4 ms·
Further in the article > “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for commit
by eridius 8y ago
Further in the article
> “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any crimes?’”
The way they're phrasing this makes it even worse. They're clearly not explaining what this actually means, they're pretending like this is to help the suspect, and the suspect probably has no idea that this is being compared to a large database of crime samples.
- lilyball 8y ago> Mr. Harran called this criticism “total nonsense.” His officers do not target particular groups for DNA collection, he said: “You have nothing to fear if you’re not going to be a criminal.” This is the exact same argument made against the right to privacy.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoAnybody who parrots ‘nothing to hide’ or anything similar needs to read The Trial. If we’re heading towards a dystopia, I don’t think it will be Orwell’s, I think it will be Kafka’s.
- ClassyJacket 8y agoAnyone who parrots 'nothing to hide' should have a public webcam in their shower.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoWhile that argument is valid, it doesn’t touch on the true nefariousness of ‘nothing to hide’. Which is how a secretive bureaucracy can interpret isolated facts any way they please, and place the burden of proof onto the accused. A real life example would be the no fly list. How do you get on it? How do you get off it? The best example in fiction would be Kafka’s The Trial, imo.
- supreme_court 8y agoAnd what is with all the fucking downvotes?
- LoSboccacc 8y ago"My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal_value_of.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal...
- tremon 8y agosuggesting a webcam in the shower is not about "hiding a wrong".
- vinceguidry 8y agoParent was agreeing with the grandparent.
- JoeSmithson 8y agoI don't understand your point. It's possible to not want your nude photos public while also being comfortable submitting your DNA to a government database. I personally probably wouldn't submit my DNA without a particular reason, but I don't see what's the contradiction here?
- Haga 8y agoEver been in a liason with a policemen wife and had your DNA turn up in a murder case?
- Spare_account 8y agoYou're missing the point. Everyone in this thread agrees that submitting DNA voluntarily is a bad thing. There is no need to pursue that part. The confusion felt by some in this sub-thread is the analogy between 'having nothing to hide' and 'having a pub webcam in your shower'. I don't see the connection either.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoWeird, because this genuinely wouldn't bother me, while being on a DNA database would.
- L4H6MM6V12JQ 8y agoI'm not sure. I have always interpreted the "Nothing to hide" line as being past tense. Mr. Harran's statement is arguably future tense.
- jarfil 8y agoI can believe they don't target "particular groups", just "every group".
- xyxxxx 8y agoYeah, totally ignorant. If there is a database with DNA from everyone, you can trivially frame anybody. It is usually easy to obtain DNA from a specific person and put it at the crime scene. I'm sure Mr Harran's DNA won't be found in any database.
- gtsteve 8y agoMy understanding that these databases effectively contain a checksum which has a very low chance of collision. I don't know if you could actually make DNA material from that checksum.
- gmarkoff 8y agoThe comment you replied to did not mention making DNA material. DNA can be obtained directly from the target. CCC members has obtained fingerprints from politicians, for example. DNA is no harder. Or don't target a specific person, but place random hair found in a public toilet.
- omeid2 8y agoNot only is obtaining DNA contaminated samples not harder than fingerprints, it is orders of magnitude easier.
- logical42 8y agoAlso, Gattaca.
- megablast 8y ago> “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any crimes?’” But this is exactly what they are doing? It is an accurate description. Of course they keep it for future crimes too.
- renholder 8y agoIt's actually the inverse: They suspect the individual but have no other recourse but to suggest to the suspect that they want to rule him out. It's akin to when police ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The question is open-ended and if the driver admits to any other wrong-doing, other than the reason for the stop, that's now introduces reasonable suspicion (by the act of admission) to other crimes. Is it illegal? Technically, no. (Unless you go down the entrapment road.) Is it morally wrong? I think most people would agree that it is because the consequences aren't told the individual. (The informed consent argument.)