Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection 135
An anonymous reader writes On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a case involving the conviction of a man based solely on the analysis of his "inadvertently shed" DNA. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that this tacit approval of the government's practice of collecting anyone's DNA anywhere without a warrant will lead to a future in which people's DNA are "entered into and checked against DNA databases and used to conduct pervasive surveillance."
Passed Time (Score:2)
Re:Passed Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That said, collection of your DNA before hand, to have it on file for comparison just in case you commit a crime, is a breach of privacy. It's painful to imagine a world where one of the first things done when someone is born is to collect DNA for comparison throughout the baby's life.
Re:Passed Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone has committed a crime. They just haven't been caught. Police will always have that on their side.
Re: (Score:1)
And that my friend is the definition of a police state.
Re: (Score:1)
We are unconvicted criminals living in the community.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone has committed a crime. They just haven't been caught. Police will always have that on their side.
If you believe that...they've already got you.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, in law enforcement? This is a story about warrantless collection of DNA in a rape case. Not everyone is a rapist. How far do we let police intrude into people's lives who HAVE NOT committed any crime? How far can they intrude into your life without probable cause to believe you committed a particular crime? Should they be allowed to scan though your house walls? If you let infrared light seep out of your house, that is your problem! Should they be allowed to read all your emails? Oh, if you send your emails using weak encryption procedures through a third party, that is your problem! Should they be allowed to listen to all of your phone calls? Same principle.
The theory is we're supposed to be a free and open society. But not so open that those who have not committed a crime should have their information (DNA or whatever) stored in a database. We're supposed to have protection from government intrusion, at least that's part of what the Constitution was trying to prevent. We're supposed to be secure in our person and property. At least that's where DNA is getting very iffy lately. It's part of OUR Person..
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in t
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, in law enforcement? This is a story about warrantless collection of DNA in a rape case. Not everyone is a rapist.
That's true.... but if enough people are in the DNA database, then it is likely for many innocent people to wind up being accused.
If police have sampled armchair DNA from 10 million people over the years and built a database of 1 million entries.
If the confidence of a match in the DNA test is 99.99%.
Then that means the test is still wrong 0.01% of the time, so in such a l
Profoundly uninformed summary - SCOTUS uninvolved. (Score:3)
What are you, in law enforcement? This is a story about warrantless collection of DNA in a rape case. Not everyone is a rapist. How far do we let police intrude into people's lives who HAVE NOT committed any crime? How far can they intrude into your life without probable cause to believe you committed a particular crime? Should they be allowed to scan though your house walls? If you let infrared light seep out of your house, that is your problem! Should they be allowed to read all your emails? Oh, if you send your emails using weak encryption procedures through a third party, that is your problem! Should they be allowed to listen to all of your phone calls? Same principle.
Nothing is inherently wrong with taking a position on either side of the issue, and defining where the sphere of individual liberty meets the public interest in catching individuals responsible for crime will always be open for debate in a free society.
But the summary and headline here are profoundly wrong. SCOTUS receives *THOUSANDS* of petitions every year and only hear about 100 cases. When they don't accept a case, it doesn't mean they're approving it, even tacitly, and the case doesn't become binding
Re: (Score:2)
The one with the four big-breasted tenants?
Re: (Score:1)
There's an obvious defense in your example.
Also, the first thing you say if handcuffed by the police is "I would like to phone my lawyer" and then nothing else.
Re: (Score:3)
It's unlikely to happen because what you said is mostly BS. A smart phone contains all kinds of sensitive information like logs of where you've been and of private conversations between you and several other people (which may or may not be related to a case the police are investigating). Your DNA can't possibly contain information like that. Today it might be able to tell the police you have blonde hair and blue eyes, but so can your driver's license. Sure it might eventually be able to let the police gener
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Today it might be able to tell the police you have blonde hair and blue eyes, but so can your driver's license. Sure it might eventually be able to let the police generate a picture of what you look like based on your DNA, but once again so can your driver's license.
Ah, but can the drivers license tell the police that you are predisposed to [serial murder, mental illness, being a sociopath]? Because there are certainly studies looking at whether genes can (http://www.nc-cm.org/article213.htm)
Re: (Score:2)
beyond a shadow of a doubt
reasonable doubt. Different standard.
Re:Passed Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the police can do something, doesn't mean they should be legally allowed to do it.
Ah, but you see, this is only one half of this overall problem.
The real issue is when the police do something illegal and are caught, we fail to apply appropriate punishment for the crime that was committed by law enforcement.
Seems today we offer nothing but impunity to all those charged with creating or enforcing laws. Until that damn attitude changes, it's fucking pointless to talk about laws and rules. It really is.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the police can do something, doesn't mean they should be legally allowed to do it. Before all the fingerprint comments start, I will remind folks that DNA is categorically different than fingerprints. Yes, both can identify an individual. But that is like saying both a driver's license and a smart phone can be used to identify a person. If you search someone's smart phone, you have boatloads more information. DNA is becomming more useful by leaps and bounds every year. This is too much information for the government to just blythely collect and shove into databases with little safeguard against hacking, misuse, and abuse. There seriously needs to be a national discussion and laws passed. It is sad that this is unlikely to happen.
Some (ie, those part of the security industrial complex) do not want this discussion because they fear a curtailment of police powers. Others do not want it because they don't trust our current government to not bend this discussion into the interests of the wealthy.
Luckily the supreme court is a bastion of ethical behavior and impartiality [1]. I trust this outcome is based on a rational forward-thinking, wise consideration.
[1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the way to stop it. Gather some DNA from high level politicians. Replicate enough of it so it you have useful quantity. Spread it around crime scenes, porn, whatever. Make sure that politician is in a DNA database.
Re:Passed Time (Score:5, Funny)
You don't even need to go that far to spoof this sort of surveillance.
1. Collect DNA from hundreds or thousands of humans, animals, plants from your local sewage plant or equivalent.
2. Clear off the icky parts, do a bulk DNA purification that can be done with kitchen chemistry. Much easier than making meth.
3. Freeze dry the stuff
4. Package in convenient creme, aerosol or get (bonus points for 'sporty scent')
5. Sell in local stores as 'natural health aid' - bypasses difficult FDA or DEA regulatory requirements*
6. Sprinkle on before attempted crime or just twice a day along with your tin foil change (you DO change your tin foil regularly, yes?)
7. Profit! **
* in USA only, Depending on status of lawmaking and regulatory agencies, YMMV. Not valid in the Eurozone.
** Patent Pending as soon as we figure out how to do this on a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the DNA grenade i saw in some recent sci-fi series.
Re: (Score:2)
The number one criticism of America's national security, in cases like Wade Page, Christopher Dorner, and the Boston Marathon, is "You're not doing enough."
How can we sell your solution to the, for the sake of brevity, sheeple?
Because the moment a bunch of people die, and your proposal seems to be somewhere around, you sound like a domestic terrorist. That's some scary shit, to me.
As an enlightened individual, I could not participate in this. People die, and answers must be found. Should someone have pre
Re: (Score:2)
"YMMV. Not valid in the Eurozone."
Well of course not - we use kilometers.
Give Your Congressperson Some of Your DNA (Score:2)
I don't mind, so long as the government doesn't have a problem with me giving them a sample at a time and place of my choosing.
A Cat Tag (Score:2)
That's nuts.. (Score:2)
Another blob field added into the NSA databases I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
blob
Thanks for that mental image in this particular context.
As the majority pointed out (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Now you have an unknown sample of DNA. You can now compare it to... right. There is the problem. You need a database to compare it to. Can police just catalog everyone's DNA?...
Wow! a match! now we know what? That this person's DNA was at the crime scene. Does that mean they definitely did it, no other proof necessary?
DNA matching is statistical. With a 1 in 10 million false positive rate, there are about 800 people in the world who would match. About 35 of them in the USA.
You cannot use DNA alone to place someone at the scene of a crime unless you have some other way to reduce the population of people with whom you are comparing, like presence in the town, knowing the victim, other physical evidence, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I am. This has led to many miscarriages of justice.
Prosecutor: "The DNA test shows there is a 1 in 10 million change that this person is not guilty"
Truth: "The DNA test shows that this person is one of around 35 people in the USA who could have deposited this DNA, I.E. 1 person in 10 million of the US population (assuming the US population to be 350 million)"
There needs to be something else to make it that person and not someone else. Scouring a DNA database of the whole US is going to throw up many false p
Re: (Score:2)
Anything you leave behind at a crime scene is fair game.
The real issue isn't even DNA. It's in collecting a registry on people who are not suspected of committing a crime, whether it's because they were fingerprinted for fool enough to fly into the Land of the Free from a foreign country or applied for a job or whatever.
Because crime scenes aren't "clean" places. A lot of people have typically been on-scene. Jumping at the first match you find on file can end up convicting the wrong person. The actual perp
Re:As the majority pointed out (Score:4, Informative)
Anything you leave behind at a crime scene is fair game.
What about stuff you leave behind NOT at a crime scene?
So they got some DNA at a crime scene, but don't know whose it is. They think it might be you, but the judge denies them a warrant based on lack of evidence... so they follow you around until they see you throw away a cup, or a piece of gum, or sneeze and toss the tissue away in a public place. Then they amble up and help themselves.
The couldn't get a warrant for your DNA, but because its impossible to live a normal and free life without shedding DNA they just had to wait a while until you left some behind.
Whether or not that is "ok" is something that deserves national discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
so they follow you around until they see you throw away a cup, or a piece of gum, or sneeze and toss the tissue away in a public place. Then they amble up and help themselves.
That sounds like "police work" to me. I'd rather police spend their time doing things like staking out suspected criminals than doing what the NSA does.
Re: (Score:2)
or sneeze and toss the tissue away in a public place.
Thanks for loaning me a sheet of Kleenex. But next time, could you make sure it isn't used?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you watch Law and Order regularly? Or maybe you watched Star Chamber once?
"What about" nothing. Anything you leave behind at a crime scene is fair game. This is a valid point.
I passed by there on my way to buy flowers for some girl.
I farted while buying groceries.
Whether it is OK is not something I would leave to the average voter. National discussion involves 49% idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Or after they fail to get a warrant or do not even bother, they ask you to come down to the station to make a statement and if you decline, arrest you for purposes of a custodial interrogation (maybe as a material witness) which is just for the reason of acquiring your DNA anyway.
This will be just another reason never to cooperate with law enforcement as if another was needed.
Re: (Score:2)
They already go through trash looking for evidence. Indeed, this is why anyone can root through trash that's in a publicly-accessable space -- because courts so ruled.
But more of a problem is -- how accurate is that DNA analysis? I knew a biologist who worked in a lab that does DNA sampling, and she said the accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. (The topic was ID'ing carriers of genetic defects in dogs, but the same principle applies.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem right here. I got to the bank and deposit some money. After I leave a guy comes in and robs it.
Police collect tons of DNA and find that since they found some of mine they can charge me with a crime because they managed to get a huge database of it by testing everyone in town.
Re: (Score:2)
Because crime scenes aren't "clean" places. A lot of people have typically been on-scene. Jumping at the first match you find on file can end up convicting the wrong person. The actual perp may have been someone who'd managed to stay under the radar.
That's why it's called police work. DNA may put someone at a scene, but how and where it is found is very important as to wetter or not the person is a suspect. On a glass in the dishwasher? Probably not if the person is known to the victim. On a rape kit swab or under the victim's fingernails if they said they scratched the perpetrator? Sounds like at least a suspect to me in absence of other information.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly the problem. Previously a warrant was required and in this case they could or did not get one but now they can get DNA without a warrant though an interrogation. You might be able to not touch anything and avoid leaving a fingerprint but not shedding DNA is not going to happen.
The response when this becomes common will l
Criminals and revolutionaries of the future beware (Score:2)
They'll wind up using the same sort of protective techniques the superstitious used to use against witchcraft --- being careful not to shed any blood, skin, hair or nail clippings when engaged in their illicit activities.
I can see a scene in a science fiction movie (God forbid it really needs to happen) where the protagonist's best friend, despite the padded, blood-absorbing armor which they were when conducting sabotage against the state is injured, so that a single drop of blood drops to the ground --- wh
Re: (Score:2)
And whatever you do, don't let anyone learn your True Name. If they have your True Name, they have power over you.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that is a pretty great similarity - thus, just like (spoiler) Locke Lamora isn't his real name... the best way to foil (techno)mages is to lie your rear end off.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither should you let them know your middle name.
Unless it's "Danger".
If it's "Danger" let them know it, as it instill fear in their hearts.
Or "Wolf". Let them know it's "Wolf" too.
Or a color. Any color instills fear too.
Except "Pink". Don't let them know your middle name is "Pink" or you'll die on your first day in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem is that they don't sample your entire DNA, only specific parts of it which sometimes could also match or partial match your siblings (eg. identical twins), parents, clones and other close relatives.
Despite what you may think, DNA tests as performed by police have never been scientifically proven to be globally unique. It is unlikely for someone to have the same DNA markers than you but it's not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Criminals and revolutionaries of the future bew (Score:5, Interesting)
Or rather, but large collections of random people's dna, in spray form, and spray every crime site.
Some people keep forgetting that arms races are races. The fact that one side moves forward doesn't, by itself, give that side an advantage.
Re: (Score:1)
I think some bad guys did that in an episode of Almost Human a year or so ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that one side moves forward doesn't, by itself, give that side an advantage
It certainly does when one side holds the power of coercive authority. You can't actually win against coercive authority. You can try to circumvent it, but you can never defeat it, because the advantage of coercion is absolute.
Which, as we all know, is the reason to be living in an Absolute Monarchy.
What about the public? (Score:5, Interesting)
So does this ruling apply to the public or only to government?
For example, could I legally collect Elizabeth Warren's "inadvertently shed" DNA and have it tested to find out if she really has a Native American ancestor?
If this is something only the government can do legally, then what law gives them but not me the right to collect other people's DNA and have it analyzed without their permission?
More to the point, is there any law preventing me or anyone else from doing this right now? I can see James O'Keefe with a cotton swab and vial chasing Elizabeth Warren across the Harvard campus.
Re: (Score:1)
If you were a waiter that served her you could take DNA from her drinking glass for instance. The problem you would run in to as a private citizen will be establishing chain of custody.
In your scenario how do you actually prove to someone that what you have is, in fact, Elizabeth Warren's DNA and that it hasn't been tampered with, and doing so without compelling a sample to compare against from the subject.
Re: (Score:3)
If you were a waiter that served her you could take DNA from her drinking glass for instance. The problem you would run in to as a private citizen will be establishing chain of custody.
In your scenario how do you actually prove to someone that what you have is, in fact, Elizabeth Warren's DNA and that it hasn't been tampered with, and doing so without compelling a sample to compare against from the subject.
Uh, the question is not a matter of validating evidence to ensure a legal chain of custody. The question is a matter of having the legal authority to collect it in the first place.
I could give a shit who manufactured the plastic vial that holds my illegally collected DNA sample. I'm a bit more concerned as to how and why it was collected.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is something only the government can do legally, then what law gives them but not me the right to collect other people's DNA and have it analyzed without their permission?
The government could be prevented from collection by the Fourth Amendment... but the Fourth is based on preventing the state harassing a citizen, and "inadvertently shed" DNA rather implies that there was no inconvenience to the suspect, and thus no violation.
More to the point, is there any law preventing me or anyone else from doing this right now? I can see James O'Keefe with a cotton swab and vial chasing Elizabeth Warren across the Harvard campus.
Private citizens are prevented from harassing other citizens by various anti-harassment laws which vary by local jurisdiction. Chasing someone across the campus probably isn't allowed, but pulling a cup from the trash (once, so as not to be considered
Re: (Score:2)
So does this ruling apply to the public or only to government?
For example, could I legally collect Elizabeth Warren's "inadvertently shed" DNA and have it tested to find out if she really has a Native American ancestor?
Well, the case is about "a case that examines whether police should be allowed to collect and analyze 'inadvertently shed' DNA without a warrant or consent" which has nothing to do with any of those you are talking about. It is very specific on whether "police" or law enforcement can do that. Not about unspecific circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet. Prove Chelsea Clinton's dad was Web Hubble.
It's not approval of any sort (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court often denies review of cases it sees are unfit for deciding an issue, or for many other reasons. That does not mean that the court approves of a lower court decision. The court often lets the lower courts work on the issue, developing arguments and evidence, before stepping in to decide an important constitutional issue.
It's too late... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this is the least bit relevant. Medical studies should be done on willing doners....there is no excuse to do otherwise. Anyone involved in doing this sort of research in such an unethical manner belongs in prison if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding rape kits, I don't think it's a violation of the rapist's rights to have their DNA collected. The DNA they "donated" in that case might be thoug
Re: (Score:3)
Yes well a rape kit is not medical testing of an unwilling doner it falls under collecting evidence directly from the scene of the crime. Its not JUST dna but actually evidence of the crime itself which, really is another matter entirely.
We are talking about covert collection outside of the act of any crime, which is an entirely different matter. I don't know why you would conflate the two at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about surreptitious collection of DNA, consider that countering an incorrect sample taken off a toilet seat or something would require little more than spitting on a swab. Every way this decision might be abused can be trivially countered.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I am worried about the constant expansion of police powers, which, I think need to be rolled back.
I am worried about surreptitious collection AT ALL. There really is no need for it. Frankly any time the police say "We think that guy there is a suspect we need to collect more about"....warrant. Period, every time, every situation....with the exception of the very time sensitive "ticking bomb" scenario.... and a very narrow one
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, there's a growing industry for DNA analysis, genetic engineering, and even (soon) medical profiling by DNA sample. With law enforcement empowered to gather DNA evidence without a warrant, that industry will grow. If you consider the GMO lob
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I generally do object to that. Not for nothing but, if they really have a reason to suspect a specific individual and be collecting such evidence at all, then they can and should get a warrant to obtain it. I see no reason to make exceptions on such thin loopholes. Such requirements should always be interpreted as STRICTLY as possible, if there is even question over whether a warrant is appropriate....fucking get one....aka DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.
Hell even if they don't think they need one....why not
Re:Nothing wrong here. (Score:4, Insightful)
This comment makes absolutely no sense. Where does probable cause come from, except from an investigation? How do you expect police to do their job if they're only allowed to start collecting evidence after they get a warrant, which must be supported by evidence?
The purpose of a warrant is to allow the police to breach your otherwise constitutionally-guaranteed reasonable expectation of privacy. A warrant permits police to search your home, person, vehicle, or other private space without your permission. Other than such private spaces, police don't need permission from anybody to investigate. They certainly don't need a warrant to search a crime scene, where you have no legally-protected reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
--
JimFive
Re: (Score:2)
New nucleobase discovered! (Score:2)
from the welcome-to-gattica dept.
Really?
contamination? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from the huge privacy issues, I'm even more concerned that they would screw up collecting it. Everyone sheds DNA. Who is to say that the DNA they collect is actually from the person they think it is? DNA gets all mixed together after it leaves a person's body.
Yes, I know that if you are arrested for something because they screwed up, it is easy enough to give them some real DNA to clear your name, but how long until they do that on purpose in order to legitimately collect some? What legal recourse would you have?
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the huge privacy issues, I'm even more concerned that they would screw up collecting it. Everyone sheds DNA. Who is to say that the DNA they collect is actually from the person they think it is? DNA gets all mixed together after it leaves a person's body.
In this case, the person was sitting in the chair, they swabbed it after he left, and it matched that found at the scene. Not hard to connect the dots.
I wouldn't be surprised if the wiped down the chair beforehand to remove potential contamination.
DNA would be collected at the crime scene and found in locations that wouldn't normally be found if someone merely visited the person so it's not as if he visited, they found his DNA on a chair at the scene, and decided he committed the crime.
In both collection c
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the huge privacy issues, I'm even more concerned that they would screw up collecting it. Everyone sheds DNA. Who is to say that the DNA they collect is actually from the person they think it is? DNA gets all mixed together after it leaves a person's body.
That's what juries are for. The prosecution presents evidence that the defendant's DNA was found at the scene of the crime. The defense attorney then attacks the credibility of the evidence, for example by offering an alternative theory for why his DNA was there, or attacking the method of collection to raise doubt that it's actually his DNA the police collected. (He doesn't necessarily have to provide his own DNA sample. Defendants aren't obligated to prove their innocence.) Then the investigator explains
Supremes, et al (Score:2, Insightful)
Genetics provide too much info about people (Score:2)
Currently DNA analysis is quite crude, basically enough to determine some genetic predisposition to illness and family relationships.
But there is indication that researcher might be able to find generic markers with predispose people to various conditions and traits (such as being left handed, homosexual, overweight, balding violent, psychopathic, etc.). Do you really want this information to be in the hands of big government and multi-national corporations?
Even if someone is genetically predisposed to som
Never cooperate (Score:2)
Um, current practice? (Score:2)
Are we going to permit 'inadvertently shed" fingerprints also?
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
It's still quite a bit different from fingerprints. You can be smart and wipe down the soda can the cops gave you during an interview rather than throwing it away and allowing them to collect it. Good luck getting your DNA off of it. It's much harder to control where you leave sweat or a stray hair if you spend 24 hours in holding. Can they just pull it off the clothes they took off you when they processed you in, despite the fact you had no choice about turning them over? Either we have the right to refuse
Wrong test case for legal argument (Score:1)
I'm generally supportive of any efforts by the EFF etc. regarding privacy claims but this was the wrong test case for their argument. Specifically the EFF was arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to just collect random DNA samples & keep them in a database forever, but that's NOT what the case was about. The police used the collected DNA to compare to DNA found at the scene, they found a match & used that as evidence to support a charge. That is no different then collecting any evidence
Title is BS (Score:4, Informative)
Denial of certiorari sets no precedent. They could have rejected this case for any number of reasons, from a full calendar to the suit involving side issues which would make any ruling muddy to not liking the name of the defendant. They denied without comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a sterling indictment on the state of either autocorrect, non-physical keyboards or the dangers of using bath salts.
My head asplode.