DNA databases

[NailsII]

Should the police have access to a DNA database to help them find criminals/eliminate people from their inquiries?

What are the civil liberties that would be compromised by such a system?

 

[clarksided]

Only people charged and convicted with felony crimes should be kept on file. Once you commit a felony in this country your forfeit some rights because generally a felony means you forcibly took away someone else's (unless it's a drug felony, but that's another matter).

 

[Meshavrischika]

Should the police have access to a DNA database to help them find criminals/eliminate people from their inquiries?

What are the civil liberties that would be compromised by such a system?

I prefer to think of a DNA database on CONVICTED criminals as part of their sentence for the crime... i.e. they deserve to be on file because of their actions.

I am strongly opposed to keeping DNA from anyone not convicted in this type of database as they have never been proven to have done anything wrong.

 

[NailsII]

I think all our DNA should be available to police for elimination purposes. Over the course of this thread I hope I can convince you all that it is the best course of action.

Only people charged and convicted with felony crimes should be kept on file. Once you commit a felony in this country your forfeit some rights because generally a felony means you forcibly took away someone else's (unless it's a drug felony, but that's another matter).

Why is a drug offense a different matter?

I prefer to think of a DNA database on CONVICTED criminals as part of their sentence for the crime... i.e. they deserve to be on file because of their actions.

I am strongly opposed to keeping DNA from anyone not convicted in this type of database as they have never been proven to have done anything wrong.

You make it sound like being 'on file' is a punishment in itself. If everyone was on file, the second a murder is committed the police will have a good chance of knowing who was around before and after - giving an immediate list of suspects and witnesses.

Let me put this into perspective:
A young model was raped and murdered a couple of years ago. Her assailant was only caught because, after arrest for a minor offence was his DNA taken and matched.
If he had been on file, he would have been arrested within days.
This would be especially useful in rape cases I would imagine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4281686.stm

In this case, the three men arrested were all innocent.
It took over two years for the killer to be brought to jusctice.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I think all our DNA should be available to police for elimination purposes. Over the course of this thread I hope I can convince you all that it is the best course of action.
Why is a drug offense a different matter?


You make it sound like being 'on file' is a punishment in itself. If everyone was on file, the second a murder is committed the police will have a good chance of knowing who was around before and after - giving an immediate list of suspects and witnesses.

Let me put this into perspective:
A young model was raped and murdered a couple of years ago. Her assailant was only caught because, after arrest for a minor offence was his DNA taken and matched.
If he had been on file, he would have been arrested within days.
This would be especially useful in rape cases I would imagine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4281686.stm

In this case, the three men arrested were all innocent.
It took over two years for the killer to be brought to jusctice.

everyone on file = violation of my privacy rights (DNA tells alot more than if you are a murderer or sex offender, it tells your history, genetic illness and predisposition.... I dont' think the government has a right to any of it)

your idea promotes "guilty until proven innocent" IMHO. It's not my job to provide DNA so the cops can do their job... it's their job to find a suspect and get a warrant for DNA.

 

[TeddyKGB]

everyone on file = violation of my privacy rights (DNA tells alot more than if you are a murderer or sex offender, it tells your history, genetic illness and predisposition.... I dont' think the government has a right to any of it)

I'll need more convincing that DNA is subject to existing privacy statutes. I don't exactly safeguard my DNA; I leave skin and hair cells everywhere I go, not to mention saliva and the occasional white blood cell. I don't even know what precisely is in my DNA.

your idea promotes "guilty until proven innocent" IMHO. It's not my job to provide DNA so the cops can do their job... it's their job to find a suspect and get a warrant for DNA.

It is increasingly the case that one need not provide DNA at all. DNA can be found in all kinds of places.

 

[stan1980]

I'm not sure if the sequence of DNA that the police hold could be used to find out genetical information about diseases and such, but if it does i would be very uncomfortable about the government holding this information. Can we really trust our government to keep this information safe or not to sell the info on to insurance companies and the like 20 years down the line?

It occured to me as well the ease of framing someone for a crime. For instance if a serial murderer wanted to frame me, they could come round my flat, take a cigarette out my ash tray, a hair from my bathroom, some fibre of my clothing and strategically place these near the different victims bodies. In fact the police could also do this to ensure a conviction. It may sound like paranoia, but who hasn't heard of a bent copper?

Having said all that, i'm more worried about issues such as phone tapping and general surveillance. At the moment in the UK, a police officer or politician can order these things on a whim. It should be left to a judge to decide if it is in the public interest to put someone on surveillance.

 

[Bombila]

I'll need more convincing that DNA is subject to existing privacy statutes. I don't exactly safeguard my DNA; I leave skin and hair cells everywhere I go, not to mention saliva and the occasional white blood cell. I don't even know what precisely is in my DNA.

It is increasingly the case that one need not provide DNA at all. DNA can be found in all kinds of places.

Assuming you are suspected of a crime, it would make sense to have police looking to acquire samples of your DNA by whatever means. But do you really want the government to have a national database of everyone's DNA? What happens when, for example, insurance companies buy that data from the government in order to preselect clients for denial on the basis of genetic markers for all kinds of predispositions to disease?

Indeed, you don't know what's in your DNA. An increasingly budget conscious and interfering nanny state is quite capable of having you 'blacklisted' from being permitted to purchase everything from fast food to guns on the basis of what might be revealed by your DNA. Got an extra X chromosome? No guns for you, and a mark by your name in police computers, as you may be genetically predisposed to violence. Genetically predisposed to accumulate bad cholesterol deposits in your arteries? No fried chicken bucket for you.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Assuming you are suspected of a crime, it would make sense to have police looking to acquire samples of your DNA by whatever means. But do you really want the government to have a national database of everyone's DNA? What happens when, for example, insurance companies buy that data from the government in order to preselect clients for denial on the basis of genetic markers for all kinds of predispositions to disease?

Indeed, you don't know what's in your DNA. An increasingly budget conscious and interfering nanny state is quite capable of having you 'blacklisted' from being permitted to purchase everything from fast food to guns on the basis of what might be revealed by your DNA. Got an extra X chromosome? No guns for you, and a mark by your name in police computers, as you may be genetically predisposed to violence. Genetically predisposed to accumulate bad cholesterol deposits in your arteries? No fried chicken bucket for you.

I agree that these all are legitimate concerns. But I do not immediately see how they are preventable by "no federal DNA database" legislation.

I might argue that public knowledge of such a collection would act as a built-in safeguard. At least then we would know, in the event that the government does engage in "blacklisting," where the information is coming from and perhaps how to take steps to prevent it.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I'll need more convincing that DNA is subject to existing privacy statutes. I don't exactly safeguard my DNA; I leave skin and hair cells everywhere I go, not to mention saliva and the occasional white blood cell. I don't even know what precisely is in my DNA.

It is increasingly the case that one need not provide DNA at all. DNA can be found in all kinds of places.

could it be because it is a blatant violation of the 4th ammendment?

 

[clarksided]

A drug offense is a different matter because generally you're not infringing upon the rights of others by possessing cocaine or heroin.

 

[TeddyKGB]

could it be because it is a blatant violation of the 4th ammendment?

Very few things are blatant violations of the 4th amendment. Why do you think there's so much relevant case law?

 

[Futuwwa]

What are the civil liberties that would be compromised by such a system?

None at all. Having your DNA in a can somewhere doesn't make the govt able to peep into your bedroom, restrict your personal freedom, or reveal your dirty secrets to everyone.

The govt also happens to know when you are born, in which municipality you are registered, and how much taxes you paid last year. Are those things also civil rights violations?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Very few things are blatant violations of the 4th amendment. Why do you think there's so much relevant case law?

relevant case law does not support non-offender databases that I've seen.

 

[Vene]

I don't see a difference between having fingerprints on file and having DNA on file.

 

[Hnefi]

I'm not sure if the sequence of DNA that the police hold could be used to find out genetical information about diseases and such, but if it does i would be very uncomfortable about the government holding this information. Can we really trust our government to keep this information safe or not to sell the info on to insurance companies and the like 20 years down the line?

It depends on the government. I would trust my government with that information, but I'm not entirely convinced I'd trust yours.

It occured to me as well the ease of framing someone for a crime. For instance if a serial murderer wanted to frame me, they could come round my flat, take a cigarette out my ash tray, a hair from my bathroom, some fibre of my clothing and strategically place these near the different victims bodies. In fact the police could also do this to ensure a conviction. It may sound like paranoia, but who hasn't heard of a bent copper?

That can be done just as easily, if not even more so, without a DNA database. It's important to remember that having been at the scene of a crime is not enough for a conviction. You must have been there at the time of the incident, which DNA alone can not prove.

Having said all that, i'm more worried about issues such as phone tapping and general surveillance. At the moment in the UK, a police officer or politician can order these things on a whim. It should be left to a judge to decide if it is in the public interest to put someone on surveillance.

Indeed. As we concluded in another thread a month or so ago, it's not the technology that is the problem - it's the system in place to restrict who is using it, and for what. Transparency is, IMHO, key; everyone needs to know what is in the database, who has access to it, what they can do with it and even who accessed what entries when. All this - all information about the database except the contents of the database itself - should be easily obtainable by any citizen at any time. Then and only then could abuse be completely safeguarded against.

And this, of course, applies to all forms of control excersized by the government.

 

[Hnefi]

could it be because it is a blatant violation of the 4th ammendment?

I don't see how. The amendment specifically applies to searches of personal effects and living space as well as to arrests; it says nothing about what information is kept on record. DNA databases are no more a violation of your fourth amendment than the records kept by phone companies over what numbers you've called recently. Incidentally, that information is far, far more sensitive than a DNA database.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm not sure if this is totally accurate, but I read that it's very easy to make mistakes when, for example, there's a mixture of DNA at the crime scene, which means that people can be charged even though it wasn't their DNA.

It was explained as if there was a mixture ABCD because an AB and a CD had left DNA there, then there's no way of telling if the DNA is a mixture of AB and CD or AC and BD. Which means that if you are BD and happen to live in the area then you're likely to be suspected though you'd never been to the scene.

Anyone know if this is true?

 

[Meshavrischika]

I don't see how. The amendment specifically applies to searches of personal effects and living space as well as to arrests; it says nothing about what information is kept on record. DNA databases are no more a violation of your fourth amendment than the records kept by phone companies over what numbers you've called recently. Incidentally, that information is far, far more sensitive than a DNA database.

my DNA (blood saliva on a swab) IS my personal effects. Sorry.

if you want to collect it otherwise, steal my trash.

 

[TeddyKGB]

relevant case law does not support non-offender databases that I've seen.

I don't know if it does or not. All I'm saying is that the 4th amendment does not enumerate specific violations. You can't say if some practice is prohibited until it is determined to be so.