121–130 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is only about dead me. It's my body.
Do you seriously think that you're the only person who cares about what happens to your body after you die? Would you be perfectly okay if somebody dug up your mother's body and did $AWFUL_THING with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re dead, what do you care what happens to your remains? I see no problem with exhuming a corpse to solve a murder case as long as there’s probable cause and a warrant, which there was here.
> If you’re dead, what do you care what happens to your remains? Because our society believes in body autonomy, to the point that it won't use your body's organs to save other human beings, without your express consent. Your body is your property, and it takes a damn good reason for someone else to access your property, contrary to your will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is only about dead me. It's my body.
Do you seriously think that you're the only person who cares about what happens to your body after you die? Would you be perfectly okay if somebody dug up your mother's body and did $AWFUL_THING with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it won't use your body's organs to save other human beings, without your express consent No longer true here in NL: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/new-dutch-law-orga...
Yeah, opt-out is quite common nowadays - Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Belgium, Austria, Colombia, Chile, etc. I think in some cases the family must still be consulted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you’re dead, what do you care what happens to your remains? Because our society believes in body autonomy, to the point that it won't use your body's organs to save other human beings, without your express consent. Your body is your property, and it takes a damn good reason for someone else to access your property, contrary to your will.
> Because our society believes in body autonomy Unless you’re a woman of course.
“Do you realize, for example, that when you upload your DNA, you’re potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family?” Elizabeth Joh, a UC Davis law professor who studies the Fourth Amendment and technology, told the magazine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The poster you're replying to is referring to the misuse of statistics, essentially. Think about it this way: it's not amazing that someone wins the lottery. It'd be pretty amazing if a specific person won the lottery (statistically speaking). Here's where DNA evidence shines: through other means you have a suspect or a short list of suspects and you use DNA evidence from the crime scene to eliminate suspects or conc…
It's not even really a "hash" in the sense that there's no predictable relationship of the outputs of similar inputs. The "hash" of my DNA is going to be far more similar to people in Seattle than to people in Tokyo, so it becomes far less meaningful to say my DNA matched and I was Seattle at the time.
For example, perceptual hash functions like Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) for text and pHash for images are designed so that small changes in input produce small to no change in output.
Also, your DNA is an order of magnitude (or more) more similar to someone in Tokyo than it is different to someone in Seattle.
I find it disconcerting that someone's remains would be violated due to being a murder suspect. This is one of many reasons to have your remains cremated, I suppose. It also avoids wasting space in a graveyard and whatnot. I'm beginning to seriously hear people discuss that it's perfectly okay to use DNA people submit in these ways and even that it would be okay for the government to collect trash and other things th…
At any rate considering the difficulties there are in getting a correct match from DNA adding samples collected from the trash does sound like a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you not read that they dug him up to do a full dna analysis to compare to seen found in the victims underwear? And that there was other evidence to link him which is what led to the permission to exhume him? The only reason that this wasn't taken further is as he was dead.
The issue remains, though, that if he were alive all this evidence would result in a trial -- at which the prosecution would have had to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused would have the opportunity to defend himself, to have legal representation, to present evidence that might call into question or contradict aspects of the prosecution's case, etc. As it stands, it seems that due process has been…