9 ms·

US Supreme Court: Cops can take a routine DNA swab at time of arrest

44 points by Cadsby 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Its an interesting (if controversial) theory, that your DNA is no more private to you than your fingerprints, and they already fingerprint you when you are arrested and put those fingerprints into a national database. The sticky thing for me though is that DNA not only identifies an individual, it also identifies their parents and possibly their siblings. So now we've got more than just our poor arrestee's id we've got some 'known acquaintences' and it gets worse if people start getting arrested for misdemeanors just so that the cops can take a swab to check. No doubt there will be more to this debate before the dust settles.
- maratd 13y ago
  > it also identifies their parents and possibly their siblings Also children. > No doubt there will be more to this debate before the dust settles. Absolutely. The fact that the court didn't split along political lines tells you that this issue hasn't been through the political process yet. There will be quite a bit more to this story down the road.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  DNA also contains confidential medical information, fingerprints do not. Even if we accept that it is okay to collect DNA, it certainly cannot be treated like fingerprints are, it has much more stringent privacy and data security requirements. Simply as a practical matter, I don't think I am comfortable with their ability to handle this data. (I imagine the collected DNA is currently not digitized, but in the future I would not expect that to remain true.)
- ihsw 13y ago
  The interesting thing is this national DNA database would be freely and easily accessed by corporate entities, assuming CISPA (or CISPA-like) acts pass.
  - antoko 13y ago
    CISPA is for sharing information about cyber threats, clearly DNA samples would not fall into that category. So no that isn't an "interesting thing", because it isn't a true thing its just you spreading FUD about something that isn't related to this topic.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- npsimons 13y ago
  The fact that they take fingerprints and put them in a national database, without even a conviction (you can be arrested for anything, and never convicted), should worry some folks, but I suppose we gave that battle up long ago.
  - grecy 13y ago
    > you can be arrested for anything My favorite is being arrested for resisting arrest...for that arrest.
    - wl 13y ago
      You can't be arrested for resisting arrest alone. You can be charged with resisting arrest and nothing else. This is an important distinction. Imagine someone is suspected of murder. There is probable cause that this person has committed a crime so a judge issues an arrest warrant. A police officer finds this murder suspect and arrests him. The suspect resists but is ultimately taken into custody. Under interrogation, the suspect gives an alibi that ultimately checks out. This person isn't charged with murder because it's apparent he didn't commit the murder. However, the arrest was legal and resisting it was a crime. So the suspect is charged with resisting arrest with no other charges.
      - mindcrime 13y ago
        It's all a matter of perspective. If you come to arrest me for a crime I know I didn't commit, then no, the arrest is not "legal" per my definition of "legal". The government might, indeed, be following it's own rules (and getting to that on a consistent basis would be a slight improvement over where we are now) but my rights have still been violated.
        tg3 13y ago
        There is only one definition of "legal": allowable under the law. The constitution and the laws of your state outline your rights (if you live in the US). Part of the deal is that sometimes you can be arrested for crimes you didn't commit. But that's why we make sure that people who are arrested are guaranteed a speedy trial from a jury of their peers, etc.
- timthorn 13y ago
  This has been standard practise in the UK for many years now. Still controversial with an ongoing debate, but your point about relations is pertinent - a good number of convictions have been arrived at due to others' DNA samples.
- JunkDNA 13y ago
  Indeed. One of the fascinating things if you read the dissent (which I highly recommend, it's very approachable) is that the national electronic fingerprint databases have not actually ever been constitutionally tested on 4th amendment grounds. In my mind this falls into the same category as "searching" someone's smartphone if you arrest them. There's no analog for that. It's so fundamentally different, that you have to treat it differently than just looking through a backpack or something.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > In my mind this falls into the same category as "searching" someone's smartphone if you arrest them. There's no analog for that. Strangely, this is a case where "cloud" stuff could actually help. You can't search somebodies rented apartment just because you found his access device for said apartment in his pockets when you arrested him. Similarly, why should you be permitted to search his rented "cloud" just because you found his access device? This is imperfect since clearly local data should be protected from such searches as well, but it is fairly accessible. For this matter, I'd love to see someone push for an equivalent of renters rights in all things digital...
    - JunkDNA 13y ago
      I disagree, I think the cloud stuff actually makes this even harder (at least today). The distinction between what's in the cloud and what is local is extremely hard to make, even for those of us that live and breathe this stuff. Oh sure, you can define it, but as a practical matter, if I hand you my phone, can you tell what's on the cloud? Is it left to the vagaries of what the OS has happened to cache locally? If you open my Dropbox app on my phone, how do you know what files are local and what files aren't? What if you see a filename like "drug_customer_list" in the directory listing? Can you go get it now that you have probable cause? It's murky and messy. We can pretend that it's simple, but it's not and we will need to work all of this out.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Pretending as though it is simple is the trick though. The reality is simple: don't search the phone without a fucking warrant. However this is a reality that is rejected by those with no incentive to realize it. What is needed is a fictional simplicity that is easier to feed people. After we have that we can work on getting the rest done properly.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Its an interesting (if controversial) theory, that your DNA is no more private to you than your fingerprints, and they already fingerprint you when you are arrested and put those fingerprints into a national database. I find that argument entirely disingenuous. The only way they are equivalent is if the DNA information is stored in their DB as a cryptographic one-way hash. This would remove all additional information from the DNA and only use it for unique identification. Let alone the fact that swabbing your mouth should be a violation of your privacy (and blood tests).
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    I don't think disingenuous means what you think it means :-) But that aside, if I understand what I think you mean the analogy of fingerprints doesn't work for you (and for me either btw). Historically the court has held that your right to privacy diminishes as you get closer to being convicted of a crime. And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example.
    - darkarmani 13y ago
      I find it disingenuous because the people making that argument don't really care about protecting people's rights -- they only want it to make their own jobs easier. If they really thought that fingerprinting was the same, they'd be championing having their own children DNA swabbed, just like they get their children fingerprinted in case they need to be IDed. The fact that none of these same people have tried to "save the children" tells me they don't really believe that argument. > And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. That makes sense though. Having judicial oversight of law enforcement is a compromise that protects people from the police (at least in theory), while granting LE the ability to do their job. DNA swabs used to have the same judicial oversight -- i'm not sure what is wrong with having to get a warrant to swab someone. > There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example. I have no problem taking away some rights of convicted felons, since we already take away their liberty by locking them up.
maeon3 13y ago
And all politicians and senators must have their DNA samples taken and posted online, with photo and name, as a show of good faith that it's not a big deal to let some cancerous arm of the government keep your specific blueprint for bootstrapping a human.
georgehaake 13y ago
Gattaca!
leeoniya 13y ago
there should be a requirement to destroy the DNA if no conviction is attained. the fact that the gov't can store your fingerprints forever simply because someone accused you of something is insane to begin with. using this as further justification for DNA storage is misguided. your DNA is more private than your medical records, because much of the latter and a whole lot more can be decoded from your DNA, maybe not now, but it will most certainly be done in the future. "just give us the keys to your house, we'll only use them when we (or our associates) deem necessary"
rayiner 13y ago
You don't have to love his politics to admit that Scalia's reasoning is, usually,[1] a beacon of clarity: "I cannot imagine what principle could possibly justify this limitation, and the Court does not attempt to suggest any. If one believes that DNA will 'identify' someone arrested for assault, he must believe that it will 'identify' someone arrested for a traffic offense. This Court does not base its judgments on senseless distinctions. At the end of the day, logic will [win] out. When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, 'We can find no significant difference between this case and King.' Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." Even in Lawrence v. Texas, when he was wrong (in the macro sense), he was right in pointing out that, despite the Court's maneuvering, its opinion left no room in the future to find gay marriage bans anything other than unconstitutional. That being said, I'll go ahead and be a little contrarian. Kennedy isn't really wrong: if you accept that routine fingerprinting is okay, there is precious little you can invoke to say that routine DNA swabbing is not okay, other than the fact that DNA swabbing is far more effective. The precision and effectiveness of DNA makes it scary to people, but look at the flip side. We might actually want a world where DNA is the go-to tool for convictions, because everything else is so much worse: http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf. If routine DNA swabs lead to the use of DNA evidence being routine, then juries might come to demand DNA evidence to deliver guilty verdicts, which would marginalize the other, highly unreliable, forensics techniques. There is also an important fairness aspect: unlike eyewitnesses, DNA evidence is not subject to cross-race identification bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_identification_bias#Cross-Race_Identification_Bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_identification_bias.... [1] As long as the topic isn't drugs or homosexuals.
- bmmayer1 13y ago
  Except for the not-so-inconsequential fact that DNA evidence can now be faked (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html)
- pyre 13y ago
ctdonath 13y ago
I'm a grudging holder of a view I deem the "rag doll" theory of identity & evidence gathering: if they can get it from your limp body without coercion or harm (needles & "intimate" contact included), they can have it. Facial photos, fingerprints, DNA ... things which can on the whole be obtained by just following you around (touched surfaces, fallen detritus), and which circumstances may dictate a more manipulated form of acquisition (hold face up for frontal photo, manipulate fingers for prints, mouth swab for DNA). Anything involving jabbing, yanking, or threats - no. This view does presume the existence of enough evidence for warrantable arrest in the first place, which should entail a high legal barrier: a judicially signed warrant should be required prior to arrest if possible, and acquired promptly thereafter if impractical; failure to obtain one (before or after, independent of information acquired during holding) should require immediate disposal of anything gathered including arrest record.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Why should it be bound to the level of technology? An fMRI doesn't require coercion or harm, and that could be used to extract internal thoughts, already.
- chrsstrm 13y ago
  This might be a simplistic view, but my fingerprint is a symbol of me which can be used to identify me. My DNA _is_ me, just the smallest piece of me that is in fact, me. What makes taking DNA any different than taking blood, or one of my fingers? If I were to leave DNA behind somewhere at a crime scene, I would expect it to be gathered, but removing it from my body "routinely" rubs me the wrong way.
olympus 13y ago
I think it should be pointed out that the information the police get back from a DNA sample is NOT a fully sequenced genome. It contains enough information to find high confidence matches, but they can't go through the information and start looking for pepole that have rare genetic diseases or anything like that. I still view it as a privacy issue by taking DNA from people who are never convicted (they should delete the info of innocent people). However, DNA samples from the police do not contain much 'confidential' beyond a fingerprint other than determining parents/siblings/cousings. Source: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/fore...
- jlgreco 13y ago
  You forgot the word "Currently."
JunkDNA 13y ago
As I say in a comment elsewhere in this thread, I find the dissent on this extremely illuminating and tend to agree with it. One thing the court can't consider right now (since it's a hypothetical future and that's rightly not their business) is that some day, DNA sequencing is going to be dirt cheap and super fast. It is only a matter of time. When that happens, what will the court think about the police driving around hoovering up all the hair and cells you shed every day? You know, just to solve those cold cases to see if anyone turns up? People get all worked up over automated license plate readers but the thought of the above happening makes GATTACA (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) look like Disneyland.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > When that happens, what will the court think about the police driving around hoovering up all the hair and cells you shed every day? You know, just to solve those cold cases to see if anyone turns up? What, in itself, would be wrong with that, as long as the police were catching people who were actually guilty? This is kind of the same thing as the fear of self-driving cars. Why would it be better to depend on things like eyewitness testimony (which is hugely unreliable, especially for cross-race identifications), when we have much less fallible DNA evidence?
  - JunkDNA 13y ago
    Well let's make it super-easy and nip this in the bud: let's just store a DNA sequence of everyone when they are born. That way, we can skip the whole hoovering up business and for sure identify people. Are you ok with that?
    - DanBC 13y ago
      We need to be clear about why that doesn't work because it's exactly what some people want. Appeals to natural justice are correct, but won't persuade those people. We need to work out the problems with false negatives and false positives and tying an ID to a DNA string because that might persuade a few people about how bad the idea is.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
malgorithms 13y ago
Did anyone else here get fingerprinted in elementary school, when the cops stopped by to say hi and talk about safety? We all were. This was in the mid 80's in Maine. I thought it was cool at the time, but I feel violated now. And I'm pretty sure my parents weren't asked. More to the point: how would this generation feel about the police coming to school and taking DNA samples?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > Did anyone else here get fingerprinted in elementary school, when the cops stopped by to say hi and talk about safety? Boyscout "fingerprinting merit badge". Interestingly they had us do none of the actual requirements (well, at least from the 2003 requirements, I don't know what they were at the time); the only thing we did was get fingerprinted by the police. Were it not for that, I would remain un-fingerprinted to this day. I am somewhat upset about that.

44 points by Cadsby 13y ago

Its an interesting (if controversial) theory, that your DNA is no more private to you than your fingerprints, and they already fingerprint you when you are arrested and put those fingerprints into a national database. The sticky thing for me though is that DNA not only identifies an individual, it also identifies their parents and possibly their siblings. So now we've got more than just our poor arrestee's id we've got some 'known acquaintences' and it gets worse if people start getting arrested for misdemeanors just so that the cops can take a swab to check. No doubt there will be more to this debate before the dust settles.

maratd 13y ago
> it also identifies their parents and possibly their siblings Also children. > No doubt there will be more to this debate before the dust settles. Absolutely. The fact that the court didn't split along political lines tells you that this issue hasn't been through the political process yet. There will be quite a bit more to this story down the road.
jlgreco 13y ago
DNA also contains confidential medical information, fingerprints do not. Even if we accept that it is okay to collect DNA, it certainly cannot be treated like fingerprints are, it has much more stringent privacy and data security requirements. Simply as a practical matter, I don't think I am comfortable with their ability to handle this data. (I imagine the collected DNA is currently not digitized, but in the future I would not expect that to remain true.)
ihsw 13y ago
The interesting thing is this national DNA database would be freely and easily accessed by corporate entities, assuming CISPA (or CISPA-like) acts pass.
- antoko 13y ago
  CISPA is for sharing information about cyber threats, clearly DNA samples would not fall into that category. So no that isn't an "interesting thing", because it isn't a true thing its just you spreading FUD about something that isn't related to this topic.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
npsimons 13y ago
The fact that they take fingerprints and put them in a national database, without even a conviction (you can be arrested for anything, and never convicted), should worry some folks, but I suppose we gave that battle up long ago.
- grecy 13y ago
  > you can be arrested for anything My favorite is being arrested for resisting arrest...for that arrest.
  - wl 13y ago
    You can't be arrested for resisting arrest alone. You can be charged with resisting arrest and nothing else. This is an important distinction. Imagine someone is suspected of murder. There is probable cause that this person has committed a crime so a judge issues an arrest warrant. A police officer finds this murder suspect and arrests him. The suspect resists but is ultimately taken into custody. Under interrogation, the suspect gives an alibi that ultimately checks out. This person isn't charged with murder because it's apparent he didn't commit the murder. However, the arrest was legal and resisting it was a crime. So the suspect is charged with resisting arrest with no other charges.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      It's all a matter of perspective. If you come to arrest me for a crime I know I didn't commit, then no, the arrest is not "legal" per my definition of "legal". The government might, indeed, be following it's own rules (and getting to that on a consistent basis would be a slight improvement over where we are now) but my rights have still been violated.
      - tg3 13y ago
        There is only one definition of "legal": allowable under the law. The constitution and the laws of your state outline your rights (if you live in the US). Part of the deal is that sometimes you can be arrested for crimes you didn't commit. But that's why we make sure that people who are arrested are guaranteed a speedy trial from a jury of their peers, etc.
timthorn 13y ago
This has been standard practise in the UK for many years now. Still controversial with an ongoing debate, but your point about relations is pertinent - a good number of convictions have been arrived at due to others' DNA samples.
JunkDNA 13y ago
Indeed. One of the fascinating things if you read the dissent (which I highly recommend, it's very approachable) is that the national electronic fingerprint databases have not actually ever been constitutionally tested on 4th amendment grounds. In my mind this falls into the same category as "searching" someone's smartphone if you arrest them. There's no analog for that. It's so fundamentally different, that you have to treat it differently than just looking through a backpack or something.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > In my mind this falls into the same category as "searching" someone's smartphone if you arrest them. There's no analog for that. Strangely, this is a case where "cloud" stuff could actually help. You can't search somebodies rented apartment just because you found his access device for said apartment in his pockets when you arrested him. Similarly, why should you be permitted to search his rented "cloud" just because you found his access device? This is imperfect since clearly local data should be protected from such searches as well, but it is fairly accessible. For this matter, I'd love to see someone push for an equivalent of renters rights in all things digital...
  - JunkDNA 13y ago
    I disagree, I think the cloud stuff actually makes this even harder (at least today). The distinction between what's in the cloud and what is local is extremely hard to make, even for those of us that live and breathe this stuff. Oh sure, you can define it, but as a practical matter, if I hand you my phone, can you tell what's on the cloud? Is it left to the vagaries of what the OS has happened to cache locally? If you open my Dropbox app on my phone, how do you know what files are local and what files aren't? What if you see a filename like "drug_customer_list" in the directory listing? Can you go get it now that you have probable cause? It's murky and messy. We can pretend that it's simple, but it's not and we will need to work all of this out.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Pretending as though it is simple is the trick though. The reality is simple: don't search the phone without a fucking warrant. However this is a reality that is rejected by those with no incentive to realize it. What is needed is a fictional simplicity that is easier to feed people. After we have that we can work on getting the rest done properly.
darkarmani 13y ago
> Its an interesting (if controversial) theory, that your DNA is no more private to you than your fingerprints, and they already fingerprint you when you are arrested and put those fingerprints into a national database. I find that argument entirely disingenuous. The only way they are equivalent is if the DNA information is stored in their DB as a cryptographic one-way hash. This would remove all additional information from the DNA and only use it for unique identification. Let alone the fact that swabbing your mouth should be a violation of your privacy (and blood tests).
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  I don't think disingenuous means what you think it means :-) But that aside, if I understand what I think you mean the analogy of fingerprints doesn't work for you (and for me either btw). Historically the court has held that your right to privacy diminishes as you get closer to being convicted of a crime. And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    I find it disingenuous because the people making that argument don't really care about protecting people's rights -- they only want it to make their own jobs easier. If they really thought that fingerprinting was the same, they'd be championing having their own children DNA swabbed, just like they get their children fingerprinted in case they need to be IDed. The fact that none of these same people have tried to "save the children" tells me they don't really believe that argument. > And that the state may set aside that right, using a warrant, when they have reason to believe a crime was committed. That makes sense though. Having judicial oversight of law enforcement is a compromise that protects people from the police (at least in theory), while granting LE the ability to do their job. DNA swabs used to have the same judicial oversight -- i'm not sure what is wrong with having to get a warrant to swab someone. > There has been little debate about putting the DNA of convicted sex offenders into a national database for example. I have no problem taking away some rights of convicted felons, since we already take away their liberty by locking them up.

maeon3 13y ago

And all politicians and senators must have their DNA samples taken and posted online, with photo and name, as a show of good faith that it's not a big deal to let some cancerous arm of the government keep your specific blueprint for bootstrapping a human.

georgehaake 13y ago

Gattaca!

leeoniya 13y ago

there should be a requirement to destroy the DNA if no conviction is attained. the fact that the gov't can store your fingerprints forever simply because someone accused you of something is insane to begin with. using this as further justification for DNA storage is misguided. your DNA is more private than your medical records, because much of the latter and a whole lot more can be decoded from your DNA, maybe not now, but it will most certainly be done in the future. "just give us the keys to your house, we'll only use them when we (or our associates) deem necessary"

rayiner 13y ago

You don't have to love his politics to admit that Scalia's reasoning is, usually,[1] a beacon of clarity: "I cannot imagine what principle could possibly justify this limitation, and the Court does not attempt to suggest any. If one believes that DNA will 'identify' someone arrested for assault, he must believe that it will 'identify' someone arrested for a traffic offense. This Court does not base its judgments on senseless distinctions. At the end of the day, logic will [win] out. When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, 'We can find no significant difference between this case and King.' Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." Even in Lawrence v. Texas, when he was wrong (in the macro sense), he was right in pointing out that, despite the Court's maneuvering, its opinion left no room in the future to find gay marriage bans anything other than unconstitutional. That being said, I'll go ahead and be a little contrarian. Kennedy isn't really wrong: if you accept that routine fingerprinting is okay, there is precious little you can invoke to say that routine DNA swabbing is not okay, other than the fact that DNA swabbing is far more effective. The precision and effectiveness of DNA makes it scary to people, but look at the flip side. We might actually want a world where DNA is the go-to tool for convictions, because everything else is so much worse: http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf. If routine DNA swabs lead to the use of DNA evidence being routine, then juries might come to demand DNA evidence to deliver guilty verdicts, which would marginalize the other, highly unreliable, forensics techniques. There is also an important fairness aspect: unlike eyewitnesses, DNA evidence is not subject to cross-race identification bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_identification_bias#Cross-Race_Identification_Bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_identification_bias.... [1] As long as the topic isn't drugs or homosexuals.

bmmayer1 13y ago
Except for the not-so-inconsequential fact that DNA evidence can now be faked (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html)
pyre 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

I'm a grudging holder of a view I deem the "rag doll" theory of identity & evidence gathering: if they can get it from your limp body without coercion or harm (needles & "intimate" contact included), they can have it. Facial photos, fingerprints, DNA ... things which can on the whole be obtained by just following you around (touched surfaces, fallen detritus), and which circumstances may dictate a more manipulated form of acquisition (hold face up for frontal photo, manipulate fingers for prints, mouth swab for DNA). Anything involving jabbing, yanking, or threats - no. This view does presume the existence of enough evidence for warrantable arrest in the first place, which should entail a high legal barrier: a judicially signed warrant should be required prior to arrest if possible, and acquired promptly thereafter if impractical; failure to obtain one (before or after, independent of information acquired during holding) should require immediate disposal of anything gathered including arrest record.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Why should it be bound to the level of technology? An fMRI doesn't require coercion or harm, and that could be used to extract internal thoughts, already.
chrsstrm 13y ago
This might be a simplistic view, but my fingerprint is a symbol of me which can be used to identify me. My DNA _is_ me, just the smallest piece of me that is in fact, me. What makes taking DNA any different than taking blood, or one of my fingers? If I were to leave DNA behind somewhere at a crime scene, I would expect it to be gathered, but removing it from my body "routinely" rubs me the wrong way.

olympus 13y ago

I think it should be pointed out that the information the police get back from a DNA sample is NOT a fully sequenced genome. It contains enough information to find high confidence matches, but they can't go through the information and start looking for pepole that have rare genetic diseases or anything like that. I still view it as a privacy issue by taking DNA from people who are never convicted (they should delete the info of innocent people). However, DNA samples from the police do not contain much 'confidential' beyond a fingerprint other than determining parents/siblings/cousings. Source: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/fore...

jlgreco 13y ago
You forgot the word "Currently."

JunkDNA 13y ago

As I say in a comment elsewhere in this thread, I find the dissent on this extremely illuminating and tend to agree with it. One thing the court can't consider right now (since it's a hypothetical future and that's rightly not their business) is that some day, DNA sequencing is going to be dirt cheap and super fast. It is only a matter of time. When that happens, what will the court think about the police driving around hoovering up all the hair and cells you shed every day? You know, just to solve those cold cases to see if anyone turns up? People get all worked up over automated license plate readers but the thought of the above happening makes GATTACA (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) look like Disneyland.

rayiner 13y ago
> When that happens, what will the court think about the police driving around hoovering up all the hair and cells you shed every day? You know, just to solve those cold cases to see if anyone turns up? What, in itself, would be wrong with that, as long as the police were catching people who were actually guilty? This is kind of the same thing as the fear of self-driving cars. Why would it be better to depend on things like eyewitness testimony (which is hugely unreliable, especially for cross-race identifications), when we have much less fallible DNA evidence?
- JunkDNA 13y ago
  Well let's make it super-easy and nip this in the bud: let's just store a DNA sequence of everyone when they are born. That way, we can skip the whole hoovering up business and for sure identify people. Are you ok with that?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    We need to be clear about why that doesn't work because it's exactly what some people want. Appeals to natural justice are correct, but won't persuade those people. We need to work out the problems with false negatives and false positives and tying an ID to a DNA string because that might persuade a few people about how bad the idea is.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

malgorithms 13y ago

Did anyone else here get fingerprinted in elementary school, when the cops stopped by to say hi and talk about safety? We all were. This was in the mid 80's in Maine. I thought it was cool at the time, but I feel violated now. And I'm pretty sure my parents weren't asked. More to the point: how would this generation feel about the police coming to school and taking DNA samples?

jlgreco 13y ago
> Did anyone else here get fingerprinted in elementary school, when the cops stopped by to say hi and talk about safety? Boyscout "fingerprinting merit badge". Interestingly they had us do none of the actual requirements (well, at least from the 2003 requirements, I don't know what they were at the time); the only thing we did was get fingerprinted by the police. Were it not for that, I would remain un-fingerprinted to this day. I am somewhat upset about that.