3 ms·
To me the real question is, why they got to keep a secret copy of the victim's DNA data for multiple years, let alone using it for things that the original owne
by ls15 4y ago
To me the real question is, why they got to keep a secret copy of the victim's DNA data for multiple years, let alone using it for things that the original owner did not consent to.
I think this is comparable to a key to your house that you gave to the police, because it was burglarized. They finished their investigations and hand the key back to you. What they did not tell you, is that they created a secret copy of your house keys and then five years later use it silently for searching through your house without a warrant.
- samatman 4y agoThat would be confusing yes. But you can't remove the victim's DNA from the offender's, without making it less likely to find a match. That question has an actual answer: you can't. It's literally a boolean thing: you have victim AND offender, if you XOR victim out, you lose some offender. Legislation appears to be doing the right thing here, my question is whether the police did their duty or not. Someone signed a consent form to put them in a database that tagged them as a match. That's not a police discretion thing, it's not clear to me that damages are appropriate. Fortunately I'm not a judge, just some guy on the internet.
- mirekrusin 4y agoIt's a bit of a drama with this house key and stuff, it's more like they took your picture when you were victim and later recognized you when you were offender and used address they saved back then to knock on your door.
- pessimizer 4y agoWhy would they take and hold pictures of the victims of crime?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mirekrusin 4y agoAs part of standard case documentation procedure?