> contaminated swabs for taking DNA samples. Not only contaminated, the swaps weren't even rated for lab use. They spend years looking for a phantom serial kil

> contaminated swabs for taking DNA samples. Not only contaminated, the swaps weren't even rated for lab use. They spend years looking for a phantom serial killer active in half the country because several police labs were cutting costs. The mysterious killer was working in a swab factory. > There's also evidence that both DNA and fingerprint attribution is not trustworthy (from a strictly scientific perspective). Isn't the issue that they use so few markers that you would be guaranteed collisions the moment you tried to build a large scale biometric database?