3 ms·

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. Som

by 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?

ch4s3 7y ago
No, it's more like you sit on a bench or on the subway and shed a bunch of skin cells. Someone else comes along and particles of those cells cling to their coat or shoes. That person walks along and some of your cell fragments fall off of them in an alley. Later a serious crime happens in that alley and your DNA is recovered along with samples from a let's say 3 other people. The police run each sample through a commercial database and get hits from you and two of the other 3 people. Let's assume the other two have solid allabies with recites and witnesses. You were at home alone during the crime and have no solid alibi. What do you as an innocent person do in that situation? You have to hire a lawyer, and possibly face a trial where you could serve time in prison for a crime you did not commit. If you are convicted, you go to jail, the case is closed, and the real criminal goes free to perhaps continue committing crimes. Your life is ruined, and anyone who knows and believes you will lose all faith in the system. The tax payers money is wasted jailing you, the victim receives no real justice, and all of society loses. Courts just aren't prepared for this. Judges and the general public all believe that DNA evidence is basically magic. This is a real problem.
- Zenst 7y ago
  Your situation gets more complex if you have CCTV to proves your not there or somewhere else. Crux though would be that if they don't find you soon, laws in play dictate how long that CCTV can be held. So imagine in your fine example that you later in life end up with the police taking your DNA for something else, even if to eliminate your DNA from forensics upon an aggravated burglary at your partners flat as an example. The police computer then pings about the previous alleyway crime and this is years later. You now find that proving were you actually was back then, harder than more recently. CCTV from a bar you was at - all gone due to data protection retention laws that curtail how long it can be held. Google - nope as some law came in that stops them keeping that info. You kinda get down to the situation that your only assured safety from past and future crimes is to self monitor and track. Heck - I literally bug my own house and carry a tracking monitor due to tangent issues, to protect me from such mistakes/abuse etc. ALso having done Jury duty, it's not just the evidence and opinion of guilty or not, but how that evidence is presented and the impact of the dominant alpha's in that jury. Whilst that should not be a factor for the most enlightened (general makeup of posters upon these forums), the population has few discriminators upon the makeup of juries - age, not below average IQ and criminal record or mostly - lack of. So privacy laws are great and have many upshots, they can equally have some downsides. Why I feel that choice should be down to individuals and sure, opt-out by default. But you can start to see why opt-in also helps, so you can clear things up in a timely manner and not suddenly 15 odd years later get arrested for a crime you did not commit and the quick simple proof has long gone, making innocence much harder to play out.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    You can't opt out of your relatives using a DNA service, and your 2nd cousin using the service is sufficient to make you findable by traces of DNA tracked to a place you've never been. This isn't about privacy, it's about civil liberties, and protection from overreach by the state.
    - Zenst 7y ago
      Your right of course and apologies that I'm just getting that aspect - thank you. Yes, I suppose from what I'm saying, I'd be effectively violating the choice of relative. A fair and valid point and does raise many avenues of individuals opting in exposing others thru their choices. I guess shopping loyalty cards - the person who does the family shopping is revealing what the entire household likes in many ways. But equally a tough choice, with many aspects - pro and con to weigh in. With that, I'll concede as without all the options fully outlines, the forced opt-out approach as this is the case, does make much more sense. Thank you for a wonderful debate and I certainly learned something from it.

by Zenst 7y ago

ch4s3 7y ago

No, it's more like you sit on a bench or on the subway and shed a bunch of skin cells. Someone else comes along and particles of those cells cling to their coat or shoes. That person walks along and some of your cell fragments fall off of them in an alley. Later a serious crime happens in that alley and your DNA is recovered along with samples from a let's say 3 other people. The police run each sample through a commercial database and get hits from you and two of the other 3 people. Let's assume the other two have solid allabies with recites and witnesses. You were at home alone during the crime and have no solid alibi. What do you as an innocent person do in that situation? You have to hire a lawyer, and possibly face a trial where you could serve time in prison for a crime you did not commit. If you are convicted, you go to jail, the case is closed, and the real criminal goes free to perhaps continue committing crimes. Your life is ruined, and anyone who knows and believes you will lose all faith in the system. The tax payers money is wasted jailing you, the victim receives no real justice, and all of society loses. Courts just aren't prepared for this. Judges and the general public all believe that DNA evidence is basically magic. This is a real problem.

Zenst 7y ago
Your situation gets more complex if you have CCTV to proves your not there or somewhere else. Crux though would be that if they don't find you soon, laws in play dictate how long that CCTV can be held. So imagine in your fine example that you later in life end up with the police taking your DNA for something else, even if to eliminate your DNA from forensics upon an aggravated burglary at your partners flat as an example. The police computer then pings about the previous alleyway crime and this is years later. You now find that proving were you actually was back then, harder than more recently. CCTV from a bar you was at - all gone due to data protection retention laws that curtail how long it can be held. Google - nope as some law came in that stops them keeping that info. You kinda get down to the situation that your only assured safety from past and future crimes is to self monitor and track. Heck - I literally bug my own house and carry a tracking monitor due to tangent issues, to protect me from such mistakes/abuse etc. ALso having done Jury duty, it's not just the evidence and opinion of guilty or not, but how that evidence is presented and the impact of the dominant alpha's in that jury. Whilst that should not be a factor for the most enlightened (general makeup of posters upon these forums), the population has few discriminators upon the makeup of juries - age, not below average IQ and criminal record or mostly - lack of. So privacy laws are great and have many upshots, they can equally have some downsides. Why I feel that choice should be down to individuals and sure, opt-out by default. But you can start to see why opt-in also helps, so you can clear things up in a timely manner and not suddenly 15 odd years later get arrested for a crime you did not commit and the quick simple proof has long gone, making innocence much harder to play out.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  You can't opt out of your relatives using a DNA service, and your 2nd cousin using the service is sufficient to make you findable by traces of DNA tracked to a place you've never been. This isn't about privacy, it's about civil liberties, and protection from overreach by the state.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Your right of course and apologies that I'm just getting that aspect - thank you. Yes, I suppose from what I'm saying, I'd be effectively violating the choice of relative. A fair and valid point and does raise many avenues of individuals opting in exposing others thru their choices. I guess shopping loyalty cards - the person who does the family shopping is revealing what the entire household likes in many ways. But equally a tough choice, with many aspects - pro and con to weigh in. With that, I'll concede as without all the options fully outlines, the forced opt-out approach as this is the case, does make much more sense. Thank you for a wonderful debate and I certainly learned something from it.