6 ms·

I don't see how this would be different from lifting fingerprints from a discarded cup. Does that happen in real life or is that just a movie/tv thing?

lettergram 12y ago
I think the argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that DNA actually contains encoded information, where a finger print is just a unique pattern.
- evgen 12y ago
  But law enforcement is not using the encoded information, they are just taking a unique pattern from the information and using it for identification purposes.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    I could for sure envision a situation where they use the encoded information. Let's say they find that the sample comes from a person who is predisposed to a heart condition and they already have a description putting him in the 40-50 age range. That's a pretty significant piece of information that can help narrow down a search or canvass, especially if there's any other meta data they can correlate to the crime.
    - bayesianhorse 12y ago
      Why would your example be unreasonable? Sounds like good police work. Just that it is very unlikely that you could infer the clinical manifestation of a heart condition just from DNA alone...
      - remarkEon 12y ago
        No, I would not consider it unreasonable but a lot of people probably would. And I don't know enough about inferring future health conditions from DNA alone, but I meant it as an example for a future possibility. If anyone does know, exactly, what you can infer from DNA alone and how that would be extremely helpful.
MarcScott 12y ago
The difference is that lifting fingerprints can only tie you to a crime scene. In this case the DNA evidence tied him to the actual crime.
- aapierce 12y ago
  What about the DNA tied him to the crime as opposed to the just the crime scene? The article doesn't really go into that. If they're just comparing the DNA that was left behind at the police station to DNA they found at a crime scene, I don't see any issue.
  - MarcScott 12y ago
    This was a rape case. Leaving fingerprints or even DNA on a bloody knife can only confirm you picked up the knife, and therefore that you were present at the scene. In this case the DNA identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. IMHO the EFF have chosen the wrong case to fight here.
    - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
      You can't choose what cases will set precedence, and, once set, it is very difficult to "unset".
      - bmelton 12y ago
        Lawyers can and do choose which cases will be set for precedent all the time. It's somewhat difficult to ensure that your case is the only one going after the said precedent at the right time, but just about any time a new law is passed that people object to, lawyers begin shopping for ideal candidates and then determining the best ways for them to break the law in the least damaging way, and in the best possible district to get the law deemed unconstitutional. This typically happens with civil rights cases, and it's worth noting that there are certain legal groups that are better at it than others -- the Second Amendment Foundation is exceptional, and it's a large part of why their win record is so good.
    - 12y ago
jackjello 12y ago
>I don't see how this would be different from lifting fingerprints from a discarded cup. Your fingerprints don't tell me anything about your mother, you medical history or future, or hers. When someone takes your DNA, they search your entire family.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Testing DNA for identification purposes at best establishes identity and a small part of your family tree. Not even the latter so much, because your family would have to be in the system, too. And your family relationships should be something police is entitled to find out.

lettergram 12y ago

I think the argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that DNA actually contains encoded information, where a finger print is just a unique pattern.

evgen 12y ago
But law enforcement is not using the encoded information, they are just taking a unique pattern from the information and using it for identification purposes.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  I could for sure envision a situation where they use the encoded information. Let's say they find that the sample comes from a person who is predisposed to a heart condition and they already have a description putting him in the 40-50 age range. That's a pretty significant piece of information that can help narrow down a search or canvass, especially if there's any other meta data they can correlate to the crime.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    Why would your example be unreasonable? Sounds like good police work. Just that it is very unlikely that you could infer the clinical manifestation of a heart condition just from DNA alone...
    - remarkEon 12y ago
      No, I would not consider it unreasonable but a lot of people probably would. And I don't know enough about inferring future health conditions from DNA alone, but I meant it as an example for a future possibility. If anyone does know, exactly, what you can infer from DNA alone and how that would be extremely helpful.

MarcScott 12y ago

The difference is that lifting fingerprints can only tie you to a crime scene. In this case the DNA evidence tied him to the actual crime.

aapierce 12y ago
What about the DNA tied him to the crime as opposed to the just the crime scene? The article doesn't really go into that. If they're just comparing the DNA that was left behind at the police station to DNA they found at a crime scene, I don't see any issue.
- MarcScott 12y ago
  This was a rape case. Leaving fingerprints or even DNA on a bloody knife can only confirm you picked up the knife, and therefore that you were present at the scene. In this case the DNA identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. IMHO the EFF have chosen the wrong case to fight here.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    You can't choose what cases will set precedence, and, once set, it is very difficult to "unset".
    - bmelton 12y ago
      Lawyers can and do choose which cases will be set for precedent all the time. It's somewhat difficult to ensure that your case is the only one going after the said precedent at the right time, but just about any time a new law is passed that people object to, lawyers begin shopping for ideal candidates and then determining the best ways for them to break the law in the least damaging way, and in the best possible district to get the law deemed unconstitutional. This typically happens with civil rights cases, and it's worth noting that there are certain legal groups that are better at it than others -- the Second Amendment Foundation is exceptional, and it's a large part of why their win record is so good.
  - 12y ago

jackjello 12y ago

>I don't see how this would be different from lifting fingerprints from a discarded cup. Your fingerprints don't tell me anything about your mother, you medical history or future, or hers. When someone takes your DNA, they search your entire family.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
Testing DNA for identification purposes at best establishes identity and a small part of your family tree. Not even the latter so much, because your family would have to be in the system, too. And your family relationships should be something police is entitled to find out.