5 ms·

How could the government get their hands on your DNA, unless you've committed some crime in which your bodily fluids were involved? > However, what if your cou

How could the government get their hands on your DNA, unless you've committed some crime in which your bodily fluids were involved? > However, what if your cousin uploads his? If you've given your DNA freely to the government by participating in a violent crime, then hopefully you will be caught and your cousin will be relieved that yet another criminal will face justice.

jnwatson 9y ago
In the case of the serial killer, they got a match through the suspect’s relatives’ DNA and filtering for age and location. Then they went through the suspect’s trash to get an item with his DNA on it.
artificial 9y ago
No crime needed. Here's some common means over the last 10 years: [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/dna-dragnet-in-some-cities-police-go-from-stop-and-frisk-to-stop-and-spit https://www.propublica.org/article/dna-dragnet-in-some-citie... [1] https://freedomoutpost.com/texas-cops-detaining-individuals-dna-samples/ https://freedomoutpost.com/texas-cops-detaining-individuals-... [2] http://www.wlky.com/article/accused-killer-challenging-traffic-stop-that-led-to-dna-sample/3747762 http://www.wlky.com/article/accused-killer-challenging-traff...
- tathougies 9y ago
  Link [0]: voluntarily given samples. There is an issue with stop and frisk, but it has to do with warrantless search. This was an issue before this case, and will still be an issue. It is a separate issue. Nevertheless, in this rapists' case, no evidence was collected by warrantles searches. All evidence was freely submitted. Link [1]: Again, this has to do with forced seizures. These are actually wrong, independent of any DNA collected. Nevertheless, the government did not do any of that here. Link [2]: The police claim to have pulled the man over because of probable cause. They have a right to do this. They collected a cigar from his car. I'm not certain of the legality of this, tbh. But as to the legality of pulling over a car suspected of speeding? I'm pretty sure that's legal. Look, I find government overreach to be a major problem. But this is not a case of government overreach. There was no warrantless anything in this case. The relative of the rapist has no standing to sue the FBI in court for wrongful use of their information, because they freely provided it to a website. In all the cases you listed, the people (in my opinion) should have a right to have cases dismissed because this information was collected illegally.
pessimizer 9y ago
> If you've given your DNA freely to the government by participating in a violent crime Ignoring the intentionally bizarre phrasing ("if you've freely stoned yourself to death by committing adultery"), this is unrelated to the actual situation, which forces people arrested for a felony to surrender their DNA. 1) Both not restricted to "violent" crimes and not including all violent crimes, and 2) not requiring a conviction, or charges to be pressed.
- tathougies 9y ago
  I'm not sure how you're comparing adultery to rape. When a man rapes a woman, he typically leaves behind his own DNA in the form of semen. That DNA is the only DNA the government has access to. Contrary to what everyone here is saying, the government does not have access to the relative's DNA at all. The phrasing was not intentionally bizarre. If you rape someone, then you consent to have your DNA examined by authorities so that they can catch you and put you in jail. The irony in having to defend the idea of needing consent from a rapist has apparently escaped Hacker News's hive mind.

jnwatson 9y ago

In the case of the serial killer, they got a match through the suspect’s relatives’ DNA and filtering for age and location. Then they went through the suspect’s trash to get an item with his DNA on it.

artificial 9y ago

No crime needed. Here's some common means over the last 10 years: [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/dna-dragnet-in-some-cities-police-go-from-stop-and-frisk-to-stop-and-spit https://www.propublica.org/article/dna-dragnet-in-some-citie... [1] https://freedomoutpost.com/texas-cops-detaining-individuals-dna-samples/ https://freedomoutpost.com/texas-cops-detaining-individuals-... [2] http://www.wlky.com/article/accused-killer-challenging-traffic-stop-that-led-to-dna-sample/3747762 http://www.wlky.com/article/accused-killer-challenging-traff...

tathougies 9y ago
Link [0]: voluntarily given samples. There is an issue with stop and frisk, but it has to do with warrantless search. This was an issue before this case, and will still be an issue. It is a separate issue. Nevertheless, in this rapists' case, no evidence was collected by warrantles searches. All evidence was freely submitted. Link [1]: Again, this has to do with forced seizures. These are actually wrong, independent of any DNA collected. Nevertheless, the government did not do any of that here. Link [2]: The police claim to have pulled the man over because of probable cause. They have a right to do this. They collected a cigar from his car. I'm not certain of the legality of this, tbh. But as to the legality of pulling over a car suspected of speeding? I'm pretty sure that's legal. Look, I find government overreach to be a major problem. But this is not a case of government overreach. There was no warrantless anything in this case. The relative of the rapist has no standing to sue the FBI in court for wrongful use of their information, because they freely provided it to a website. In all the cases you listed, the people (in my opinion) should have a right to have cases dismissed because this information was collected illegally.

pessimizer 9y ago

> If you've given your DNA freely to the government by participating in a violent crime Ignoring the intentionally bizarre phrasing ("if you've freely stoned yourself to death by committing adultery"), this is unrelated to the actual situation, which forces people arrested for a felony to surrender their DNA. 1) Both not restricted to "violent" crimes and not including all violent crimes, and 2) not requiring a conviction, or charges to be pressed.

tathougies 9y ago
I'm not sure how you're comparing adultery to rape. When a man rapes a woman, he typically leaves behind his own DNA in the form of semen. That DNA is the only DNA the government has access to. Contrary to what everyone here is saying, the government does not have access to the relative's DNA at all. The phrasing was not intentionally bizarre. If you rape someone, then you consent to have your DNA examined by authorities so that they can catch you and put you in jail. The irony in having to defend the idea of needing consent from a rapist has apparently escaped Hacker News's hive mind.