Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Privacy Science Technology

Dutch Police Ask 8000+ Citizens To Provide Their DNA 374

Posted by timothy
from the just-a-swab-between-the-cheek-and-gums dept.
sciencewatcher writes "In an attempt to solve a rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl, the Dutch police have asked 8080 men to provide their DNA. All these people lived 5 km or less from the crime scene at the time of the murder. This reopened cold case is the first large-scale attempt not to hunt the rapist and killer but to locate his close or distant male relatives. All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder. There seems to be great public support for this attempt." Shades of The Blooding.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Police Ask 8000+ Citizens To Provide Their DNA

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:02PM (#41250985)

    It's clearly for the children.

    • by GaratNW (978516)
      Didn't Lisa Sparxxx already film this video?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:02PM (#41250987)

    That is what this boils down to. There is no "right" answer, but citizens of each country answer the question diferently.

    • by steelfood (895457) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:12PM (#41251137)

      Individuals answer the question differently. What happens if you say no, I wonder?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fustakrakich (1673220)

        You can't say "no". They can just take a swab of something you touched.. Everywhere we go, we leave a little something behind.

        • by Eponymous Hero (2090636) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @03:14PM (#41252109)
          which is exactly why dna evidence doesn't mean shit unless you can connect how it got there. right? http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/31/1534253/the-case-against-dna [slashdot.org]
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:30PM (#41251413)

        When they tried this in Toronto a few years back it was accompanied by a lovely threat to publish the name of anyone who didn't cooperate.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:53PM (#41251819)

          Shit man, I WISH they'd try something like that in Winnipeg. I'd be damn fucking PROUD to be published on a list of "those who didn't cater to the OBVIOUS overstepping of the authorities". I'd be tempted to ask if they wish me to wear a red armband as well to indicate I didn't take part in this.

          But in general, I'd ask they put my name front and goddamn center as one of the people who didn't take part.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          When they tried this in Toronto a few years back it was accompanied by a lovely threat to publish the name of anyone who didn't cooperate.

          Thus indicating who you should reach out to when organizing political (or violent) resistance? Way to think it through, guys.

        • I would want my name published, as someone who stood up to that inappropriate request. Once they have your DNA on file, you can't trust them to discard that information.

          The thing is, if they take it themselves (e.g. break into people's houses and swab a cup) they can't use that anyway. It was not obtained by lawful means. This means any further evidence they gather based on that, is also unlawful. So they don't do things like that. This is why they formally obtain and store DNA records when someone is convi

        • I've lived in Toronto for 20+ years. I don't recall any such attempt, nor threat.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I've lived in Toronto for 20+ years. I don't recall any such attempt, nor threat.

            He's referring to the Holly Jones case [www.cbc.ca] in 2003.

            May 21, 2003
            Police intensify search, sifting through hundreds of bags of garbage in the hopes of turning up additional evidence in the case. They start collecting DNA samples from residents of Holly's neighbourhood.

          • I don't see the threat to publish names of people who didn't cooperate but there has been more than one attempt to solve a crime this way in Toronto in the last 10 years.

            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/25/toronto-ccla-dna.html [www.cbc.ca]
            http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/413851--widen-dna-dragnet-blair [thestar.com]
            From The Star link:

            Toronto police Det. Const. Andrew Teixeira and his partner Jamie Clark knocked on doors in Holly's west-Toronto neighbourhood asking men to voluntarily provide a DNA sample.

            When they got to the home of 35-year-old Michael Briere – filled with stuffed animals and comic books – they asked Briere if they could swab inside his cheek.

            "It was a flat no. He apologized and said he thought it was just a way for the government to track people's movements," Teixeira recalled. Of the 300 men who lived within two blocks of Jones's home and were asked to provide a DNA sample, he was one of only two who said no.

            Briere was placed under around-the-clock surveillance.
            It took a month before police announced his arrest, revealing they had matched his DNA, taken from a discarded pop can, to skin found under Jones's fingernails. Briere was convicted and is serving a life sentence.

            Emphasis mine. Now it turns out they got the guy. So it just boils down to a question of whether the ends justifies the mean.

      • by stephanruby (542433) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @03:41PM (#41252533)

        Individuals answer the question differently. What happens if you say no, I wonder?

        "No-one will be forced to comply, the department said."

        Essentially, they're doing the same thing we're already doing in the US. If you say no, the authorities start implying that you're probably the guilty party. They start investigating you as the real suspect, and during the course of their investigation into your background, it becomes clear to all your friends, girlfriend/wife, coworkers, and family members, that you must have refused to supply them with your dna sample, or refused to take the lie detector test (otherwise, they wouldn't be asking such questions).

        And they're claiming they're looking for "family members", but notice they're not asking for dna samples from female participants. Either this is a little white lie designed to minimize the outrage the men must be feeling at being singled out, or perhaps they're hoping to nab a male teenager through the analysis of his fathers' dna (since getting dna from hundreds of male teenagers in the vicinity may actually be harder to achieve politically) .

        • by meerling (1487879) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @05:56PM (#41254005)
          A few years back there was a bit of a test done where samples were submitted to several different testing companies to check if the 'suspect' matched. 75% of the companies returned positive results. Too bad the reality is they were unrelated samples. So it looks like the companies were returning false positives 3 out of 4 times if they thought it would help the police/prosecution.

          It's not always like that, and it's a good reason for the defense to do tests as well, but it does bring in to question the usability of such techniques when they are so commonly and easily misused & abused.
      • by mrvan (973822) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:17PM (#41252999)

        Dutchman here, there has been quite some coverage on radio and television.

        If you say no the police will pay you a visit to ask why you said no. They have no legal means to entice you to change your opinion, this is a voluntary action (but as the purpose is to find relatives rather than the perp himself, they can afford some negatives).

        They also say that the data cannot legally be used for anything other than this investigation and will be destroyed afterwards, but this indeed boils down to trust.

        To the OP: it's not just "do you trust the government". If it also the (much more difficult) moral dilemma whether you want to collaborate in prosecuting a (possibly close) relative and presumably put all your family through a great deal of stress...

        • Cops come to my door, I have nothing to say to them unless they have a warrant, and not even then.

          No, you can't come in—in fact I'm coming outside and closing the door behind me. No, I'm not answering any questions (other than my name, as required by law).

          10 I ask, "Am I under arrest?"

          20 If they say, "No," then

          30 I ask, "So I'm free to go back inside?"

          40 If they say, "No," then

          50 Goto 10

    • by postbigbang (761081) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:22PM (#41251283)

      Somewhere, there has to be a sense of common human rights, and what's extractable by the state-- any state. If there are no matches, then what? Is the DNA destroyed? Or is it part of a new database to vet our ostensible innocence of other crimes?

      It's invasive, and therefore beyond the reach of probing with the flimsy "probable cause" of proximity, and the inherent right of people to be innocent until proven guilty. Yes, American ideals, and a boundary that's pushed across the planet.

      • by arth1 (260657) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:58PM (#41251895) Homepage Journal

        Somewhere, there has to be a sense of common human rights, and what's extractable by the state-- any state. If there are no matches, then what? Is the DNA destroyed? Or is it part of a new database to vet our ostensible innocence of other crimes?

        I know that not reading TFA is common enough, but this is answered in the fine submission - yes, it's a one-time effort, and the samples will not be kept.

        • by Anomalyst (742352) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @03:01PM (#41251941)

          it's a one-time effort, and the samples will not be kept.

          Bullshit. They are lying, you can see their lips moving.

        • Sure the DNA is destroyed, but what about the computer generated representation of that DNA? As soon as something is translated from one form to another, saying you'll destroy the submission is meaningless.
          • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:36PM (#41253253) Homepage

            I'm guessing that for now they are telling the truth, because first you have to make people accept giving DNA for various random cases. Then you point out the obvious waste and absurdity in collecting this information and throwing it away again and again. Since most people feel they're paying way too much taxes already they'll go with it and get permission to store it so they can just ask your permission to reuse it. Then they'll complain of the administration cost of getting permission for each individual use and make the default a permanent permission. From there you can just slow-roll it to cover more crimes to get more people in the system. And if you've boiled the frog well enough, perhaps the 51% will find that the other 49% should be in the system too.

          • by sheean.nl (565364)

            We actually have laws in this country to prevent just that. For example the "Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens" (Personal Data Protection Act) accounts for most of the rhetorical questions in the comments here.

        • Ummmm. Ok. Sure. Fine.

          Data is forever. Ask Google or Amazon, etc.

          I know the Dutch believe they're highly honorable. And I know that you apparently believed it. And I think you're daffy.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      I just googled "dutch mps" and most of the stories seemed to be the sort of thing I'd want my politicians to be doing.

      • The Dutch MPS is relatively powerless and the current one hasn't done a lot to impress. Sure, compared to such wonders of freedom like the former USSR, the former GDR or the current USA, Dutch politicians may appear almost saint-like, but they were in fact in favor of ACTA, the second Gulf War and plenty of other things that /. was outraged about in the recent past. If anything, proving loyalty to the EU and the NATO allies seems to be more important than a lot of the public news stories teh goggles come up
  • Promise? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:02PM (#41250989)

    "We'll destroy the DNA afterwards, we PROMISE...."

    • Re:Promise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guises (2423402) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:08PM (#41251081)
      At least they did promise. When law enforcement here does the same thing and cites this case as precedent they'll neglect to consider that little condition.
      • by Hatta (162192)

        If "here" is the US, it's already a common practice [newstandardnews.net]. And yes, if you refuse you can expect your name to be published [nytimes.com] in the paper.

        IMO, this is an obvious breach of our 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches, and our 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

    • Re:Promise? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:08PM (#41251093)

      Yeah, we've seen and heard similar promises from both government and private entities before.

      "These automated license plate scanners won't store the data." "Okay this data may be useful to us, so we'll save it but not for more than three months." "Hey we've got all this great license plate data, organized by place and time - what will you pay for such useful information?"

      "We're not collecting Wi-Fi data." "Okay, yeah we are collecting it but we're not going to store the Wi-Fi payload info." "Okay, we did, you caught us, it was accidentally done, but we won't do it again." "Okay we didn't actually dump it the last time after we said we would, but we ARE now... promise!"

      If I were Dutch, I think I'd decline to participate.

  • I'd do it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:05PM (#41251033)

    I don't generally like the idea of giving DNA samples to anyone. However, if the authorities are very direct and up-front about it, and provide me with a signed statement that the records will be destroyed after each sample is "cleared", then I'd do it in this case.

    I'll always trust the entity who asks for something over the entity which does the same thing in secret without permission.

    Even so, I sincerely doubt that this will lead to the perpetrator, for obvious reasons.

    • by rvw (755107)

      I don't generally like the idea of giving DNA samples to anyone. However, if the authorities are very direct and up-front about it, and provide me with a signed statement that the records will be destroyed after each sample is "cleared", then I'd do it in this case.

      I'll always trust the entity who asks for something over the entity which does the same thing in secret without permission.

      Even so, I sincerely doubt that this will lead to the perpetrator, for obvious reasons.

      If I were the killer, I would certainly not give my DNA. They probably expect this. Those who refuse will of course receive special attention. Then the DNA might rule out those who are suspects now, and have a different profile. What they hope for is a match for family. They can see if the person is a blood relative, and that will limit the scope of the search.

      • Re:I'd do it. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by leromarinvit (1462031) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:41PM (#41251615)

        If I were the killer, I would certainly not give my DNA. They probably expect this. Those who refuse will of course receive special attention.

        Well, I've never killed anyone and don't plan to, but I most certainly wouldn't give anyone my DNA unless forced to. If they want to force me, they have to treat me as a suspect, I have a right to legal counsel, etc. Why should I trust the police that they'll destroy everything afterwards? Wouldn't be the first time they lied.

        They have to do their homework, find suspects, and then get THEM to provide a DNA sample. Taking shortcuts and asking everybody to provide one "voluntarily" is not acceptable, because at some point it won't be voluntary any more. The fact that the proper procedures take a lot of work is an insurance policy against just treating everybody as a suspect just in case.

    • Re:I'd do it. (Score:4, Informative)

      by rve (4436) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:29PM (#41251385)

      Even so, I sincerely doubt that this will lead to the perpetrator, for obvious reasons.

      They're not doing this assuming the killer will volunteer; they're looking for his relatives - something that was apparently not possible 20 years ago, when they also did a DNA screening. Everyone has a creepy cousin somewhere, right? Most guys will probably volunteer. Everyone in that town wants the crime to be finally solved.

      • Re:I'd do it. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cbreak (1575875) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:56PM (#41251873)
        If they would really look for relatives, then they would not limit themselves to male DNA sources. It should be obvious to anyone that a rapist can have female relatives just as well as male ones.
        • by u38cg (607297)
          Yes, but do you really want to broadcast your strategy quite that loudly?
        • If they would really look for relatives, then they would not limit themselves to male DNA sources. It should be obvious to anyone that a rapist can have female relatives just as well as male ones.

          Did you ever consider that maybe the genetic markers they are looking for only occur on the Y chromosomes?

          • by dbet (1607261)
            >Did you ever consider that maybe the genetic markers they are looking for only occur on the Y chromosomes? They don't.
    • by Znork (31774)

      Except, of course, the entity may very well be direct and up-front, provide you with a signed statement and then store your sample in secret without your permission anyway.

      Once you've provided them with the sample you have no control over what they do with it in secret. ... and having read about some real quality DNA labs the chances are they'll put your sample in the same testtube they ran the suspect sample in without washing it between. Or the same lab tech sneezed at both the suspect sample and yours. W

    • by The Raven (30575)

      This actually has a good chance to work. Just because Bob raped someone doesn't mean Bob's dad knows. Bob's dad goes in, gets tested, and shows up as a very close match... they have now narrowed the suspect list from 8000 to under 10.

  • Thus... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halfEvilTech (1171369) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:07PM (#41251077)

    why not 6km away, 10km, etc? That is not that large of an area all things considered. It would be roughly the size of a small town. Who is to say the perp didn't live the next town over or was a nomad of sorts. Yes I know they say it is to possibly locate relatives, but how often would close enough match cause them to accuse said match.

    Also who would trust their government to "destroy" the data when they are done with it. Yes they may very well destroy the samples but you can bet your next paycheck that it will stay stored on some backup somewhere for future use.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by fearlezz (594718)

      Why not 6km/10km? I'm not sure, but I guess it's because the village where she was found is only 500meters long and surrounded by meadows. 5km radius = 10km diameter. This means all nearby villages are included as well.
      Any further is a lot less likely: most crimes are commited within a certain distance of the criminals home. Because the infrastructure at the site doesn't allow to travel very fast, this distance decreases I think.

      The Marianne Vaatstra case will probably never be solved. There was a lot of ev

      • Re:Thus... (Score:5, Informative)

        by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @03:12PM (#41252071)

        The Marianne Vaatstra case will probably never be solved. There was a lot of evidence pointing towards a center of asylum seekers nearby. The most likely suspects fled the country within a few days.

        And later evidence pointed to it likely being a local (second bike), possibly somebody she knew (likely perp's lighter in her bag), and most likely western European (from DNA); not quite the Iraqi/Afghani asylum seeker profile.

        At this point it could be her neighbor, somebody from Amsterdam, or even an American with Western European heritage. No use pointing fingers anywhere.

        I do agree that this likely will never be solved, though. This and dozens of other cases that don't get nearly this much (media) attention.

  • by tepples (727027) <tepples@nOSpAM.gmail.com> on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:09PM (#41251105) Homepage Journal
    Fortunately, I'm a 6502 man [wikipedia.org], not an 8080 man [wikipedia.org]. (But then I'm not Dutch either.)
  • Convince people they are being attacked, and they'll give you anything you want. Happens every day. Textbook case, ripped right out of that book written by the little general.

  • Bad move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha (906264) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:16PM (#41251203)

    This is a good article on the problems with fishing expeditions like this. [wordpress.com] Basically, the farther you cast the net, the greater the chance of false positives. What's worse, if there's just one false positive, it becomes next to impossible to argue your innocence because people look at the improbability of a single person being a false positive instead of the probability that there are false positives.

  • by bradley13 (1118935) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:17PM (#41251209) Homepage

    DNA screening only looks at a few characteristics. Take two random people, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match. If you take the DNA profiles of 8000 people, it is quite likely that one of them will match the criminals profile. Meanwhile, the criminal will almost certainly find some way to avoid giving a sample. So you get to put some innocent person through hell, and for what?

    • by kwark (512736)

      They are not looking for a match with the criminal, they are looking for any one matching. They might find family narrowing the search for the real criminal.

    • Take two random people, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match

      True, but keep in mind that this may as well translate to:
      "Take an octogenarian paraplegic-at-birth blind man in care home and a 30-year old guy who has no alibi and is known to be a womanizer who likes getting rough, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match

      I doubt it would be that clear-cut, but investigations don't generally go "your DNA matches, we don't care you claim where you

      • And what if you're a 1-in-7000 guy, and happen to not have alibi and don't have many friends around the place cause you're seen as a bit weird?

        Besides, going through the process is going to make 8080 men feel varying degrees of uncomfort at being seen as a potential rapist and killer.
        • And what if you're a 1-in-7000 guy, and happen to not have alibi and don't have many friends around the place cause you're seen as a bit weird?

          Then they'll take a closer look at you and while you may be a bit weird and not have an alibi also don't seem to have any ties to the case whatsoever, and be let go.

          The real danger lies in your name becoming public because the entire town is going to distrust you or even decide that you are the perp and take matters in their own hands.

          Besides, going through the proce

          • by Rich0 (548339)

            And what if you're a 1-in-7000 guy, and happen to not have alibi and don't have many friends around the place cause you're seen as a bit weird?

            Then they'll take a closer look at you and while you may be a bit weird and not have an alibi also don't seem to have any ties to the case whatsoever, and be let go.

            No ties to the case? Your DNA matches the semen found in the victim, or whatever they got it from!

            Do you think the prosecutor is going to stand up and announce to the town, well, we found this guy with a DNA match but we let him go since that is all the evidence we had. That would never go over. They're going to have to prosecute, which means the guy with the DNA match goes through the wringer no matter what the outcome is, and they're quite likely to end up in prison.

    • Lets not forget a recent case in the states that got some press becuase a cab driver left some dna on a patron who was later murdered. The cabbie was of course jailed, and for quite some time, until the actual perp was caught.
    • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:05PM (#41252817)

      Yes, this is a perfect situation for the false positive paradox [wikipedia.org]. Essentially, unless the rate of false positives in the test is significantly lower than the number of perpetrators (which is anywhere from 1 in 8000 to 1 in several billion) then the test is useless.

      This is the same reason the AMA said *not* be screening for prostate cancer may be preferable because the tests are inaccurate. Mathematically you're guaranteeing you would largely treat patients that were not ill, and since treatment is not without risk you're risking more casualties by testing than would succumb to the disease.

      DNA evidence taken on this scale can be nothing more than circumstantial unless the test they use and the quality of forensic sample they have from the crime scene are accurate enough, and I can only hope the defense rakes the state over the coals if they screw it up. I honestly hope they get two unrelated positives, or one positive for a resident who has an air tight alibi.

      Forensics is not a substitute for police work.

    • by u38cg (607297)
      You're committing the birthday paradox error. If you take a stadium full of (say) football supporters, it's even money that two people in the stadium match. The odds that one of them matches (say) me or you, though, are still astronomical.

      Also it's not impossible that forensics labs have heard of this science stuff and know a little bit about it. Just saying.

  • "All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder." Governments are notorious for not destroying the data they are suppose to destroy like this. The only way I would believe it is
    1) there was a law of some sorts that forces them to
    2) a penalty if they dont.
    3) a law that it cant ever be used against you except for this specific crime
  • Colin Pitchfork [wikipedia.org] was the first person ever to be convicted on DNA evidence. That was as a result of voluntary mass-screening and suppose it's natural for the Dutch police to follow suit especially if they have no leads.

    • by Whorhay (1319089)

      He was actually only caught because he paid someone else to submit a sample in his place, and that person then bragged about it. That case also happened pretty early on in the whole DNA as evidence era. Now a days I would expect a criminal to be much more cautious about the whole thing. Then again we are talking about criminals, and they aren't often known for their high intellect.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:21PM (#41251271)
    But this is the very definition of a "fishing expedition", which is against some of the most very basic legal principles and Constitutional rights of the American people.

    Scientists know -- and have been saying -- that DNA is far weaker evidence than prosecutors have tried to paint for the last few decades. But really more to the point: even if a conviction were made, it is not worth the loss of freedom and potential abuse this procedure involves.

    "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.

  • by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:22PM (#41251297) Journal

    First, announcing this pretty much ensures the guilty party is never found. It would be like going on Twitter and saying "Hey Mr./Mrs. (Name of criminal), the police are going to #raid your house tomorrow."

    Second, you only THOUGHT you had the right to privacy.

    • First, announcing this

      as opposed to.. what? Surreptitiously acquiring the DNA sample from people?

      It would be like going on Twitter and saying "Hey Mr./Mrs. (Name of criminal), the police are going to #raid your house tomorrow."

      But they're not even trying to find the criminal's DNA in this case - they already tried that, and didn't find a match. They're trying to find family members now.
      I guess if everybody in the family knows that family member X did something, and then every member in the family asked de

    • by Whorhay (1319089)

      Even the summary stated they don't think they'll find the perpetrator directly through this sampling. Instead they hope to find a relative who's DNA would be a close match or possibly share some semi unique trait. This could help them immensely by narrowing down the pool of suspects.

      My impression was that this is strictly voluntary, so it's not exactly a violation of an individual citizens privacy. It will no doubt though cause lots of concern over whether or not the authorities will do as promised when it

  • The crime described in this story is truly horrific, bu as a supporter of personal rights I would only submit such evidence in one form and it would involve me standing up, the officers on their knees, and would require at least four tissues to wipe away the excess.
  • by Mister Whirly (964219) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:54PM (#41251839) Homepage
    So the moral of the story is - if you are going to kill someone in the Netherlands, kill someone at least 10 km away from you.
  • Bullshit ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @02:56PM (#41251875) Homepage

    I read this "All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder" and immediately think bullshit.

    As a rule, once they have this, it never seem to go away.

    I would never submit to this unless I was required to -- this is a fishing expedition. Anybody who submits is probably innocent, and anybody who refuses is going to be treated as if they're guilty with something to hide.

    Yes, this is terrible. But asking everyone to submit exclusionary DNA because they've ran out of places to look ... well, I find that to be a really scary precedent.

    The next step of course would be to just simply have everyone's DNA on file just in case they ever needed it.

  • That is if they just give me their word they would destroy it, I would say no.

    Too many laws are written without stated punishments, which means that the government breaks the law without any consequences.

    If they explicitly stated that if they failed to destroy my DNA records within 3 months, they would pay me me cash, I would do it. Probably for a minimum payment of $1,000 dollars.

  • Sure, the cops will throw your DNA away. After you've been framed for the next crime they're too stupid to actually solve.

    Bonus: refusing no doubt will put you on a permanent 'Persons of Interest' list.
  • So now that the police have openly asked for this the criminal would have to be brain dead stupid to stick around.

  • The police dont expect the perp to provide DNA - they hope the father/brother etc will provide theirs, as they are innocent, but the DNA match will be close enough to take a hard look at the extended family......
  • Living in Holland (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bysshe (1330263) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:12PM (#41252935)
    There is not great public support for this. Outside of that podunk village there's plenty of people, me included, who would go tell the authorities to go fuck themselves. Slippery slope this is. Destroy data? yeah right. They've also said, only after the case has been solved. What if its not solved? And is data ever really destroyed?

    On the radio and in the media they're just not playing the sound bites of people who refuse, they're only playing clips of people who say "what's the big deal if you have nothing to hide". The old line secret police everywhere like to use.

    I for one will tell the justice department to shove it if they ask me for this.
  • All data gathered will be destroyed after the match with this particular murder.

    Here is what Data thinks of that statement. [youtube.com]

  • Data destroyed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markdavis (642305) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @05:20PM (#41253711)

    Maybe you can believe the promises of the Dutch police, but if this were in the USA, I would say there was not a chance in HELL the data would really be destroyed.

    I suspect it would not only be kept locally, but probably snarfed by the state police, FBI, DHS, CIA, and/or whatever.

    Sorry to sound so jaded.

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...