thewayne: (Default)
So New York has taken samples for all felony convictions. Now they're going to start taking them for ALL convictions: drunk and disorderly, shoplifting, turnstile jumping. Heck, I suppose if you fight a speeding ticket in court and lose that they might take a sample.

Their reasoning is that repeat offenders start small, and by getting that sample early on, they might be easier to catch later on.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/16/1428243/new-york-state-passes-dna-requirement-for-almost-all-convicted-criminals
thewayne: (Default)
California voters passed a measure that if you're arrested for a felony, a DNA swab would be taken and stored in a database. Even if you were not charged with a crime, or found innocent, or the charges dismissed, the sample persisted in the database. The ACLU challenged the law in the potential invasive nature of storing DNA samples, a judge upheld the measure. The ACLU could appeal higher up, we'll see if they do.

If you are not charged or charges are dropped or you're exonerated, you can file an appeal to have your sample expunged, but you have to wait for the statute of limitations to expire in case the prosecutors want to re-file charges.

The difference between DNA samples and fingerprinting is that all a fingerprint will do is confirm your identity, a DNA sample can tell a whole lot more about you. California engages in 'familial searches' with the DNA and arrested a man as a possible serial killer based on a DNA sample found at a crime scene that hit on a familial match against his son who is in prison.

My feelings are mixed, and the above example does nothing to help it. The son had clearly been convicted of a felony to earn a prison sentence. I don't have a problem with DNA samples of convicted offenders, but as a dragnet to get DNA samples for potential matches, this is bad news. As a comment on the Wired story pointed out, there would be no problem with entering the state, having a cop accuse you of the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, take a blood sample, then decline to file charges. And if you're accused of murder or other capitol crimes, there's no statute of limitations.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/california-dna-taking/
thewayne: (Default)
It's only for certain crimes, mainly high-level violence. The thing that really sucks is that there's no provision for the sample being expunged if there's no indictment or conviction. If you don't want to let them take a sample, they can get a court order and forcibly take a cheek swab or blood sample. And the act of refusing it can make you guilty of another charge, sort of like refusing DUI testing.

I'm absolutely confident that there would be no mission creep, so that an arrest for shoplifting or DUI would not result in your DNA being taken.

The ACLU is suing in California, which has been collecting samples and using them to trace back family information to form new investigative leads: if they can't find Bobby, maybe Bobby's daddy or cousin knows where he is.

One of the problems with this is the concept of medical privacy. If they have your blood sample, aside from identifying "you" to a certain degree, all sorts of tests can be run: are you pregnant, do you have cancer, etc. At a basic level, I don't think this is a problem because there's probably not a single law enforcement agency crime lab in the country who has the time to run such tests when they have a back log of other identification tests to be run. But at the same time, Texas passed a law or regulation that required fetal stem cell blood to be collected and sent to a central repository, which was supposedly private and secure, then turned around and allowed research to be performed on that blood without the knowledge or consent of the parents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005458-38.html

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/05/20/2032223/House-Votes-To-Expand-National-DNA-Arrest-Database

Another interesting thing is that Nick Kleg, the new British Assistant Prime Minister has said that they're going to start purging the UK DNA database which has suffered from mission creep, so England is going in the exact opposite direction that we are.
thewayne: (Default)
"State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles.

The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people.

The FBI estimated the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion. But the mug shots of the two felons suggested that they were not related: One was black, the other white.

In the years after her 2001 discovery, Troyer found dozens of similar matches -- each seeming to defy impossible odds."


Nine loci is usually plenty good to get a conviction in court.

Oh, well. Maybe once we have everyone's retina patterns stored in a database and are under 24/7 video surveillance, THEN we'll be safe. Gee, I wonder how many law suits and appeals will be filed over this one?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dna20-2008jul20,0,1506170,full.story

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/20/0244237

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
1112 131415 1617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 18th, 2025 07:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios