4 ms·

If Sally is going around stabbing people maybe her rape story is a little bit suspect. Maybe she's deranged and is trying to do anything in her power to get the

If Sally is going around stabbing people maybe her rape story is a little bit suspect. Maybe she's deranged and is trying to do anything in her power to get the nosy bird watchers off her back. I think the issue is the person that goes to the police and submits the report has essentially shielded themselves from all criminal liability. But of course the people the people who's DNA is being tested get no such protection. It'd be one thing if, as a general rule, only people that explicitly consent can have their DNA used in a search. But in reality the police have this huge database of DNA nobody consented to be used to arrest them, and then Sally comes in, bloody hands washed, and gets to use this giant database of un-consenting victims for her own ends, but none of her own victims can benefit from her DNA, even though she was perhaps the only one of the bunch who willingly gave DNA to the police. In other words, if it really is a privacy rights violation to test someone's DNA without their permission, and maybe that's the case, they wouldn't need to collect it because they wouldn't have anyone to test it on.

impossiblefork 4y ago
Of course she's deranged, she's stabbing people, but the point is that you still want her to report the rapist-- imagine that you were her neighbour, you'd want her to report burglary attempts, surely? Similarly with rape. Whether she is reliable only matters for the investigation of the crime. I don't see it as a matter of a privacy violation. I see it as a socially contra-productive act, a kind of perfidy-- like pretending to surrender and then attacking somebody in war or pretending to be a medic in order to attack somebody.
- tinalumfoil 4y ago
  Honestly, the perfidy claims just really throws me for a loop. I genuinely don't understand how the police using evidence you willingly provide them to charge you is perfidy. > like pretending to surrender and then attacking somebody in war or pretending to be a medic in order to attack somebody There's international courts with the lofty goal of prosecuting "war crimes" and if you submit evidence that some country or group is committing war crimes, like killing medics, you don't get some special protection from the evidence you submit. If you submit a video where you and your opponent are both killing medics, everyone involved can be tried for war crimes. If you submit a video where you're killing A's medics and B is killing your medics, everyone involved can be prosecuted. In the US if the prosecution, has evidence that's both inculpatory and exculpatory they don't get to just tell the jury to ignore the exculpatory elements. I don't see how any court could be fair if this was not the case.

impossiblefork 4y ago

Of course she's deranged, she's stabbing people, but the point is that you still want her to report the rapist-- imagine that you were her neighbour, you'd want her to report burglary attempts, surely? Similarly with rape. Whether she is reliable only matters for the investigation of the crime. I don't see it as a matter of a privacy violation. I see it as a socially contra-productive act, a kind of perfidy-- like pretending to surrender and then attacking somebody in war or pretending to be a medic in order to attack somebody.

tinalumfoil 4y ago
Honestly, the perfidy claims just really throws me for a loop. I genuinely don't understand how the police using evidence you willingly provide them to charge you is perfidy. > like pretending to surrender and then attacking somebody in war or pretending to be a medic in order to attack somebody There's international courts with the lofty goal of prosecuting "war crimes" and if you submit evidence that some country or group is committing war crimes, like killing medics, you don't get some special protection from the evidence you submit. If you submit a video where you and your opponent are both killing medics, everyone involved can be tried for war crimes. If you submit a video where you're killing A's medics and B is killing your medics, everyone involved can be prosecuted. In the US if the prosecution, has evidence that's both inculpatory and exculpatory they don't get to just tell the jury to ignore the exculpatory elements. I don't see how any court could be fair if this was not the case.