Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#41

Post by snowwrestler »

spott wrote: post #27
lettergram wrote: post #2

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…

>so why should the hair be different? 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 dif…

I don't think one can expect privacy in a public place; the police can photograph you walking through a public park without a warrant. In fact, anyone has the right to photograph you in a public place.

It seems to me that there is at least an argument that dropping your DNA in a public park is not very different.

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#42

Post by arthurcolle »

I'm really not trying to stir the pot and get any vitriol but I'm genuinely curious: do organizations like the ACLU, EFF actually get things done?

There has been pretty much no change in the state of affairs with regard to NSA mass surveillance, and the same can be said for RIAA DRM technologies continually pushed forth in the mass market. Everytime I see an EFF related article here or on reddit, I just get the sense that it accomplishes nothing real. Maybe things would be different if the big tech giants started suing the agencies and the US federal government for various abuses, but even then, it wouldn't make sense for them to attempt this because of legal backlash from the US (or other more insidious forms of backlash...) All in all, it feels like quite an unwinnable struggle.

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#43

Post by tzs »

MarcScott wrote: post #13
aapierce wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

I'm not sure there is any point in making a distinction, because while the DNA identifies him as the perpetrator, it also ties him to the crime scene.

Therefore, if we made a rule that evidence that ties you to a crime scene (such as fingerprints) can be collected without a warrant, but evidence that identifies you as the perpetrator needs a warrant, couldn't the police simply collect the DNA from the chair without a warrant, and only use the DNA from that sample to tie him the crime scene?

Then, once he's tied to the crime scene, that could be used to justify a warrant to collect a direct DNA sample directly from him, and then they could use that second sample to identify him as the perpetrator?

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#44

Post by TeMPOraL »

Genetic material is funny. On the one hand, it's as personal and private as things can get. Your DNA is basically you. But on the other hand, it's also the most public thing about you. It's a biological equivalent of an open, unencrypted radio broadcast. You leave it absolutely everywhere all the time - you can actually imagine a mist of your genetic material floating behind you as you walk around. Dead skin cells, hair, whatever you excreted through sweat - you leave it on everything you touch or otherwise interact with, be it public or private property, or other people.

I'm having trouble reconciling those two views and developing intuitions around how we should handle it.

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#45

Post by wickedlogic »

snowwrestler wrote: post #41
spott wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so why should the hair be different? 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 dif…

I don't think one can expect privacy in a public place; the police can photograph you walking through a public park without a warrant. In fact, anyone has the right to photograph you in a public place. It seems to me that there is at least an argument that dropping your DNA in a public park is not very different.

Thats why we are proposing a non-profit group to collect dna samples 'left' in public places by politicians... right?

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#46

Post by pdabbadabba »

SquidMagnet wrote: post #26

How do we ensure a proper association between the samples taken and the person in question, in particular as described in the case from the article, especially without some sort of formal framework and authorization before hand?

tl;dr - It would be a huge coincidence if you found DNA that matched the actual perpetrator despite the fact that you collected it in the course of following the wrong guy, or canvassing for DNA at random.

Usually this happens by way of other non-DNA evidence. Imagine: you pick up a hair (or swab a coffee cup, whatever) in public that you believe (but, to your point, do not know) to be from your suspect. You take it back to the lab and, sure enough, it matches your sample from the crime scene.

Now, if you know nothing about the people in the vicinity of there you picked up your test hair, and were just randomly canvassing for DNA, this might not prove much. But presumably you were following a particular person, whose hair you tried to collect because you also have other evidence against him (though probably none so strong as DNA identification). This puts you in a very different epistemic situation with respect to that hair. Now you know that you picked up a hair in an environment full of people, only one of whom was a suspect in your investigation. It so happens that this hair matches a hair from the crime scene. It is, of course, possible that you picked up an unknown person's hair, and that person just happened to be your culprit -- but it is far far more likely that the hair you got is from your suspect, since he's the only one in the area believed to have any relationship at all to the crime.

(Of course, there could be situations that confound this analysis, for example if you collect hair at the end of the day from an interview room that's been used to question a bunch of suspects in the same crime. But law enforcement will not usually be this sloppy. They are well aware of the need to positively associate a hair with a particular person.)

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#47

Post by copsarebastards »

snowwrestler wrote: post #37
skywhopper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between shedding of hair and skin and throwing away paper is a question of intention and ability. I could choose to take more care with the paper, but avoiding shedding any DNA is basically impossible. Compare it with new x-ray/radar/EM techniques police can use to eavesdrop from miles away or even view you through walls, or read what you're typing or viewing on your various screens--there's basically…

You can't help revealing your whereabouts in public places by reflecting photons off your face or your license plate, and it is legal for police to photograph and record you in a public place without going to a judge.

Right, but there's no expectation of privacy in those cases.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#48

Post by belorn »

lettergram wrote: post #2

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 you are interviewed at a police station, how is that not invading a persons time/space/property/anything if the intent is to steal some dna left on the chair? It sounds to me as using subterfuge in order to take someones DNA, and subterfuge should not allow the police to circumvent the law. That way makes the law meaningless, and that surely can't be the intent of the court.

Either give them direct permission to take DNA without cause, or make it illegal regardless of what loop whole they can think up.

Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

#50

Post by rhino369 »

joering2 wrote: post #31
lettergram wrote: post #2

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…

> Picking up papers out of the trash has always been fair game for law enforcement AFAIK LE still needs a warrant of some kind in order to go through your trash. At least that's what I remember from watching The Star Chamber.

It probably varies by jurisdiction, but generally, trash is abandoned and you retain no rights over it.
Post reply on HN