Twist on DNA Privacy 313
ConfusedVorlon writes "The BBC is reporting the conviction of a man for the murder of a prostitute 15 years ago. The interesting twist is that his DNA was not on record - 'But it partly match[ed] that of a youth's who was known to the police - but who had not been born at the time of the murder. The teenager, it turned out, was a close relative of [the murderor].' There has been concern in the past at the idea of keeping DNA of those interviewed but not charged with crimes. I haven't previously heard of the privacy implications of being related to a criminal/suspect. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"
No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:2, Insightful)
As to government selling this information... I think you'
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:4, Insightful)
But this isn't the worst abuse, SlashDot had a story a couple years ago, about how S.C. sold/gave its driver license database to a Mass. company to digitize the photos, and "verify the identity" of its citizens. It was pitched as, "you would not need to be concerned about verifying yourself to stores, banks, etc." as this database would verification for you. The S.C. citizens were supposed to be enthralled about the S.C. gov'ts ability to track their financial movements. Only after a large outcry, was the program suspended, but I don't know if the database was purged by the Mass. company, and the citizens' personal information, protected.
So it isn't paranoia, as some states have viewed your personal information, which you are required to give to get a license, as an exploitable resourse. It reminds me of the online web privacy story from Thursday, where online companies have changed their privacy policies rectroactively, and have then started selling your personal information. This also disregards the much worse effects of the "war-on-terror".
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:2)
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:3, Insightful)
The wrongful conviction of these men cannot be assigned to anything but the insincerity of the police and prosecuters in seeking out the real perpetrator. If they had the dna evidence that they believed would lead to the murderer, how can they justify convicting men whose dna did not match that evidence.
A state collecting evidence on citizens before they commit a crime is a serious thre
yeah, the cops are clearly evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Prosecutors and judges in Britain have little incentive to be "insincere" in order to achieve convictions--they aren't up for elections every few years.
Miscarriages of justice and mistakes can occur anywhere; but overall, I would have much more confidence in the British system than in the US system. Furthermore, if there is a mistake, people don't get
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:5, Insightful)
But we don't do this. Because we don't treat citizens like criminals. Neither should we collect DNA for the same reason.
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:5, Funny)
Your terms are acceptable. DNA aquisition will commence after a 12 cooling period.
-
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:3, Interesting)
Supposed a witness had pointed to someone in a line-up and said "it isn't him, but he's real close, almost like his brother" and the police went and investigated the brother. Nobody would have any objection.
There is a danger with retained DNA databases, but I don't see it in this case.
As the number of "usual suspects" grows, eventually we will have someone who has a "1 in a million" match against the perpretators DNA.
I doubt that the prosecution will reveal to the jury that the defendant was one o
Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to test for DNA has been with us for over a decade. Why haven't we been using it all of this time? Because prosecutors want to keep every conviction that they can stack up. Whether or not an innocent man is behind bars is less important than whether or not they followed all of the rules in the trial.
LK
Gene Police! (Score:5, Funny)
Privacy implications are nill (Score:3, Insightful)
Now a risk with law enforcement et al.. might be a problem.. but you are already registered (unless you're an illegal alien!) so why does the govt. having your DNA really matter? I guess, if they had a huge database of DNA records for every citizen, that could be a problem
But the problem with DNA is that you need a sample to test against the subject's dna.. what use would this have to a criminal? High-tech duplicating and leaving at a crime scene? The cost alone would leave it to large orginazed crime stuff, and that still doesn't seem to me like it would be a problem.
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2, Insightful)
With limits on their resources, and given significant problems cross-referencing different pieces of data (there's no common identity number in the UK), they need a really good reason to infringe privacy.
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2)
Great point! The idea of keeping the people who keep us safe from criminals understaffed and underequipped is widely seen by many intellectuals and social and political leaders as a great idea. It has many important results, my personal favorite being that it allows the criminals to get away with their crimes!
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2)
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2)
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2, Insightful)
National Insurance number - we all get a card on our 16th birthday - [A-Z]{2}[0-9]{6}[A-Z] - every adult legitimately resident in the UK has one.
TomV
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:5, Insightful)
As I said, the problems have already Started [bbc.co.uk]...
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean you might hug a chick that goes away and commits suicide and then all the sudden some of your hair is found on her coat.. alright that might not be that bad but imagine a devious mind bringing your dna and being careful not to spread his on the crime-scene. All the sudden you might be in the spotlights and police say they are 100% sure its your D
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:4, Informative)
The big problem with this is, that a tiny contamination will cause deviances from what would be expected.
As most uni (college) biology students will tell you, it's really easy to contaminate what you're working with if you're not careful, when you're using PCR. As a crime scene is certainly not a lab, the potential for getting the wrong DNA is possible in some cases.
Although, I imagine that this is mitigated somewhat by obtaining DNA samples of the victim, and others who may have legitimately contaminated the scene.
There's a difference between showing that DNA at a scene matches a suspect, and showing that the DNA at the scene was there because of the criminal activity.
I'm not saying that DNA fingerprinting is not a legitimate technology, it's just like all technologies - not foolproof, and we should remember that, rather than treat it like a panacea.
(And for those people worried about insurance companies, etc, the police DNA database does not contain information about whether you are more likely to get any particular disease)
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:4, Insightful)
OJ walked.
The problem is that we are dealing with statistics and they are often wrong.
Whereas of course, an emotional witness has 100% accuracy? I think DNA as evidence is great, not because it is completely impossible to get it wrong, but because it is so superior to the alternatives.
If it now turns out that incomplete DNA can give a false postive then this should be carefully studied. Next time they will no that the DNA shows that "it is either him or a close relative". THen you can start talking to close relatives and see if they have an alibi.
Tor
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem with the technology is that you leave DNA everywhere you go. Skin flakes, hair follicles, the bimbo you met at the bar, it's all over the place. In this story they f
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:2)
Mind you, I'm not likely to be on a jury because I'm British - apparently that makes more of a difference than living 1000 miles away from the court that calls on you, as my daughter found out recently...
Re:Privacy implications are nill (Score:3, Interesting)
The quick on this is that there are nano-scale pores on a membrane surface which allow DNA to pass through them, and can sequence the DNA in real time as it passes through. Once this technology is out there, you could have a seqencer in that would fit in your pocket, that can be hooked up to your compute
DNA Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DNA Question (Score:5, Informative)
There are two ways of comparing DNA that are used. The first, more common method, is to look at something called Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP). The spaces between known regions that can be cut vary. Look at enough of these and you can statistically say with some confidence that its your person.
The second method, which isn't used as often last I saw, involves looking at the DNA sequences in regions which do vary. Perhaps well studied regions like those associated with organ rejection in transplantation.
Both methods are more reliable than the people carrying out the work. With RFLP, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved in calling two sizes the same. With sequencing, contamination is easy.
I'm sure the procedures have improved since I last observed them. The weakest link in both procedures is the human factor.
Re:DNA Question (Score:3, Informative)
The way DNA testing works is to use an enxyme that snips the DNA at cerain codons, then sort the resultant fragments by length. Therefore, in your and my DNA, the fragment containing the sequencee I described above will be a differnt length and will be sepa
Re:DNA Question (Score:5, Interesting)
There are areas in the genome that science currently believes do not contain any genetic information that is actually used. In this "junk" DNA, there are areas called STRs - Short Tandem Repeats. These are places where there is a short sequence of DNA (e.g., ACC) that is repeated n1...n2 times (where n1 and n2 usally range from single to low double-digits.) Since there is (normally) one copy of each gene from each parent, each person will get a section of some length from one parent, and a section of some length from the other parent (the lengths may be the same.)
Glossing over some of the details, and all of the lab work, this means that for each of the 13 loci recognized by the US forensic community (the Brits use a slightly different set) an individual will have 13 pairs of numbers. For each loci, each number has a different frequency, so it is possible to build up a likelihood (i.e., chance that the DNA came from a person other than the person in question.) These numbers get much, much larger than the number of people on the planet for full profiles.
Identical twins will have the same numbers. Children have one number from each of their parents. Siblings are likely to share numbers. Two unrelated people may have some numbers in common.
This is how paternity test are done. (The child will have one number at each loci in common with the father.)
This is how rapists are linked to victims. (Their profile matches exactly with DNA from semen, skin under fingernails, blood from the scene, etc.)
This is how people behind bars are cleared of crimes. (See above.)
This is how many of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks are being identified. (By matching DNA from victims' toothbrushes, razors, hairbrushes, dirty clothes, etc. to the DNA of the body parts found at the site; and also by kinship analysis.)
Re:DNA Question (Score:2)
Indeed and the way it was reported on the TV news was (something like) "The same techniques uesd to identify victims of the WTC attacks has been used to find the killer of
DNA and the RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
And now for the appeal... (Score:3, Interesting)
It might well be reasonable evidence, or even close to undeniable, but there's gotta be some doubt in the minds of those who decide the fate of the accused guy. I mean, they're going to convict this guy of a 15 year old killing on the basis of some extrapolated data out of a lab? Remember these are people who don't browse the same magazines as us...
Tough call finding people to do it once, much tougher getting a second group to confirm it...
Re:And now for the appeal... (Score:5, Informative)
But once they had arrested the guy, they had a sample of *his* DNA, which should be an exact match for the scene-of-crime DNA. The critical bit is the police working back through somebody else's DNA that they just happened to have on file.
Re:And now for the appeal... (Score:2)
No, it's just a clue. There was a very similar case in the USA ... the original suspect was closely related to the man who did the murder (brother or cousin). The DNA matching in areas where there is usually a lot of variability (the same areas used by anthropologists to trace bloodlines) was enough to get a search warrant, a blood sample, and a conviction from the DNA match on that sample.
I thought.. (Score:2)
it means... (Score:3, Interesting)
New word (Score:3, Interesting)
Every so often... (Score:4, Insightful)
...it all goes right, this is a GOOD thing :)
I like my privacy as much as the next person, I like seeing evil bastards locked up even more though.
Re:Every so often... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the problem in a nutshell. Start with "evil bastards". Work that definition for a while, then downgrade it to "bad people". Then comes "people who did a bad thing". Now define "bad". Gradually it becomes "people doing things we don't approve of". Welcome to 1984.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said. Loose quote: "He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither".
Re:Every so often... (Score:4, Interesting)
If a country ever gets to that stage a DNA database would be useless anyway. They'd simply pick people up off the streets on suspicion of being 'bad people' and ignore the evidence (or lack of it). Take the mutawwa'in as a prime example., they beat people and lock them up with little or no evidence and for little or no reason. If the regular police service (remember that word, it's important) could get away with that I don't think they'd bother with a DNA database, do you?
Back to the word 'service', the US calls their police a force, the UK calls it a service. This is only a fairly recent change in terminology (and paradigm) that's not yet fully grasped by many (police documents still refer to the force quite regularly) but we're getting there. The police are there to serve the public (Protect and Serve?) and we are gradually moving back towards that thinking steadily. If a service designed to serve me can be improved by having access to a DNA database I have no problem with it. If it means more scrotes are taken off the streets and less innocents are locked away then I'm all for it!
Re:Every so often... (Score:2)
Its all well and good until the local sperm bank and/or blood donation center gets broken into. Or maybe some labels on some little vials get switched. How do you counter DNA evidence in this day and age? Especially since police departments seem to have a short shelf life on their DNA evidence.
Of course, living in Houston like me, where we're watching the police department's crime lab go through t
Re:Every so often... (Score:2)
Re:Every so often... (Score:5, Insightful)
only a fruitcake could redefine a murderers down to merely "people doing a thing we don't approve of"
Only a fruitcake wouldn't see the gradual erosion of rights through social engineering presented by the grandparent post.
As for the murderers to "people doing a thing we don't approve of" process... How many people are killed by "good" people in a war? Was it murder? Were the people who got killed "bad"? Were the people doing the killing murderers or were they saviours? Maybe they were just "doing their job"? Do you approve of it? Do you approve of the other people killing *your* people?
It's all subjective - every one knows "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but no one is prepared to accept that as a reality if it's their people getting killed. Ultimately what it comes down to is exactly that - "people doing a thing we don't approve of".
Mod me down if you like, but the world isn't a nice place, and the systems we have in place are based on old authoritarian structures based on the principle of those in power being "right" and the people by and large accepting that. It's based on the people not doing things that those in power "approve of"; If a gansta disappeares don't expect a big investigation, but if a judges daughter goes missing it'll all be on. Both are IMO Very Bad Things, but only the latter is something that we (society as we think of it) "don't approve of". Equally, to me, a lot of the shit that goes on in the world is "evil", but for some folks, its normal. Just like a woman wearing t-shirts and shorts is normal here.
People are mostly pack animals, and social "approval" keeps us in line, more or less, which is why altering what is "approved" works so well. A few hundred years ago, people were burned alive for being "witches" and this was "approved of" - even today people are still stoned* for crimes - so don't think we can't get equally fucked up (if in other directions) systems in place in the future.
Killing in the name of... Fuck you I won't do what you tell me...
*No not a good kind of stoned. A bad stoned, like having rocks thrown at you.
Read the damned article people (Score:5, Informative)
The dude was not convicted on the DNA evidence alone. In fact, there apparently was no trial. The DNA only lead to a suspect...who then CONFESSED AND PLEADED GUILTY.
I fail to see where there is a privacy implication here. All I see is good police work (which makes up for the initial very bad police work).
Welcome! (Score:4, Funny)
You must be new here. Welcome!
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Funny)
I was gonna post that first...then I saw his 5-digit /. id
Re:Read the damned article people (Score:4, Insightful)
It does not take a conspiracy freak to see either of those options as possibilities in this case given the rather sketchy details presented in the article - particularly with the history the case has of the police getting a conviction against the wrong people to begin with. As a lowly security guard, the guy was probably only able to afford "poor man's justice" anyway.
identical twins, clones, other factors (Score:5, Interesting)
These problems are compounded by the widespread misapplication of statistical prodecures in the biomedical sciences (most of the FDA drug testing is based on outdated and basically faulty statistical procedures, and it's probably the same in the forensic sciences).
Re:identical twins, clones, other factors (Score:2)
So what? It's not like you can't ask one or two more questions after the DNA test results get back: "Does he have a twin or a clone? Are his parents closely related?" Or how about, beforehand, "do we have any reason to test this guy at all?" What are the odds that all evidence, including DNA evidence, would point to the wrong person, and that it couldn't be determined that the evidence doesn't point to a twi
Re:identical twins, clones, other factors (Score:2)
In this case, if you've got the suspect and his twin, there are plenty of *other* chemical tests that can be performed on that blood/hair sample you're using to do your DNA test - is the blood infected with a disease only one suspect has? Is the hair sample treate
How long until... (Score:2)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
What about a complete blood transfusion before submitting to a blood DNA test?
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
And after you do that if the police ever get a sample of your DNA, it's going to be extremely unique - even your twin won't have the same signature - a mix of your own, plus the retroviral DNA.
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
DNA profiling is an inevitable step (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite probably police will be able to search for criminals by family or community, much more precise than saying "an asian male did this", more like "we're looking for a young chinese from Guandong province who has long ears and eyes of this and that shape".
Eventually, a single DNA sample will allow scientists to create a detailed facial reconstruction, the only problem for identification being the age of the perp. And that can be pinpointed too, since DNA frays at the edges over time, and this fraying can be measured.
DNA profiling is probably the single most important anti-crime tool of the future. It will make it almost impossible to escape punishment for one's acts.
The big question will be (and it is almost too late to answer this) whether society is willing to pay the price for this security. I suspect the answer is "YES" for most people except theoretical libertarians. I think most people are wrong on this.
The tentacles of the state reach too far already, and that crime is not solvable by a better police system, but by better social structures. I was burglared last month, robbed of about $30,000. The thieves left a cigarette stub on the carpet. Yet would it really be a good thing to apprehend them and put them into prison?
It's an easy answer but prison is like crime college. Lock up a small thief and release a hardened criminal.
Conclusion: the current trend towards giving the state more power, aided by the sword of science, will not result in more security. Technological solutions are not a replacement for social policies that attack the causes of crime, by providing youths with alternative careers, and by dismantling the structures of power that nuture organized crime.
Re:DNA profiling is an inevitable step (Score:3, Insightful)
DNA evidence is much easier to fake than, say, fingerprints. All you need is a little blood, skin, saliva, or other sample from someone, anyone. As a criminal, you only care about having someone else's DNA show up more prominently than your own.
And if you want to implicate someone in particular, getting the tiniest biological sample (e.g., hair from a comb), you can synthesize as much incriminating DNA for that person as
Re:DNA profiling is an inevitable step (Score:2)
I guess you are right, strictly teorethical speakink.
But a society (USA) willling to trade in privacy for some sence of security is less likely to approach the problem gently.
If someone at the first place manage to implement a system for DNA profiling; then its highly unlikely that the same socitety that granted them this "oppurtunity" to catch criminals is willing to
Slippery Slope (Score:5, Interesting)
A young girl was murdered and police asked Men in the neighbourhood to volunteer DNA samples. About 20 men refused. 19 were innocent and refused for personal reasons. One of these men was eventually implicated in the crime when Police followed these 20 men and picked up "pop cans, et al" used by these men to obtain DNA samples.
This implies - You have no right to refuse to give a DNA sample because one will be taken secretly against your will anyhow.
What happens to these samples? Could I be implicated in a completely separate crime because my second cousin lived NEAR a murder victim who's and had his DNA "stolen" by police?
This can only get scarier without laws to protect us.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:3, Interesting)
So you woudl actually prefer that the scumbag was still on the lose, right?
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:3, Insightful)
> still on the lose, right?
It sounds like the ones in uniform still are on the loose. I think that it should take a little more evidence than simply being in the vicinity of a crime before the police start shadowing someone.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Nice argumentation technique you've got there.
1. Implying that the grandposter is meaning that he would have felt better if the policed had failed.
2. Yeah since the police arrested a guy he must be guilty, right?...
3. Uh that must have hurt. Again; implying that the the poster would have bee
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Where were *you* on the night of Nov. 30, 1983? We have DNA evidence linking you or a close relative to a crime committed that night. What's your alabi?
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Really? If one of my relatives had committed the kind of crime for which they collect DNA evidence, even 20 years ago and in another province, I would want that relative to face trial. Why wouldn't you? Personal embarrassment at the relation?
Where were *you* on the night of Nov. 30, 1983?
Try Watching TV, Dumbass (Score:2)
News flash...police lie to get confessions. (Score:2)
Police are very well-practiced in the techniques of obtaining confessions. So much so, that many confessions have been obtained from people who it turns out could not have possibly
I'v said it before and I'll say it again (Score:2)
DNA Testing is bogus (Score:2)
Even if the "false positive" rate was as low as 1 in a million (I suspect it's actually much higher) then there's likely to be many people in a country who fit the profile.
This means that DNA evidence is really good at proving you didn't do something, but really bad at proving you did do something.
DNA evidence alone should never be enough to convict someone.
Re:DNA Testing is bogus (Score:2)
Now, if you are the 1 in a million, so that might narrow it down to, say, 300 people in the US of A who have the same profile as you more or less, when they go to court and say
well honorably jurors, Mr. Smith was in the club on the night of the murder, was banging the deceased's wife, and they were heard having an argument outside earlier that night, and there is no alibi. Also, the DNA evidence matches.
The fact that some others might also have the same dna is about as valid as saying t
Too-hasty Investigations? (Score:2, Insightful)
One big issue is that with the pressure often brought to bear on police forces to solve crimes quickly, one could be prosecuted simply because one's DNA was present at the crime scene -- even if just coincidentally. Police officers should need some reason to suspect you first, and THEN match your DNA that found at the crime scene.
DNA on its own should not be enough -- it should be used only to support an existing connection (much like fingerprints).
"Discarded" evidence... (Score:4, Interesting)
It goes likewise for eavesdropping on conversations. There's something called "reasonable expectation of privacy". If I'm talking to someone on a crowded street, then the cops can record my conversation and use it as evidence because I wasn't taking steps that someone would reasonably take if they were trying to keep something secret (as in, secret from everybody and not just from the police).
This DNA thing strikes me as something similar. Just like if you throw a murder weapon with your fingerprints on it into your trash, I think you're "discarding" your DNA if you were to, say, have children. The parallel to "reasonable expectation of privacy" is that, if you were someone who really didn't want their DNA (or half of it) out there running around loose, then you would elect to not have kids.
So, if you have kids, then I think that the cops should, clearly, have a right to use the DNA of those kids (provided they're over the age of consent and provided that they volunteer their DNA) to catch you. What's a little more murky is whether the cops should be allowed to catch you based on DNA from any familial relative... including ones you have no control over the production of (like, your parents, cousins, etc.). Again, I think it would hinge upon whether you had kids. Going back to "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you have kids, then you aren't exercising what little control you have over the dissemination of your DNA... so it must not matter to you that much... so everything's fair game at that point.
Legal issues aside, I must say that this is one really cool thing about DNA. Everybody knows the obvious advantages that DNA has over fingerprints: you get usable evidence from smaller samples, from a wider variety of fluids, smudges, etc. What's less obvious is the idea of "proximity". Two people with similar fingerprints are not necessarily closely related, and two people who are closely related don't necessarily have similar prints. With DNA, that's not the case. With DNA, you're able to tell when you've got some DNA from someone closely related to some "target DNA". Even cooler, you can probably tell how many generations away they are.
Re:"Discarded" evidence... (Score:2)
Unless they're from Kentucky, in which case a new generation may very well contain zero new genetic information. There's a way around everything.
Disclaimer: Yes, one side of my family does originate from Kentucky so if you're offended by this bugger off. An uncle of mine got a look at the family tree at a reunion once and sure enough, it didn't always branch where it should.
Another reason not to breed (Score:2, Funny)
One of the Great Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear
Yes, because as we all know the criminal justice system is completely infallible, and never ever makes a mistake leading to the conviction of an innocent for a crime they did not commit. Honestly, any cop who says "If you're innocent you've got nothing to worry about" to a suspect should be taken out back and beaten.
Re:One of the Great Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Suspects are instrumental in convicting themselves using the very information they volunteer to the police. An almost as well time honored tradition as good cop bad cop is lying. Police lie all the time to pressure suspects into convictions: "we have witnesses who saw you do it", "your partner is ratting you out right this second", "you're only making this harder by not cooperating".
Don't just take my word for it--watch NYPD Blue. These aren't the corrupt cops. These are all cops (with admittedly better makeup and prettier precincts). What they do is perfectly legal.
If the police are speaking to you, it means they do not currently have the evidence they need to convict you. Otherwise they wouldn't even waste their time. Under no circumstances should you talk to them without a lawyer by your side.
Get it right, it's Guilty until proven innocent .. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been falsely arrested twice. These two "false arrests" are on my record from my childhood. I'm now 29. Every 3 years I make "total information requests" from everyone from whom I can think of that collects information from me. (credit, mail, email, post office, clubs, memberships, utility, etc)
One interesting thing is my complete "litigation/arrest" history. Essentially my file that the FBI would "examine".
I find it unfair that my peeping tom arrest from 18 (false arrest) & my theft from Walmart at 22 (false arrest) are still even capable of being associated with me. Also, every traffic ticket I have ever gotten, every court case I have been involved in; are all on an easily accessed file. If I were ever accurately arrested for an associated offense, wouldn't I then have a pattern? Even though wiped from my record or not guilty?
For the peeping tom incident I was handcuffed, made to take a lie detector test (failed), and kept in custody for 4 hours from 11pm to 3am. It wasn't until my girlfriend came in and said she was with me and that I wasn't doing it, that I got off. It was all because the next door neighbor girl was jealous of my having a girlfriend.
BBC Video Clip (Score:3, Informative)
Facts:
Victim stabbed more than 50 times.
DNA samples from flat collected 12 years later, hidden under layers of paint on skirting board.
Rare detail in DNA Component "27" linked to youth, DNA collected after traffic offence.
Convicted murderer was youths uncle.
Some key details missing in the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, the police managed to establish a connection between the nephew and his uncle based on the DNA sample. This could have been as simple as someone noticing that the uncle was mentioned in the original investigation (same surname), or as complex as some biological DNA jiggery pokery. Uncles and newphews have a common parent/grandparent respectively, so there will be a sizable chunk of identical genetic material in there (25%) to go on. In this specific case the suspect admitted guilt and justice eventually appears to have been done, but we need details on that missing step. It's all very well saying that the police would still have to prove the that someone identified in this way was guilty in court, but most jurors are going to hear the phrase "DNA match" and think "Guilty!" as their knee bounces off their chin.
On the whole, I have no privacy problems with this, it does seem like some brilliant police work from the forensics team. However, I am left wondering how this might have turned out if the uncle's DNA had been at the scene for a perfectly innocent reason that he could not justify, or if the DNA match was just a coincidence. The key is just how much additional investigative work was there to get from nephew to uncle?
Re:Some key details missing in the story (Score:2)
This was covered in the last episode of the first season of CSI [tvtome.com]. Unfortunately that writeup doesn't mention it, but it's enough for someone to be able to remember the episode if they saw it. The "strip strangler" knew to plant someone else's semen on the victims. Apparently the person that the DNA match
Slippery Slope (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose that if you've done nothing wrong in your house, you don't mind if the law enforcement groups come in and take a look. If you've done nothing wrong, you don't need a lawyer. If you've done nothing wrong, you won't be arrested.
The list can go on. I think there needs to be caution before these types of statements are made. DNA profiling (as mentioned somewhere else in this replyset) is not far away...unless it is not allowed to happen by those of us the government is supposed to represent.
DNA is good, but privacy is paramount.
You can have my DNA when you pry it from my cold, dead cells.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Privacy versus protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody argues that it is a good thing that a murderer was caught.
Many would however object to compulsory collection of fingerprints from all citizens / immigrants / visitors etc. Again, there is no doubt that this would help to solve some crimes and result in some good things. Many of us worry about the prospect because we do not trust our police / state to use those powers only for good. This mostly comes from differring beliefs in what is acceptable (speeding / P2P / looking at photographs by a famous photographer whom some consider to be a pornographer / reading communist literature the list goes on)
We have convinced ourselves that it is OK to keep fingerprints for criminals - though perhaps less so for those never convicted of crimes.
With DNA, this case shows us that when you store the DNA of a criminal - you effectively store the DNA of a family. Is that OK?
the argument is not about stopping criminals. It is about how much power we will grant to that end. It is about whether you believe that power corrupts.
I don't trust my government. Hence my concern.
How Does DNA Testing Work? (Score:5, Informative)
A good primer: How DNA Evidence Works [howstuffworks.com]
Here's the Real Privacy Issue: False Imprisonment (Score:3, Insightful)
If folks are concerned about DNA privacy issues, perhaps they really ought to ponder the privacy lost when an innocent person is sent to prison because no DNA evidence was available.
If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fe (Score:2)
So why don't you let them install a camera in your bathroom? After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.
I have no problems with other people having my DNA (Score:2)
1) They don't get any friggin ideas about OWNING it or any stuff derived from it. e.g. "intellectual property" and other such crap.
2) They don't do nasty things to me to get em. I don't have to give em samples if I don't want to. Fine if they want to go through my garbage to get em.
3) The same rules apply to everyone - the people in power, the police etc. If it's fine for them to do XYZ to get my DNA, it's fine for me to do the same thin
Serial killer job prospects (Score:2)
They murder someone in a gruesome and nasty way.
The folks from CSI come along (hopefully Cally or Sarah) and collect the evidence.
They pass it back to SK in the lab. Snoogins - contact with the ladies.
Cally or Sarah grab a suspect and ask for a sample (and steal it when he tells them to go stuff themselves).
SK swaps the suspect's sample for his own - hey presto, positive match. Case
Re:accuracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer is a statistical one obviously. Some DNA sequences are more common than others.
Depending on how many datapoints they looked at, they could probably isolated it to 1 in 10^7 or better. Combined with other evidence, its probably beyond reasonable doubt.
It may be something like "statistically there should be about 4 people in California that match this profile."
DNA evidence is better for exclusion.
Re:accuracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
This means that in the USA, if everyone was on record, every single DNA sample would return up to 3,000 false positives.
Coming to think of it, I think it might be a good idea if everyone were on record! Then the database would be absolutely USELESS!
Re:More right wing new labour nonsense (Score:2)
English lesson :) (Score:2)
No matter how old the DNA is the sample can be a fresh one.
Re:English lesson :) (Score:2)
How on *earth* did they find it?
SB
Re:Strange. (Score:2)
Re:Wrongs (Score:2)