21–30 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are poor arguments.
Please explain why these are poor arguments to rebut the claim, The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea the EFF doesn't really have a very compelling argument here. I'm not even sure what the downside is in a policy sense. The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.
Not so fast. Often DNA can identify that you are likely related to someone who committed a crime. This can lead to interesting results in cases where the relationship is not known. For example consider the case where a couple with fertility problems used a sperm donor. The child is never told that this happened. Then police identify that the crime was likely committed by someone who shares 1/4 of their DNA with the c…
If the police see a red BMW leave a scene, it might accidentally cause a person with a red BMW to be falsely investigated.
Human eyewitness evidence is even worse.
So yea, while there is some effect, it is no more than what we already accept.
Although I agree with the EFF, I question the legal argument, and whether or not the case will be in their favor. (1) Although DNA should be protected in the sense the government cannot take it from you, without a warrant (or claims your a terrorist). It's difficult to argue that if some hair falls off my head in public, should it not be considered "fair game"? Picking up papers out of the trash has always been fair…
Although I agree with the EFF, I question the legal argument, and whether or not the case will be in their favor. (1) Although DNA should be protected in the sense the government cannot take it from you, without a warrant (or claims your a terrorist). It's difficult to argue that if some hair falls off my head in public, should it not be considered "fair game"? Picking up papers out of the trash has always been fair…
If copyright works through "authorization", I don't see why we should accept it as natural and normal for authorities to use our fingerprints, hair, or even sperm without our permission. Speaking of the last one, I don't think it's legal for a woman to impregnate herself with a man's sperm by taking it from a used condom and without his knowledge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
A fingerprint however, if found in public and considered fair game tells you one thing - that you were there, or someone reasonably competent in lifting and transferring fingerprints has a copy of your fingerprint and is attempting to put you in the spotlight. It doesn't tell the discoverer of your print anything further about you.
Although I agree with the EFF, I question the legal argument, and whether or not the case will be in their favor. (1) Although DNA should be protected in the sense the government cannot take it from you, without a warrant (or claims your a terrorist). It's difficult to argue that if some hair falls off my head in public, should it not be considered "fair game"? Picking up papers out of the trash has always been fair…
Because it is unreasonable to avoid. A reasonable person who wants to maintain privacy has the ability to avoid throwing things they don't want to be found out. A reasonable person who wants to maintain privacy must be unreasonable in order to prevent his or her DNA from being all over the place.
IANAL, but I feel like the 4th amendment needs to be interpreted in light of the difficulty of obtaining private information on a person at the time, and the ease of obtaining it now. At the time, the 4th amendment pretty much prevented law enforcement from getting any information on you that you didn't broadcast (absent a warrant). I think it is reasonable to use that standard.
> (2) Unreasonable search and seizure is relative...invading a persons time/space/property/anything.
But it is invading a persons privacy. Their DNA contains information that is as private to them as what they do in their home with the blinds drawn.
Although I agree with the EFF, I question the legal argument, and whether or not the case will be in their favor. (1) Although DNA should be protected in the sense the government cannot take it from you, without a warrant (or claims your a terrorist). It's difficult to argue that if some hair falls off my head in public, should it not be considered "fair game"? Picking up papers out of the trash has always been fair…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain why these are poor arguments to rebut the claim, The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.
A warrant makes little difference in these cases, so why bring them up?
Therefore if there is a demonstrable privacy issue to DNA collection and analysis, then requiring warrants is the accepted way in our legal system to balance the needs of law enforcement against people's right to privacy.
Other considerations aside, DNA analysis is so easy and getting so cheap, its inevitable it will be used in every facet of our lives. So learn to live with it. Or become a luddite hiding in a cave.
https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship/issues/22#issu...