5 ms·

The use of DNA in ways not anticipated by informed[1] consent is wrong. 1 = Not just a signature on the form. But a real understanding of what we're going to u

The use of DNA in ways not anticipated by informed[1] consent is wrong. 1 = Not just a signature on the form. But a real understanding of what we're going to use it for.

ebg13 7y ago
Even with a warrant?
- carbocation 7y ago
  How well were the participants informed about how warrants would be used to access their information?
  - ebg13 7y ago
    The state has decided that you don't need to be informed in advance that a warrant will let them search through your things. The whole point of a warrant is that it lets them search. "I didn't know they could look inside my bag" isn't a legal defense.
    - carbocation 7y ago
      You're talking about malum prohibitum and I'm talking about malum in se.
      - ebg13 7y ago
        I don't understand. Are you saying that it's wrong for the state to grant search warrants in the course of investigating murders? Because it seems to me that the alternative is that then all one needs to do to never be convicted of a crime is to just not consent to being investigated. So which is the lesser problem, invading privacy with a warrant or never being able to prosecute any crimes?
        carbocation 7y ago
        Are you replying with questions that imply I said something that I never said? Edit: At the time of my reply, the prior post read (in its entirety): I don't understand. Are you saying that it's wrong for the state to grant search warrants in the course of investigating murders? I won't be replying to further posts in this thread.
        jobigoud 7y ago
        His first question was "even with a warrant?" Which you replied to with another question. As I see it he's asking you to clarify your initial statement. No need to get all defensive.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      This isn't about a defense. It's about looking through the bags of tens of thousands of people with absolutely zero evidence pointing toward those bags or their owners. If there was a type of bag that made the contents subject to dragnet warrants, it would definitely be wrong to sell those bags without informed consent.
Meh_So_What 7y ago
Norton stressed on Tuesday that the Wypych family has been nothing but cooperative. So, in this case, everything is hunky dorie, obviously. And because it's squeaky clean, we can all back slap and trumpet the publicity. But, you know, some realities change and others don't. I think it's probably helpful that the bar against mistaken identity is raised. Meanwhile, with all this new fangled technology floating around, it doesn't really prevent crime from happening. It mostly just means you catch the sloppy ones. When game changers show up in a game of cat and mouse, the game doesn't end. Sometimes you get a cold war and an arms race. In this situation, I think the cold war is a good thing. Knowing cold wars for what they are, though, I suppose we should brace ourselves for some Viet Nams.

The use of DNA in ways not anticipated by informed[1] consent is wrong. 1 = Not just a signature on the form. But a real understanding of what we're going to use it for.

ebg13 7y ago

Even with a warrant?

carbocation 7y ago
How well were the participants informed about how warrants would be used to access their information?
- ebg13 7y ago
  The state has decided that you don't need to be informed in advance that a warrant will let them search through your things. The whole point of a warrant is that it lets them search. "I didn't know they could look inside my bag" isn't a legal defense.
  - carbocation 7y ago
    You're talking about malum prohibitum and I'm talking about malum in se.
    - ebg13 7y ago
      I don't understand. Are you saying that it's wrong for the state to grant search warrants in the course of investigating murders? Because it seems to me that the alternative is that then all one needs to do to never be convicted of a crime is to just not consent to being investigated. So which is the lesser problem, invading privacy with a warrant or never being able to prosecute any crimes?
      - carbocation 7y ago
        Are you replying with questions that imply I said something that I never said? Edit: At the time of my reply, the prior post read (in its entirety): I don't understand. Are you saying that it's wrong for the state to grant search warrants in the course of investigating murders? I won't be replying to further posts in this thread.
        jobigoud 7y ago
        His first question was "even with a warrant?" Which you replied to with another question. As I see it he's asking you to clarify your initial statement. No need to get all defensive.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    This isn't about a defense. It's about looking through the bags of tens of thousands of people with absolutely zero evidence pointing toward those bags or their owners. If there was a type of bag that made the contents subject to dragnet warrants, it would definitely be wrong to sell those bags without informed consent.

Meh_So_What 7y ago

Norton stressed on Tuesday that the Wypych family has been nothing but cooperative. So, in this case, everything is hunky dorie, obviously. And because it's squeaky clean, we can all back slap and trumpet the publicity. But, you know, some realities change and others don't. I think it's probably helpful that the bar against mistaken identity is raised. Meanwhile, with all this new fangled technology floating around, it doesn't really prevent crime from happening. It mostly just means you catch the sloppy ones. When game changers show up in a game of cat and mouse, the game doesn't end. Sometimes you get a cold war and an arms race. In this situation, I think the cold war is a good thing. Knowing cold wars for what they are, though, I suppose we should brace ourselves for some Viet Nams.