5 ms·

The worrying part of this story is that it might lead to victims being afraid of seeking help.

inglor_cz 4y ago
There are more victims in this story: namely, the people whose dwelling was burglarized. Do they not deserve justice, too?
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  The good of society needs to be considered. Rape is a far more serious crime than burglary. Deliberately using someone’s rape to collect DNA so they can be later prosecuted for minor crimes is absolutely unconscionable in my opinion.
  - hajile 4y ago
    If she had raped or murdered someone, would looking at her DNA then be justified?
    - gremlinsinc 4y ago
      Only if ascertained as a criminal in the justice system. In America we are innocent until proven guilty, which means unless we've been prosecuted for another crime, our DNA should be completely inaccessible in a court of law. DNA should be scrubbed from govt records if it doesn't belong to someone with a felony. Even misdemeanors I'd say shouldn't qualify people for a permanent DNA record on file.
    - altruios 4y ago
      Hard line on privacy, so no. It is (almost) never correct to violate someone's privacy. Privacy is paramount. there are exceptions to (almost*) every rule...
    - orthecreedence 4y ago
      No. You could use that as justification for anything. At that point, we could just throw due process in the trash and have government thugs going around collecting blood samples from people or doing random house searches because "we might catch a murderer." How far do you go? I'd argue that matching DNA from a rape victim to charge that person with a crime is a violation of due process. The expectation with a rape kit is to find the DNA of the rapist. That expectation and trust was violated. Collect the rapist's DNA and throw the rest in the trash.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  They do, no one wants to make it harder to get justice for anyone. The issue isn't "oh no it's too easy to get justice" it's "victims of a crime shouldn't be afraid to report it".
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  Yes and the investigators should be allowed to use all the data available to them. One would expect that in such a situation only the DNA of the criminal who committed the rape would have been recorded. My issue with the situation here is that a rape kit should not have been a source of data. That the DNA of a victim should not have been saved and added to a database. It should not been made available to the investigators.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  People take priority over property.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  It doesn't matter what they deserve. Suppose that you have a horrific knife slasher, let's call her Sally. She runs around town and kills people with a knife. However, let's suppose that she gets raped. Will it not be beneficial to society that she is willing to go to the police over the rape case? It's like perfidy. As a general principle you don't use the fact that people want to do something good against them, even if they're bad. There may be deeper situations where this analysis doesn't hold, for example, if your enemies are providing people schooling or food, that may be an even stronger reason why it's important to attack them, but aside from things like that, this generally holds.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    So if there's a hierarchy as you say, does that mean you'd be fine with the reverse situation happening? DNA from a burglary used for a rape case?
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      As in, if you are the victim of a burglary, and you voluntarily submit your DNA because that will somehow help catch the perpetrator…? That's a pretty tortured hypothetical, but sure — the police shouldn't be able to use that DNA as evidence against you.
    - arrrg 4y ago
      No need for a hierarchy, just a simple rule: if someone goes to the police to report a crime the DNA they provide as part of that process cannot be used against them. That‘s a very simple rule.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Then why mention incentivising behaviour with some crimes over behaviour with other worse ones?
        arrrg 4y ago
- vidarh 4y ago
  They do. However once this becomes known you become progressively less likely to derive any benefit from it as criminals will simply stop reporting rapes, while you will scare away far less serious criminals and a lot of non-criminals from reporting rapes too. Before you even consider the harm to those victims from not being able to seek justice, there's also a real risk that in doing so you may end up creating more victims by losing the ability to catch a proportion of rapists some of whom may reoffend.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > There are more victims in this story: namely, the people whose dwelling was burglarized. Do they not deserve justice, too? Yes, but there's a conflict here, and it's penny-wise, pound-foolish to prioritize justice for the people who were burgled, when that would very obviously deter people from reporting far more serious crimes.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > There are more victims in this story: namely, the people whose dwelling was burglarized. Do they not deserve justice, too? They are also victims, because their DNA was placed into the same system for the crime of having their house burglarized, which is almost as serious as the crime of having been raped.
jjcon 4y ago
Only if they are criminals?
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  This includes anyone afraid of having their DNA in a database for whatever reasons. Reading some of the HN posts about 23andMe and such, this includes a lot of people. You do not need to be a criminal, you only need to be afraid that DNA will be misused in the future. Political dissident, activists and whistle-blowers come to mind.
  - jjcon 4y ago
    > You do not need to be a criminal, you only need to be afraid that DNA will be misused in the future. You do not need to be a criminal, you only need to be afraid that DNA will be misused in the future. Misused how exactly? It is extremely trivial to collect someone’s DNA if you are trying to actively target them… but even then… what would the gov do with it wrt activists dissidents etc? maybe I need to read more sci-fi
    - chucksmash 4y ago
      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60346300 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60346300: > French diplomatic sources told Reuters that Mr Macron had been told to choose between accepting a Russian PCR test to get closer to Putin or abide by strict social distancing rules. > "We knew very well that meant no handshake and that long table. But we could not accept that they get their hands on the president's DNA," one of the sources told Reuters. > The source did not elaborate on how the Russian intelligence services could exploit Mr Macron's DNA. Doesn't provide insight into why one should be concerned, but it's useful information to know that nation states are wary of each other in this regard for some reason even if we don't know what that reason is.
      - wruza 4y ago
        Country-level security works out of an assumption that everything may be used against it, even if it's unclear how exactly. Take everything, give nothing. FSB guys have an old joke: "We don't hire atheists. Why? In case God exists". They're basically professional paranoics on all sides, I wouldn't think too much of it.
robocat 4y ago
And rapists targeting criminals, because the victim won’t go to the police.

There are more victims in this story: namely, the people whose dwelling was burglarized. Do they not deserve justice, too?

kayodelycaon 4y ago
The good of society needs to be considered. Rape is a far more serious crime than burglary. Deliberately using someone’s rape to collect DNA so they can be later prosecuted for minor crimes is absolutely unconscionable in my opinion.
- hajile 4y ago
  If she had raped or murdered someone, would looking at her DNA then be justified?
  - gremlinsinc 4y ago
    Only if ascertained as a criminal in the justice system. In America we are innocent until proven guilty, which means unless we've been prosecuted for another crime, our DNA should be completely inaccessible in a court of law. DNA should be scrubbed from govt records if it doesn't belong to someone with a felony. Even misdemeanors I'd say shouldn't qualify people for a permanent DNA record on file.
  - altruios 4y ago
    Hard line on privacy, so no. It is (almost) never correct to violate someone's privacy. Privacy is paramount. there are exceptions to (almost*) every rule...
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    No. You could use that as justification for anything. At that point, we could just throw due process in the trash and have government thugs going around collecting blood samples from people or doing random house searches because "we might catch a murderer." How far do you go? I'd argue that matching DNA from a rape victim to charge that person with a crime is a violation of due process. The expectation with a rape kit is to find the DNA of the rapist. That expectation and trust was violated. Collect the rapist's DNA and throw the rest in the trash.
staticassertion 4y ago
They do, no one wants to make it harder to get justice for anyone. The issue isn't "oh no it's too easy to get justice" it's "victims of a crime shouldn't be afraid to report it".
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
Yes and the investigators should be allowed to use all the data available to them. One would expect that in such a situation only the DNA of the criminal who committed the rape would have been recorded. My issue with the situation here is that a rape kit should not have been a source of data. That the DNA of a victim should not have been saved and added to a database. It should not been made available to the investigators.
elliekelly 4y ago
People take priority over property.
impossiblefork 4y ago
It doesn't matter what they deserve. Suppose that you have a horrific knife slasher, let's call her Sally. She runs around town and kills people with a knife. However, let's suppose that she gets raped. Will it not be beneficial to society that she is willing to go to the police over the rape case? It's like perfidy. As a general principle you don't use the fact that people want to do something good against them, even if they're bad. There may be deeper situations where this analysis doesn't hold, for example, if your enemies are providing people schooling or food, that may be an even stronger reason why it's important to attack them, but aside from things like that, this generally holds.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  So if there's a hierarchy as you say, does that mean you'd be fine with the reverse situation happening? DNA from a burglary used for a rape case?
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    As in, if you are the victim of a burglary, and you voluntarily submit your DNA because that will somehow help catch the perpetrator…? That's a pretty tortured hypothetical, but sure — the police shouldn't be able to use that DNA as evidence against you.
  - arrrg 4y ago
    No need for a hierarchy, just a simple rule: if someone goes to the police to report a crime the DNA they provide as part of that process cannot be used against them. That‘s a very simple rule.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Then why mention incentivising behaviour with some crimes over behaviour with other worse ones?
      - arrrg 4y ago
vidarh 4y ago
They do. However once this becomes known you become progressively less likely to derive any benefit from it as criminals will simply stop reporting rapes, while you will scare away far less serious criminals and a lot of non-criminals from reporting rapes too. Before you even consider the harm to those victims from not being able to seek justice, there's also a real risk that in doing so you may end up creating more victims by losing the ability to catch a proportion of rapists some of whom may reoffend.
tablespoon 4y ago
> There are more victims in this story: namely, the people whose dwelling was burglarized. Do they not deserve justice, too? Yes, but there's a conflict here, and it's penny-wise, pound-foolish to prioritize justice for the people who were burgled, when that would very obviously deter people from reporting far more serious crimes.
pessimizer 4y ago
> There are more victims in this story: namely, the people whose dwelling was burglarized. Do they not deserve justice, too? They are also victims, because their DNA was placed into the same system for the crime of having their house burglarized, which is almost as serious as the crime of having been raped.

jjcon 4y ago

Only if they are criminals?

Karawebnetwork 4y ago
This includes anyone afraid of having their DNA in a database for whatever reasons. Reading some of the HN posts about 23andMe and such, this includes a lot of people. You do not need to be a criminal, you only need to be afraid that DNA will be misused in the future. Political dissident, activists and whistle-blowers come to mind.
- jjcon 4y ago
  > You do not need to be a criminal, you only need to be afraid that DNA will be misused in the future. You do not need to be a criminal, you only need to be afraid that DNA will be misused in the future. Misused how exactly? It is extremely trivial to collect someone’s DNA if you are trying to actively target them… but even then… what would the gov do with it wrt activists dissidents etc? maybe I need to read more sci-fi
  - chucksmash 4y ago
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60346300 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60346300: > French diplomatic sources told Reuters that Mr Macron had been told to choose between accepting a Russian PCR test to get closer to Putin or abide by strict social distancing rules. > "We knew very well that meant no handshake and that long table. But we could not accept that they get their hands on the president's DNA," one of the sources told Reuters. > The source did not elaborate on how the Russian intelligence services could exploit Mr Macron's DNA. Doesn't provide insight into why one should be concerned, but it's useful information to know that nation states are wary of each other in this regard for some reason even if we don't know what that reason is.
    - wruza 4y ago
      Country-level security works out of an assumption that everything may be used against it, even if it's unclear how exactly. Take everything, give nothing. FSB guys have an old joke: "We don't hire atheists. Why? In case God exists". They're basically professional paranoics on all sides, I wouldn't think too much of it.

robocat 4y ago

And rapists targeting criminals, because the victim won’t go to the police.