[News] SCOTUS: Police can take DNA upon arrest, keep forever

[Eriol]

Fresh out of your supreme court, monday morning: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/03/court-police-can-take-dna-swabs-from-arrestees/

Just like fingerprints, if you're ever arrested, the police can take your DNA and keep it in national databases forever. Even if you're never actually charged and/or convicted.

Discuss.

 

[Dave]

Same court that made Citizens United. Great job, morons.

 

[Bowielee]

This was inevitable, really.

 

[Covar]

Out of curiosity what would be the difference between this and fingerprints that warrants a different handling process?

 

[PatrThom]

Fingerprints can be used to identify whether or not you have been somewhere.
DNA retention could potentially go far deeper than that, since DNA is much more than just a unique identifier. It IS you.

If people were computer programs, this could be thought of as moving from a system where instead of merely retaining a CRC/Hash of your executable (i.e., a fingerprint), they would now be retaining a copy of your source code.

On the one hand, I find this quite useful, since people are much more likely to leave behind DNA evidence than they are to leave fingerprints. On the other hand, this could be open to sooooo much abuse, just like back when everybody would just use your Social Security Number as their unique identifier for your health plan card and such until ... uh-oh, turns out that number can be used for all sorts of other things, as well. And once it's out, it's out.

--Patrick

 

[Covar]

Oh I get what DNA is capable of in general, I'm just wondering what the issue is in relation to law enforcement.

 

[Eriol]

Oh I get what DNA is capable of in general, I'm just wondering what the issue is in relation to law enforcement.

I think it has to do with what could be done due to data breaches and other things, rather than the specific use (identification) by law enforcement, but I could be wrong on that one. I've also seen it put forth that taking such evidence is taking a piece of YOU, as opposed to fingerprints, which is more something you leave behind. I don't 100% get that argument (but I also get a piece of it too), but I have seen that put forth. If somebody can be more coherent with it, please post, as I'm not a good advocate for such, and I wouldn't want it dismissed based on my bad half-explanation.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Spoiled for size.

Spoiler

 

[MindDetective]

I haven't read the ruling but I wonder if privacy might be an issue. As we identify disease markers better and better, having the DNA of a person may tell you a lot about them. Will law enforcement have to conform to HIPAA rules?

 

[strawman]

Out of curiosity what would be the difference between this and fingerprints that warrants a different handling process?

That's precisely the problem. Courts have regularly ruled that its ok to takes fingerprints upon arrest, and permanently store them in searchable databases, whether the person is actually guilty of a crime or not.

But it's legally the same thing.

Rather than focus on why DNA and fingerprints are different, we should instead focus on why it's just as bad that they are able to take fingerprints and put them into these searchable databases.

 

[Eriol]

Spoiled for size.

Spoiler

Gattaca Image

Great movie, and exemplifies what's wrong with rapid DNA analysis when brought into the private world, but doesn't address the good that can be done with certainty of identification. So many crimes have become "their DNA is there, they have no legitimate reason for their DNA to be there unless they're the perpetrator, case closed." That's a GOOD thing, and thus makes some uses of DNA and databases thereof good, but obviously (as illustrated by the movie) some uses of it are horribly bad. Which one is this more of?

And as stienman said, even if it's used exactly like fingerprints are, and only for that use, are the current collection practices and uses thereof just?

 

[strawman]

I haven't read the ruling but I wonder if privacy might be an issue. As we identify disease markers better and better, having the DNA of a person may tell you a lot about them. Will law enforcement have to conform to HIPAA rules?

Current forensic DNA analysis stores very little information, relative to the amount of information the DNA actually carries. They can't tell, from current DNA comparison techniques used in police work, what your eye color is, or whether you carry the breast cancer gene. They could tell you who your relatives are among a group of other DNA signatures.

That doesn't mean they won't be able to do that in the future, though, and this does open that door. If they take one DNA sample, yo probably have little to worry about, they'll convert it into a signature, and won't actually store it for later re analysis, however if they take two of more samples, or take a blood sample, they might store some for later, more comprehensive, analysis later.

Note that right now newborns are required to provide blood samples in most states, which are stored long term, and there at very strong laws that prevent the use of these in law enforcement cases. But chances a the government already has a sample of your DNA if they decide they need to use it...

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I usually aren't a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but I don't think the police have ever given up any power they've gained

also, Fuck The Police

 

[PatrThom]

It is something which definitely makes me uncomfortable. Not so much in the short term as for what it will likely be used for in the future.
I used to work for Mars Music (before they went bankrupt). We would identify every customer by their phone number/address, which made for efficient order processing, history lookups (What kind of cables did you need? Let me look up which model you bought…), personal contact, and of course the usual marketing data mining. When collecting personal data, we were sure to remind the customers that their contact info was not being sold to third parties, that we were collecting these data solely to better service them as customers, and it was all true.
Well, when Mars went bankrupt, one of the most valuable assets (which was of course sold off to the highest bidder) happened to be that database full of contact info. Now all of that info belongs to someone else (Musician's Friend*/Guitar Center) to do with however they want. The customers themselves had no say in this, the collected data were merely handed over to the new owner without any accounting nor consent, and without any assurance that the new owner will adhere to the same standards set by the entity that collected that data.

--Patrick
*…uh-huh. Sure.

 

[Zappit]

We already take fingerprints. Why not DNA? It's more reliable and certain than fingerprints, eyewitnesses, and blurry security footage. Makes it easier to at least clear people, and might even prevent one of those "innocent man freed from jail after 17 years due to DNA proof". It certainly helps make damn sure in a country that still has the death penalty.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

It certainly helps make damn sure in a country that still has the death penalty.

far easier solution - don't fucking let the state kill

 

[Hailey Knight]

If police have samples of everyone's DNA, it will become worthless as evidence because so many lawyers can say it was planted at the crime from that sample.

 

[Tress]

If police have samples of everyone's DNA, it will become worthless as evidence because so many lawyers can say it was planted at the crime from that sample.

If that were true, then this problem would have come up with fingerprints long ago. It's theoretically possible for a police officer to copy those and plant them at a scene, so by this same logic fingerprints should be worthless as evidence. Since they aren't, I don't think DNA will have that problem.

 

[Bowielee]

A DNA database doesn't require them to keep the original DNA sample on file, simply the pattern of the gel bands. Those are be held on file electronically. I think people are thinking of some weird futuristic cloning thing, which is a ludicrous fear at this point in time.

It would be impractical for them to keep warehouses full of spit swabs. It's a DATABASE, IE, data.

 

[MindDetective]

A DNA database doesn't require them to keep the original DNA sample on file, simply the pattern of the gel bands. Those are be held on file electronically. I think people are thinking of some weird futuristic cloning thing, which is a ludicrous fear at this point in time.

It would be impractical for them to keep warehouses full of spit swabs. It's a DATABASE, IE, data.

Which is why I focused on health information...which is also information.

 

[Bowielee]

Which is why I focused on health information...which is also information.

I was responding to the fears about planting DNA evidence.[DOUBLEPOST=1370314324][/DOUBLEPOST]It's also of note that they don't map your entire genome, just the markers that make one person's DNA unique from another's, so I don't think there is any issue of privacy in the sense that you're talking about.

After a little cursory research, they specifically record 13 genetic markers.

 

[strawman]

After a little cursory research, they currently typically record 13 genetic markers.

ftfy.

Among other things, these 13 markers can help match organ donors with recipients in transplant program. Do you or a relative need a transplant? Stroll through the database, match it with the organ donor database, and go shoot the best match in the head near your relative's hospital.

 

[Bowielee]

ftfy.

Among other things, these 13 markers can help match organ donors with recipients in transplant program. Do you or a relative need a transplant? Stroll through the database, match it with the organ donor database, and go shoot the best match in the head near your relative's hospital.

You're really reaching in that example.

 

[strawman]

Ayup. It requires access to the two databases, a willingness to kill someone who was arrested at some point in their life in order to save your relative, and the means to do so in a way that will allow them to become an organ donor.

 

[AshburnerX]

People getting killed for organs is already state sponsored in China... I shudder to think what would happen if someone in power in the US could use something like this to track down an organ they need, especially considering the US's Government habit of providing organs for dying Yakuza if they rat out their fellows.

And yes, that HAS happened. It was exposed by Jake Adelstein several years back and is covered in his book Tokyo Vice.

 

[PatrThom]

Ayup. It requires access to the two databases, a willingness to kill someone who was arrested at some point in their life in order to save your relative, and the means to do so in a way that will allow them to become an organ donor.

While I admire your practicality, what is the likelihood that someone would be able to reliably procure a supply of dead-yet-undamaged people in the vicinity of a hospital?

--Patrick

 

[Espy]

Wait, so it sounds like the conservative justices were against this?

So basically the conservative justices want the corporations to screw everyone and the liberal justices want the government to screw everyone.

Oh goody.

 

[Bubble181]

So basically the conservative justices want the corporations to screw everyone and the liberal justices want the government to screw everyone.

Also known as: health reform as prefered by left and right, social security/pension plans as prefered by left and right, and pretty much every other debate in history. Who's better at screwing people over helping people efficiently - government or private sector?

 

[SpecialKO]

Wait, so it sounds like the conservative justices were against this?

Actually, it seems to be completely scrambled.

Majority opinion: Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Breyer
Minority opinion: Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor

 

[Dave]

There was no rhyme or reason to the political leanings of the justices on this one.

 

[strawman]

While I admire your practicality, what is the likelihood that someone would be able to reliably procure a supply of dead-yet-undamaged people in the vicinity of a hospital?

--Patrick

Good question.

On a completely unrelated topic, what's your DNA signature, and do you want to go to lunch today? There's this fantastic restaurant near university of Michigan hospital that's to die for!

 

[DarkAudit]

*starts rethinking his vacation plans*

 

[Azurephoenix]

They will probably be able to clone organs before the whole "abuse of the DNA database" for organ donors becomes a problem.

 

[Eriol]

They will probably be able to clone organs before the whole "abuse of the DNA database" for organ donors becomes a problem.

When we can do that, you don't need donors anymore. You just clone the organ from the existing person's DNA. No need for anti-rejection drugs EVER. It's the ideal solution. So this DB has nothing to offer once we reach that. BEFORE however, the "extreme" predictions above are technically possible.

 

[bhamv3]

When we can do that, you don't need donors anymore. You just clone the organ from the existing person's DNA. No need for anti-rejection drugs EVER. It's the ideal solution. So this DB has nothing to offer once we reach that. BEFORE however, the "extreme" predictions above are technically possible.

Wouldn't it be easier to clone an entire person and use the clone's organs when needed? And hide the living clones in a massive facility where they're kept docile by telling them they're the survivors of an apocalyptic event, and that the whole world has been desolated except for one single island?