4 ms·

This is straight up FUD. Any case where someone is a menace to a whole neighborhood over a period of time could clearly be solved within the bounds of constitut

by ch4s3 7y ago

This is straight up FUD. Any case where someone is a menace to a whole neighborhood over a period of time could clearly be solved within the bounds of constitutional law with conventional policing. Commercial DNA databanks are a problem for a lot of reason. You shed small amounts of DNA absolutely everywhere, and it can absolutely be transported on shoes, coats, and the like. Modern testing can pick up these trace amounts in place where you haven't been. The Innocence Project has already overturned a few convictions based on tiny DNA traces of this variety. The commercial databases just give cops the opportunity to perform dragnet searches for any and everyone whose DNA shows up in an area of interest, it's scary and sloppy. I'll also point out that at least i the US, the constitution is the backstop for EVERYONE's civil rights. If cops are allowed to trample on the rights of the accused in the name of "safety" then there will be no protection for anyone.

Zenst 7y ago
It's not FUD when you have experienced it, things like anybody trying to stop them or getting in their way, they use the police to harass the people with false reports, many other forms of abuse and excel at playing the victim card. Example, dealer attacks person and then reports that the person attacked them and evidence that proves otherwise is dismissed as it violated their rights. But shall leave it at that. Just please don't blindly dismiss a person's experience as FUD.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  How would the ability to go fishing in a commercial DNA database do anything to fix that situation? I can't imagine any situation in which the ability for police to rummage around in the trash and test spit on coffee cups against 23andME would stop your problem. You're just scaremongering. You have a policing problem for sure, but simple video or eyewitness reports would solve your problem. There's no additional need for the power to perform dragnet searches that can and do drag innocent people into the justice system. Authoritarianism isn't the answer to petty crime.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    >You have a policing problem for sure Oh yes, more so when 37% of the police in my area haven't been veteted and leak information to criminals more than we have rain. But this is London. Sorry, i'm running on a tangent and slightly off-topic and respect and acknowledge what your saying. I'm just more aware of the aspect that those 10 people that get away with crime can impact more than one innocent found guilty. What with all the privacy and civil protection laws, criminals do know how to game and play the system better than those who control and run the systems. As for DNA - it should be default no, but equally allow those who want to opt-in and allow their DNA to be used to help maybe identify some genetic relative of a crime. But like most things - no clear cut solution and when it swings so far one direction, you end up with a powerless system that struggles to fulfill it's remit due to being buried in red-tape.
    - ch4s3 7y ago
      I think I may not be clearly explaining my key concern, which is the inherent peril of this type of policing. Your DNA and mine are basically everywhere we go, and many places we've never been due to transfer. Forensic DNA tests can now easily identify these traces of you from places you have never been. Commercial DNA databases now allow police to target people who weren't previously identified as suspects by conventional means. The combination of the two can and has led to innocent people being swept up in the grinding gears of the justice system. There is little to no oversight, and courts/juries aren't aware of this problem. This issue also creates perverse incentives within the system that will allow bad cops and prosecutors to pin crimes on people they don't like, and use DNA databases to back into the appearance of scientific evidence. There is immense moral hazard here.
      - Zenst 7y ago
        SO a good example would be - you go into a shop and pick up a bottle and examine the label and then change your mind for whatever reason and place it back. Sombody else comes in, buys that bottle and let's say for ease of argument they have gloves and so does the cashier. That bottle then gets used in a crime to hurt somebody and tada. Your in the frame for a crime you did not commit and the onus laid upon you that you was not there or did it. That kinda thing?

by ch4s3 7y ago

Zenst 7y ago

It's not FUD when you have experienced it, things like anybody trying to stop them or getting in their way, they use the police to harass the people with false reports, many other forms of abuse and excel at playing the victim card. Example, dealer attacks person and then reports that the person attacked them and evidence that proves otherwise is dismissed as it violated their rights. But shall leave it at that. Just please don't blindly dismiss a person's experience as FUD.

ch4s3 7y ago
How would the ability to go fishing in a commercial DNA database do anything to fix that situation? I can't imagine any situation in which the ability for police to rummage around in the trash and test spit on coffee cups against 23andME would stop your problem. You're just scaremongering. You have a policing problem for sure, but simple video or eyewitness reports would solve your problem. There's no additional need for the power to perform dragnet searches that can and do drag innocent people into the justice system. Authoritarianism isn't the answer to petty crime.
- Zenst 7y ago
  >You have a policing problem for sure Oh yes, more so when 37% of the police in my area haven't been veteted and leak information to criminals more than we have rain. But this is London. Sorry, i'm running on a tangent and slightly off-topic and respect and acknowledge what your saying. I'm just more aware of the aspect that those 10 people that get away with crime can impact more than one innocent found guilty. What with all the privacy and civil protection laws, criminals do know how to game and play the system better than those who control and run the systems. As for DNA - it should be default no, but equally allow those who want to opt-in and allow their DNA to be used to help maybe identify some genetic relative of a crime. But like most things - no clear cut solution and when it swings so far one direction, you end up with a powerless system that struggles to fulfill it's remit due to being buried in red-tape.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    I think I may not be clearly explaining my key concern, which is the inherent peril of this type of policing. Your DNA and mine are basically everywhere we go, and many places we've never been due to transfer. Forensic DNA tests can now easily identify these traces of you from places you have never been. Commercial DNA databases now allow police to target people who weren't previously identified as suspects by conventional means. The combination of the two can and has led to innocent people being swept up in the grinding gears of the justice system. There is little to no oversight, and courts/juries aren't aware of this problem. This issue also creates perverse incentives within the system that will allow bad cops and prosecutors to pin crimes on people they don't like, and use DNA databases to back into the appearance of scientific evidence. There is immense moral hazard here.
    - Zenst 7y ago
      SO a good example would be - you go into a shop and pick up a bottle and examine the label and then change your mind for whatever reason and place it back. Sombody else comes in, buys that bottle and let's say for ease of argument they have gloves and so does the cashier. That bottle then gets used in a crime to hurt somebody and tada. Your in the frame for a crime you did not commit and the onus laid upon you that you was not there or did it. That kinda thing?