4 ms·
As your link explains, in some jurisdictions all that is needed to collect biological samples is reasonable suspicion. Geofenced warrents are already a thing.
by shkkmo 3y ago
As your link explains, in some jurisdictions all that is needed to collect biological samples is reasonable suspicion.
Geofenced warrents are already a thing. While they may not be constitutional, that hasn't stopped them from being issued and executed.
DNA from ACs could also be used to supplement other data to target specifc inhabitants with warrants.
E
- sokoloff 3y agoEven if the threshold is only “reasonable suspicion”, that test fails for large numbers of people whose DNA was found in an AC.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shkkmo 3y agoGo read about geofenced warrants to learn how warrants for the data for large numers of people, most of whom obviously can't all be involved. Then get back to me.
- sokoloff 3y agoCell phone location data or automatic number plate reading is far less personal than DNA and is (IMO, rightly) treated differently.
- shkkmo 3y agoAFAIK, location tracking requires probable cause to get a warrant. So the "different treatment" is that the standards for evidence for location data warrants are on average higher. I'm not trying to say anything about the way things should be, but rather to correct you when you falsely reassure people that this won't and can't be used this way.