the evidense doesn't get thrown away, the DA is going to get an ear-full from some 1300 of our swabbed citizens.
Side note, I actually have a family member that works at the prision where Dennis is being held. He said that Dennis didn't like the food. <g>
There are no innocent people? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I was joking.
This is already law in the UK (Score:3, Informative)
It's going to be a close race between the UK and the US as to which becomes the full police state earlier!
Mandatory DNA samples (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK, police can already take a DNA sample if you're arrested for any crime (even if you're not charged, let alone convicted). Samples are kept indefinitely and added to the national DNA database [theregister.co.uk], which could be sold to private companies [guardian.co.uk] or cross-referenced with the National Identity Register [computerweekly.com] to find out the subject's current name and address.
Re:DNA is hushed (Score:2, Funny)
I've always admired you, your clever way with words and such. You're my hero! Can you please send me a lock of your hair?
Re:Illegal search and seizure (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Illegal search and seizure (Score:4, Informative)
The law was passed as Prop 69 last year. Yes, it requires that eventually all people convicted of felony charges and certain misdemeanor charges provide DNA samples, and all persons convicted of a felony under the care or direction of the California Penal System (in custody or on parole or probation) provide samples. In addition, it laid out very specific rules for what to do with DNA of people not charged or found not guilty. Of note from California Penal Code Section 299 [ca.gov]:
Basically, if a person is found not guilty or acquitted, or charges have been dropped for at least 180 days and there is no retrial or appeal pending (this is covered later), then the person may submit a written request to have the record expunged and the sample destroyed. The law basically requires that the request be granted as long as a few things are included, none of which are easily avoided because of the wording of the law.
Re:Illegal search and seizure (Score:5, Informative)
(c)(1)The person requesting the data bank entry to be expunged must send a copy of his or her request to the trial court of the county where the arrest occured, or that entered the conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the [lab], and to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition or writ. (thank you jeblucas!)
See that last sentence? A judge can just tell you to go screw yourself if he so chooses anyway!
Re:Illegal search and seizure (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Clone Them (Score:5, Funny)
Close.... a super-race of people who aren't guilty of crimes, but are really suspicious-looking.
Re:Cancel health insurance before it costs too muc (Score:3)
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.
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:DNA instead of passwords. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:all too true (Score:3, Insightful)
but yeah you have absolutely got to think of the child
Re:I'll tell you what (Score:3, Funny)
Because political dissent isn't genetic, dufus.