51–60 of 71 posts
Now that technology has given us multiple end-runs around the fourth amendment, it would be to our benefit to look how to preserve that original intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can't choose what cases will set precedence, and, once set, it is very difficult to "unset".
This typically happens with civil rights cases, and it's worth noting that there are certain legal groups that are better at it than others -- the Second Amendment Foundation is exceptional, and it's a large part of why their win record is so good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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…
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…
I don't really like the idea of tricking someone into giving a DNA sample, but I'm pretty sure it's been upheld before (they searched someone's garbage, IIRC) and this wasn't a massive dragnet, it was a trap to get DNA from one person who they must have suspected rather strongly given how they trapped them.
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…
Under this standard, would police be allowed to explore the private (?) hair, DNA, etc. evidence left behind at crime scenes? I don't really like the idea of tricking someone into giving a DNA sample, but I'm pretty sure it's been upheld before (they searched someone's garbage, IIRC) and this wasn't a massive dragnet, it was a trap to get DNA from one person who they must have suspected rather strongly given how they…
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 I accidentally left my credit card on the ground, you would not be legally allowed to use it. I would have to have left it there on purpose.
The 'reasonable' is not about acquisition of information, but about the knowledge of the source. For instance, it is unreasonable for me to expect privacy in the trash bin, but not unreasonable for me to expect privacy in the bed of my truck.
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.
The EFF apparently feels that you could do quite a bit of harm with it, if not today, then very soon. To me, it seems just about as bad as stalking someone.
Disclaimer: I stand neutral in this issue; however, DNA/law is what I currently do for a living.
While it is true on the most basic level that law enforcement do 'collect' and 'store' information about 'who we are,' 'where we come from,' and 'who we will be.' It is only true because crime labs are typically required to store samples long term (mostly because of an idea that in the future, technology in the future will provide better discriminatory power, and for quality control testing/confirmations).
Law enforcement does not process DNA samples in the way that the article suggests, in fact, the vast majority of the time (and legally, this varies state by state), crime labs only use DNA typing technologies that produce information that is limited to "identifying an individual." What this means is in the most elementary way, is that the data generated from DNA samples used in law enforcement today, only contains information equivalent to a fingerprint. DNA samples processed in crime labs (the vast majority of the time) is based on STR technologies and (again, most of the time) it is unlawful for crime labs or law enforcement agencies to use this identifying information any further than the capacity to identify the "who" which is most of the time only searched in a database of convicted offenders, detainees, sex offenders, and/or arrestees.
So no, law enforcement agencies aren't generating/processing information different in capacity to that of a fingerprint.
Is it lawful to collect a fingerprint (or in this case a STR DNA profile) without a warrant or probable cause? I think so, but in their minds searching "forensic unknowns" to a database such as CODIS (you'll have to google this) to generate investigative leads is paramount to finding unconvinced offenders.
Example: Bob is arrested in 2015 for burglary and has a history of misdemeanors the past 10 years. DNA is collected for forensic evidence of this burglary to build a case to convict him of this crime. His DNA profile is searched in CODIS and happens to hit to an unsolved rape case in 1998. His DNA profile matches that found on a vaginal swab of the rape victim. Bob will now be charged with rape in 1998, but who would have otherwise gotten off scott free for the rape if it weren't for CODIS.
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 the DNA is just used for uniqueness identification like finger prints then I don't see the argument. People have learned to wear gloves in crimes to avoid finger print collections. With DNA, they will need hair nets, exfoliate and more skin coverage to avoid detection.
Your fingerprints don't tell me anything about your mother, your medical history or future, or hers.
Unlike fingerprints, when someone takes your DNA, they search your entire family.