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.
EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
11–20 of 71 posts
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#12Although 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…
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 child. In other words that child's grandchild, grandparent, half-sibling, aunt or uncle. You can imagine the sudden disruption when the police show up?
It gets even worse if the child was the result of an affair. Or if the person who committed the crime was. Or if the child was in some other way the result of a family secret.
Oh right, and it gets more problematic. The traced DNA is not necessarily the criminal's. You find hair at the crime scene, but maybe it was present before the crime. The hair is a lead, it is not proof.
These cases are common enough that schools long ago learned not to use people's families for demonstration of how genes work in biology classes. Heck, they are common enough that I personally know people that I know are in these kinds of situations. And you have to get to know someone pretty well before you find out about stuff like this.
And now we're going to have law enforcement randomly exposing private situations like this. Maybe we as a society consider this worthwhile. But there is no question that privacy will be invaded here.
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#14Advantage: Identical twins.
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#15Earlier 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…
Those are poor arguments.
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#16Although 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.
Or alternatively spread so much random DNA around the crime scene that its impossible to sequence all the samples. Reasonable doubt in a can.
(I think 'Almost Human' had something like this in one of the episodes)
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#18Earlier 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.
You can't choose what cases will set precedence, and, once set, it is very difficult to "unset".
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#19I've been listening to Alastair Reynolds Blue Remembered Earth and On the Steel Breeze. The notion of ubiquitous surveillance is an underlying concept, affecting how characters can behave as the plot moves forward. While it is an underlying concept, I'd love pointers to books where this concept is taken head-on.
So far, I don't see how we can avoid ending up with a "surveilled world", though it scares me to death (we don't have the benevolent AI overseer to watch it). With the progress of technology coupled with ubiquity of networks, it is going to be hard to avoid.
Re: EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection
#20Earlier 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.
I think you're describing questions that, before DNA analysis, were explored through traditional police investigations all the same. It would be just as disruptive if a detective figured out that the suspect is the result of an affair through tracing birth certificates and interviewing doctors and nurses as by matching DNA samples.
Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument.