I saw this story in the news over the weekend. For those of you who don’t want to read the article 6 months ago a 16 year old pupil was raped in a dark alley on the premises. She said she couldn’t identify the attacker but traces of DNA where left on her clothing. DNA tests have already eliminated her family and friends so the decision has been made to DNA test every single male pupil, teacher and member of staff to find the attacker. A total of 527 people. Legally any of them have the right to refuse to submit a sample however authorities say that anyone who refuses to take part will be considered a suspect. They have also said the all DNA samples that are shown to be unconnected to the case will be destroyed.
Now I understand the need to catch a rapist, but I’m very uneasy about this sort of blanket testing. It seems to be a very basic removal of the presumption of innocence. I would have thought some sort of probable cause would have to be established before justifying taking a DNA sample, simply being one of 500 men who attend the same school shouldn’t be enough to justify this.
Not to mention the rather sister overtones of the statement that refusal to cooperate will to considered suspicions. The desire to protect your privacy if perfectly natural and not something most people would surrender on a whim. Blackmailing people into cooperation in this way has overtones of ‘if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear’.
I’d probably be less suspicious of this if there was even some indication of trying to narrow down the list of suspects before taking the DNA of those who remain, but there doesn’t even seem to have been that. It’s a crude sledgehammer of a solution that seems to be being used in lieu of good old fashioned police work.
Claims the DNA will be destroyed afterwards worth taking with a pinch of salt. Here in the UK there was a scandal a few years ago where it was discovered the authorities had kept the DNA of tens of thousands of innocent people that had been given for similar reason.
So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?
LuciusAR wrote: So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?
Giving a harmless DNA sample in order to help catch a rapist?
In a heartbeat.
If they don't actually destroy it as they say they will... how does that actually affect me? They have my DNA on file... might have to give up my high-rolling life of crime.
Not only that, but there have been several instances here in the UK where the police have blanket tested sections of communities or areas and subsequently discovered perpetrators of other crimes who had hitherto remained unknown thus enabling them to solve legacy crimes where recovered DNA was kept on file.
Blanket DNA requests are not that unusual, and is probably called for, however, at least in the UK, refusal to give a sample would not automatically deem you a suspect, merely not remove you from suspicion. This gives the impression that DNA tests are perfect and you just keep testing until you find a match, then bingo! Off to prison!
Also, 500 dose seem like rather a large group. Unless they are out of leads it dose seem they are being lazy.
LuciusAR wrote: So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?
Giving a harmless DNA sample in order to help catch a rapist?
In a heartbeat.
If they don't actually destroy it as they say they will... how does that actually affect me? They have my DNA on file... might have to give up my high-rolling life of crime.
Well, if they can't be trusted to destroy it as per the law they probably can't be trusted not to miss use it in other ways. It is also a basic breach of trust between person and state.
I would be happy to give my DNA sample for such a case. Who wants a rapist going around their town attacking 16-year olds?
There was a similar case in the UK a few years back, when all men in the neighbourhood were requested to give a sample. The actual rapist was caught because he tried to persuade a friend to give a sample for him.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be happy to give my DNA sample for such a case. Who wants a rapist going around their town attacking 16-year olds?
Well no one obviously, but I don’t see how that justifies such heavy handed tactics and the blanket casting of 500 males as suspects. If I’d been witnessed near the actual scene of the alleged crime close to the time it happened I could understand and would probably cooperate, but I don’t think I could submit to this sort of blanket sampling just because I was in the same group of buildings.
Furthermore I dislike the implication that to object to this sort of thing marks you out as some sort of apologist for rapists. That’s just emotional blackmail.
LuciusAR wrote: Well no one obviously, but I don’t see how that justifies such heavy handed tactics and the blanket casting of 500 males as suspects.
But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime. Submitting the the DNA test isn't casting them as suspects... it's removing themselves from the suspect list.
5,000 local men were voluntarily screened. The rapist/murderer paid a colleague £200 to give a sample for him, but that guy was overheard boasting about it and a woman reported it to the police.
It seems to me that rather than being considered a suspect, the people who are screened are merely being eliminated from the enquiry, similar to if you took a statement from them, to establish their alibi, and then checked all the alibis.
By screening everyone, no-one is singled out as a specific suspect. To refuse to be screened is obviously suspicious because the DNA is such a direct piece of physical evidence in the case.
I would refuse. This dragnet operation and the threats used to enable it are an abuse of police power, and should be opposed.
insaniak wrote: But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime.
No, they aren't. If they think that they have grounds to perform an invasive search against a small town's worth of people, they can get a damn warrant. With any luck, the judge will treat their bs with the contempt it deserves.
LuciusAR wrote: Well no one obviously, but I don’t see how that justifies such heavy handed tactics and the blanket casting of 500 males as suspects.
But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime. Submitting the the DNA test isn't casting them as suspects... it's removing themselves from the suspect list.
Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.
There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.
I'd happily do this, I wouldn't mind if they kept my DNA on file too. I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.
AlexHolker wrote: I would refuse. This dragnet operation and the threats used to enable it are an abuse of police power, and should be opposed.
insaniak wrote: But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime.
No, they aren't. If they think that they have grounds to perform an invasive search against a small town's worth of people, they can get a damn warrant. With any luck, the judge will treat their bs with the contempt it deserves.
The police are gathering evidence. The DNA sample is voluntary.
LuciusAR wrote: Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.
There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.
Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.
LuciusAR wrote: Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.
There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.
Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.
Right, and then when they decide to start checking homes in a five mile radius for a thief they can voluntarily let everyone sift through their belongings, their computer, and if you don't your simply a suspect with something to hide.
While this might be an example of a slippery slope argument, it's pretty close to what's happening here.
I think the slope is a little too slippery for my tastes, but I am not familiar enough with French ideas about what constitutes a lawful search to really object.
In the US, of course, the fourth and maybe fifth amendment would preclude this. I can't imagine a search warrant so broad being issued.
insaniak wrote: Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.
It seems a poor practice to surrender freedom for exigency. But again, my American bias is perhaps showing.
LuciusAR wrote: So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?
Giving a harmless DNA sample in order to help catch a rapist?
In a heartbeat.
If they don't actually destroy it as they say they will... how does that actually affect me? They have my DNA on file... might have to give up my high-rolling life of crime.
In France? I could care less. In the USA better bring a warrant for specific individuals.
If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
LuciusAR wrote: Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.
There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.
Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.
Right, and then when they decide to start checking homes in a five mile radius for a thief they can voluntarily let everyone sift through their belongings, their computer, and if you don't your simply a suspect with something to hide.
While this might be an example of a slippery slope argument, it's pretty close to what's happening here.
Agreed. I am sure a crime occurred in the USA somewhere last night. We'd better DNA test the North American continent. What could go wrong?
Price wrote: I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.
You're not helping. At best, you're enabling a bunch of morons who want to waste 499 DNA tests worth of effort on a wild goose chase. At worst, they're wasting 500. Even in the Pitchfork case, the DNA test didn't solve the crime, a crook who couldn't keep his mouth shut did.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.
Well, with a substantially narrower field, that might be adequate probable cause. Maybe. You have 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people in that situation, I could see a warrant for that.
The real ironic thing will be if they do 500 DNA tests and don't get any matches because it was some wandering stranger at an opportune moment. Opportune isn't the best word to use there but I can't think of a better one.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.
You don't need probably cause to ask people to voluntarily cooperate with a search.
Price wrote: I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.
You're not helping. At best, you're enabling a bunch of morons who want to waste 499 DNA tests worth of effort on a wild goose chase. At worst, they're wasting 500. Even in the Pitchfork case, the DNA test didn't solve the crime, a crook who couldn't keep his mouth shut did.
Does that mean DNA testing should not be used for any criminal investigations?
Considering you can legally refuse the test, I don't really see a problem.
I can legally refuse to answer the police's questions about my whereabouts when my neighbor was murdered. The police aren't doing anything wrong by asking me to volunteer that information. I just have to live with the consequences of being a suspect.
People who don't work in or in conjuncture with the justice system (though I speak from an American perspective) seem to think that anytime a government asks you to do something, even if you can legally refuse, that they are impeding on your rights.
Ouze wrote: Well, with a substantially narrower field, that might be adequate probable cause. Maybe. You have 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people in that situation, I could see a warrant for that.
The real ironic thing will be if they do 500 DNA tests and don't get any matches because it was some wandering stranger at an opportune moment. Opportune isn't the best word to use there but I can't think of a better one.
If that occurs, then clearly you just need to test all of France. I'm surprised they're not just starting with that.
gunslingerpro wrote: Considering you can legally refuse the test, I don't really see a problem.
Indeed. I personally would not submit to one because while DNA testing is highly accurate, overworked humans in labs are substantially less so, and I would not gamble my freedom on some underpaid tech not daydreaming at a critical moment.
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't need probably cause to ask people to voluntarily cooperate with a search.
It's not voluntary if you're going to treat refusal as probable cause to conduct the search anyway - which is the point of the threat that they will be treated as a suspect if they refuse.
Price wrote: I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.
You're not helping. At best, you're enabling a bunch of morons who want to waste 499 DNA tests worth of effort on a wild goose chase. At worst, they're wasting 500. Even in the Pitchfork case, the DNA test didn't solve the crime, a crook who couldn't keep his mouth shut did.
Does that mean DNA testing should not be used for any criminal investigations?
It means DNA testing should not be used for wild goose chases. If you've narrowed down your list of suspects to half a dozen people, go ahead and get your warrant for a DNA test. If you've got a DNA database of convicted felons, go ahead and search through that. But don't gak on the rights of five hundred people because they're guilty of Going To School While Male.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.
You don't need probably cause to ask people to voluntarily cooperate with a search.
Price wrote: I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.
You're not helping. At best, you're enabling a bunch of morons who want to waste 499 DNA tests worth of effort on a wild goose chase. At worst, they're wasting 500. Even in the Pitchfork case, the DNA test didn't solve the crime, a crook who couldn't keep his mouth shut did.
Does that mean DNA testing should not be used for any criminal investigations?
And if you say no then you're now a suspect? No way Jose.
Voluntary when it comes to police is an interesting concept.
gunslingerpro wrote: Considering you can legally refuse the test, I don't really see a problem.
Indeed. I personally would not submit to one because while DNA testing is highly accurate, overworked humans in labs are substantially less so, and I would not gamble my freedom on some underpaid tech not daydreaming at a critical moment.
As a former forensic scientist I can confirm this and also point out that labs don't like to admit mistakes since it costs them business. Additionally they are customer focused as all businesses are these days, it just so happens that their customer is looking to slap your ass in jail...
Kilkrazy wrote: If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.
You don't need probably cause to ask people to voluntarily cooperate with a search.
Voluntary my shiny, metal butt: "however authorities say that anyone who refuses to take part will be considered a suspect"
"If you have nothing to hide, you'll give us your DNA!" No thanks.
I see no problem with this as long as they allow people to refuse without immediately becoming suspicious and actually do destroy the DNA samples that don't match right away, without keeping some kind of 'record' on them.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.
You don't need probably cause to ask people to voluntarily cooperate with a search.
Voluntary my shiny, metal butt: "however authorities say that anyone who refuses to take part will be considered a suspect"
"If you have nothing to hide, you'll give us your DNA!" No thanks.
Exactly. Now pick up that can, Citizen.
"LIfe would be so much better if you just did what I say."
-She Who Must Be Obeyed, this morning.
I wouldn't mind participating on the basis that my record was destroyed afterwards, but in the UK they were supposed to destroy them and have stored them.
I'm not concerned about lab errors that much, and positives would be rechecked, this is about slimming down the pool of suspects. Though how they can be so sure it was a pupil or teacher in the school I'm not sure. It could have been a cleaner, or a contracter, or parent or someone crept in off the street.
Steve steveson wrote: Well, if they can't be trusted to destroy it as per the law they probably can't be trusted not to miss use it in other ways.
Yes, that was the question, though - what 'other ways'?
Genetic profiling. Propensity to certain mental health problems and therefor criminal activity. Racial profiling. Sale to insurance companies. Use by other government departments "Lets use the DNA database to check for drivers that might have a genetic propensity to eye site loss or heart problems and might be a danger on the road". There are many reasons. It is down to the police to be clear about what they are doing, and they have shown, in the UK at least, that they cannot be trusted with DNA. As a general rule I trust the police on the street, but not the high up people who make choices about CCTV, DNA, how they deal with data. Its not corruption, but too often a lack of understanding of technology and a propensity to treat everyone as a suspect.
It is also a basic breach of trust between person and state.
Wouldn't that require there to actually be trust there to begin with...?
It seems that this isn't the case, if people aren't willing to accept the statement that the samples will be destroyed at face value.
Yes, but it is the state (At least in the UK, which is the point of view I am writing from, and was asked about by the OP) that has been shown to be unable to be trusted and police that have made every attempt to avoid destroying data on innocent people "Just in case".
On top of that DNA testing on this scale cannot be trusted. Far too often tests have got mixed up or completely botched and jury's are far to ready to believe the CSI "DNA NEVER LIES!" approach. When you have one test or a few tests that can be checked and double checked, fine, but 500? Far too much room for error.
People who don't work in or in conjuncture with the justice system (though I speak from an American perspective) seem to think that anytime a government asks you to do something, even if you can legally refuse, that they are impeding on your rights.
I agree with this. I'd like to think cops have enough intelligence to say "these 478 guys gave us DNA and it wasn't them, heck just showing up to give DNA was probably enough to eliminate them in the first place, but what about these other 22 guys what do we know about them?"
I mean, just going "okay citizen have a pleasant day we will never bother you again" is slowed. That's not due dilligence in the slightest. You can refuse, but the cops would be dumber than even I think they are to not then check in to see if you did it or if you just objective to blanket DNA tests. They'd probably investigate you anyway, even with no DNA tests they'd just have to investigate 500 people instead of 22.
AlexHolker wrote: I would refuse. This dragnet operation and the threats used to enable it are an abuse of police power, and should be opposed.
insaniak wrote: But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime.
No, they aren't. If they think that they have grounds to perform an invasive search against a small town's worth of people, they can get a damn warrant. With any luck, the judge will treat their bs with the contempt it deserves.
Pretty much this. It is a fishing expedition. If you have reasonable cause then show it. Perhaps French law works differently than US and UK law, but given the court cases that the UK government have faced ordering them to dispose of DNA that they had no lawful right to retain I'd be leary about giving a sample.
Treating people refusing to bow before an unreasonable demand as a suspect is just contemptuous. Will they name and shame those who refused just to make sure?
Kilkrazy wrote: If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.
Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.
That is nowhere near probable cause. If it was someone that was seen in the actual vicinity of the attack at the approximate time then I would have some sympathy for your argument. But every male as a suspect by virtue of being in the same building? No.
My feelings on this are probably mixed at best. On the one hand DNA is sort of one of those things that we already splay out into the public sphere as a matter of existing. I also don't think it's inherently awful to be able to do a survey of some population of potential culprits for a crime.
On the other hand this is definitely an unsettling strong-arming of population by law enforcement that rubs me the wrong way. Assuming nothing is wrong with this case, it still prompts some uneasy questions.
Would it be OK theoretically, if they asked for samples from 1000 guys, 10,000? Every man who lives within a days travel of the crime scene? Every man on earth? The impractically of some of these examples aside, where do you draw the ethical line? Is there one?
What sort of crime warrants casting this large net on the public? What sort of evidence is enough of a basis for this kind of thing, just DNA? What about weaker physical evidence? DNA that might be accounted for some way other than the assault? What about a search to confirm something the victim saw?
I guess in the end, I think it's probably the best move to come down on the side of limiting, the scope of the power law enforcement has.
Is this a private school? Private schools can do 'whatever they want' as terms of attending the school. If they require all students to have DNA on file for use by the school, then you can choose not to go to the school.
And as for teachers, in the US you already have to submit to federal background checks to work with kids... We all know eventually DNA will be part of that background check in regards to working with kids.
nkelsch wrote: Is this a private school? Private schools can do 'whatever they want' as terms of attending the school. If they require all students to have DNA on file for use by the school, then you can choose not to go to the school.
And as for teachers, in the US you already have to submit to federal background checks to work with kids... We all know eventually DNA will be part of that background check in regards to working with kids.
Have you not taken a background check before? You don't give up DNA as part of a background check.
I think I have to stand with my fellow Americans in saying I would not be cool with this. DNA testing isn't 100%, though it IS pretty damned accurate. Due to the magic of procedural cop dramas, it's also been portrayed as a flawless magic bullet in the eyes of stupid peo... err, the jury. Finally, you have to be able to trust the police to not misuse the results or outright fabricate results into what they need to get a positive result.
I just don't think it sounds like a fun idea to give a sample that I'm trusting someone else to act responsibly with, only to potentially have an investigation called off because they threw me in a cell for a few years instead of the real guy, simply because the investigators got a little lazy.
It seems a poor practice to surrender freedom for exigency. But again, my American bias is perhaps showing.
In what way is a voluntary DNA test a reduction in 'freedom'? I really don't understand why people are so wary of a national DNA database, with sufficient controls and independent oversight, it would help the legal system immensely and its risk of misuse by the 'man' is tiny to negligible.
The current abuse of DNA testing is tiny to negligable, and more often than not ends with people losing their jobs rather than someone spending 20 years in jail on trumped up charges.
Hell, people spend 20 years in jail on trumped up charges without DNA evidence being faked already
It seems a poor practice to surrender freedom for exigency. But again, my American bias is perhaps showing.
In what way is a voluntary DNA test a reduction in 'freedom'? I really don't understand why people are so wary of a national DNA database, with sufficient controls and independent oversight, it would help the legal system immensely and its risk of misuse by the 'man' is tiny to negligible.
with sufficient controls and independent oversight,
Your caveat is your answer. At the end of the day, most of us don't trust our own government enough to properly handle that kind of data.
If a cop is so bad at their job/corrupt/obsessed that they're going to start faking evidence, having your DNA on file by default really isn't going to make much of a difference.
Palindrome wrote: In what way is a voluntary DNA test a reduction in 'freedom'? I really don't understand why people are so wary of a national DNA database, with sufficient controls and independent oversight, it would help the legal system immensely and its risk of misuse by the 'man' is tiny to negligible.
Yes, voluntary - done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice. Which would apply in this case if the police did not say that anyone not complying would be treated as a suspect. That makes it coercion.
Why are people suspicious of a DNA database? Maybe because to date we have governments acting with huge overreach of their powers - the DNA database in the UK that the government refuses to remove samples from that they have been ordered to, the NSA snooping, or any other number of encroachments into individual liberty. What you as describing is a Utopian ideal that does not exist, nor does history support its founding.
I'd be okay with this. I'd want to catch a scumbag like that.
I think it's only logical that if you refuse to co-operate with a survey like that then you become more of a suspect.
I do think that DNA evidence is overemphasised though, but I can see the point of this as cutting down the number of torturous individual investigations they have to do to catch the perpetrator. I hope they catch the guy and he gets an extremely long sentence.
nkelsch wrote: Is this a private school? Private schools can do 'whatever they want' as terms of attending the school. If they require all students to have DNA on file for use by the school, then you can choose not to go to the school.
And as for teachers, in the US you already have to submit to federal background checks to work with kids... We all know eventually DNA will be part of that background check in regards to working with kids.
Have you not taken a background check before? You don't give up DNA as part of a background check.
Not yet. How is DNA different from Fingerprinting both in purpose and function? If it is going to show up as a voluntary process, it will be FBI background checks for school employees and people who work with kids.
Before DNA, Fingerprints were the best way to make mostly unique matches of people both from physical evidence left at a scene or simply identifying people who may or may not be going by aliases. So right now, people who need background checks submit to FBI fingerprinting as part of it in case there is a chance they have outstanding crimes or are living under an alias which can be discovered via fingerprints.
DNA is going to be the same thing. Eventually being arrested with take DNA into a DNA database the same way finger prints are. Background checks will eventually screen candidates against that Database. If you think the way Fingerprints are used today is 'ok' then using DNA in the exact same way there is no reasoning behind not applying the same standards and using the same methods.
And for those who are like 'Oh it is easy to falsify, it is unreliable'. It is helluva more accurate than eye witness accounts. The person in this case could have SEEN and remembered someone and that would be much more inaccurate than DNA simply because of the way the brain works. Once you attach an identity to a crime, your brain actually re-writes your memory and will superimpose that face into your memories. You can be sure that it was a person and it could totally be inaccurate. besides... if you think a lab test mistake is going to 'get yah' you are more likely to be simply framed by police the good old fashioned way.
It sounds like they have semen, so it is not like someone who spit on the sidewalk or threw an empty coke can in the alley is going to randomly come up.
Private school, for both students and faculty could require it as part of employment/attendance. It would be an opt-in effort. I suspect we will see more of it as the technology to catalog and run tests becomes more available.
Love it, or hate it... it is coming and will be here soon enough. It will start as voluntary opt-in for interacting in basic society like background checks.
Da Boss wrote: I think it's only logical that if you refuse to co-operate with a survey like that then you become more of a suspect.
There is a difference between being treated as more of a suspect, and being treated as a suspect.
nkelsch wrote: Not yet. How is DNA different from Fingerprinting both in purpose and function? If it is going to show up as a voluntary process, it will be FBI background checks for school employees and people who work with kids.
One is the ridges on the tips of your fingers. The other is the material that makes you you
Love it, or hate it... it is coming and will be here soon enough. It will start as voluntary opt-in for interacting in basic society like background checks.
One of the biggest differences is that unlike DNA, fingerprints have no familial relation. That is, if the police think you are guilty of a crime, they can't go to your brother/father/mother/sister/sibling, coerce a DNA sample, and then use it to come for you.
Or in this sample case, raiding your daughters GYN exam results because they can't get a warrant to get your own DNA sample. Evidence? Due process? That gak is for suckers, suckers and communists...
And last I checked, even background checks aren't "voluntary opt-in for interacting in basic society". Most jobs don't require an extensive background check; unless you're getting some form of clearance you generally get your credit run and that's it.
I'm not a big fan of DNA's power being overstated or its infallibility being understated but I'm wondering where the right of female students to walk across the campus without being raped comes into the discussion.
nkelsch wrote: Not yet. How is DNA different from Fingerprinting both in purpose and function? If it is going to show up as a voluntary process, it will be FBI background checks for school employees and people who work with kids.
One is the ridges on the tips of your fingers. The other is the material that makes you you
Both are physical, unique ways of identifying someone... Why is having a fingerprint DB for comparing fingerprints of arrested people, background checks and comparing physical evidence of crimescenes ok, but DNA is not? They are both forms of physical identification of your uniqueness in society which is needed for multiple functions within society.
The only reason we didn't use fingerprints before was the logistical technology and infrastructure to make it useful. We have that now. When DNA gets easy to test, track and share in a DB... why *wouldn't* they use it exactly like fingerprints with all the same rules and limits of fingerprints?
Considering the number of people who have been exonerated by DNA and you have a bigger chance of having your freedom taken via unethical behavior, not the science or technology of DNA testing... I can't see why people think it will be seen any different from fingerprints in 20-50 years...
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm not a big fan of DNA's power being overstated or its infallibility being understated but I'm wondering where the right of female students to walk across the campus without being raped comes into the discussion.
Is there really no alternative between the extremes of "treat every male in the vicinity as suspect" and "tell the entire female population they're on their own"?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm not a big fan of DNA's power being overstated or its infallibility being understated but I'm wondering where the right of female students to walk across the campus without being raped comes into the discussion.
"If you want to work or attend this private school, we keep a database of all people who work or attend this school as part of their file in case there is a security need which requires it. I fyou do not wish to consent, you do not have to attend or work here."
It will happen somewhere...
Hell... We do DNA catalogs for pets in condo associations to identify people who don't pick up their poo... They can DNA match dogs based upon the poo and fine the owner.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm not a big fan of DNA's power being overstated or its infallibility being understated but I'm wondering where the right of female students to walk across the campus without being raped comes into the discussion.
She has that right. That it was taken is, in fact, a crime. That crime, however, does not necessarily make it okay to invalidate the rights of 500+ other people.
Hell... We do DNA catalogs for pets in condo associations to identify people who don't pick up their poo... They can DNA match dogs based upon the poo and fine the owner.
nkelsch wrote: Both are physical, unique ways of identifying someone... Why is having a fingerprint DB for comparing fingerprints of arrested people, background checks and comparing physical evidence of crimescenes ok, but DNA is not? They are both forms of physical identification of your uniqueness in society which is needed for multiple functions within society.
The only reason we didn't use fingerprints before was the logistical technology and infrastructure to make it useful. We have that now. When DNA gets easy to test, track and share in a DB... why *wouldn't* they use it exactly like fingerprints with all the same rules and limits of fingerprints?
Considering the number of people who have been exonerated by DNA and you have a bigger chance of having your freedom taken via unethical behavior, not the science or technology of DNA testing... I can't see why people think it will be seen any different from fingerprints in 20-50 years...
Clearly you missed the point. A fingerprint can only identify you. Your DNA reveals your genetic history and destiny. It is deeply personal and can be abused (remember the NSA looking at meta data of all your calls and emails so they could build a profile of your activities? Now extrapolate that with your DNA)
We keep seeing the argument here that DNA records will be treated with respect and there will be limits placed on its use. We know that is not the case as has been shown above by both myself and SteamDragon
One is the ridges on the tips of your fingers. The other is the material that makes you you
And? You are also made up of trillions of carbon atoms, perhaps they need some sort of special protection as well.
The only real abuse that a DNA database will realistically fall prey to is insurance companies. If the 'man' was really out to get you it would be trivially easy for him/them/it to get a sample of your DNA.
Exactly what sinister purpose are governments going to do with millions of DNA samples? They would probably do more damage with your passport or national insurance numbers.
There is a healthy distrust of your government's motivations and aptitude and then there is crazy.
The only real abuse that a DNA database will realistically fall prey to is insurance companies. If the 'man' was really out to get you it would be trivially easy for him/them/it to get a sample of your DNA.
Especially since if they're already framing you for something you didn't do, they're clearly okay with... framing you for something you didn't do.
Palindrome wrote: And? You are also made up of trillions of carbon atoms, perhaps they need some sort of special protection as well.
And can carbon be used to build a profile of you? Maybe it would help in that strawman you are constructing
Palindrome wrote: The only real abuse that a DNA database will realistically fall prey to is insurance companies. If the 'man' was really out to get you it would be trivially easy for him/them/it to get a sample of your DNA.
Exactly what sinister purpose are governments going to do with millions of DNA samples? They would probably do more damage with your passport or national insurance numbers.
There is a healthy distrust of your government's motivations and aptitude and then there is crazy.
Remember when the notion that the government read your email was crazy? Then the NSA was found to be not only doing that but also using the meta data to piece together when and where each message was sent from to build a profile?
One is the ridges on the tips of your fingers. The other is the material that makes you you
And? You are also made up of trillions of carbon atoms, perhaps they need some sort of special protection as well.
The only real abuse that a DNA database will realistically fall prey to is insurance companies. If the 'man' was really out to get you it would be trivially easy for him/them/it to get a sample of your DNA.
Exactly what sinister purpose are governments going to do with millions of DNA samples? They would probably do more damage with your passport or national insurance numbers.
There is a healthy distrust of your government's motivations and aptitude and then there is crazy.
The "evil gene" would also be a profiling goldmine too.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm not a big fan of DNA's power being overstated or its infallibility being understated but I'm wondering where the right of female students to walk across the campus without being raped comes into the discussion.
Is there really no alternative between the extremes of "treat every male in the vicinity as suspect" and "tell the entire female population they're on their own"?
I think there probably is. I'm actually not a big fan of the testing everyone indiscriminately. I kinda wonder if it's a ploy to try and get someone to come forwards..? I just think the effect on both the victim and the other women who traverse the campus belongs in the analysis somewhere.
She has that right. That it was taken is, in fact, a crime. That crime, however, does not necessarily make it okay to invalidate the rights of 500+ other people.
I don't just mean her right. I mean the right of all the other women who use the campus to do so without fearing they'll be assaulted.
That's not to say I think asking the 500 people (many of them kids) for DNA is a good idea. I just think it deserves to enter into the calculus somewhere.
Remember when the notion that the government read your email was crazy? Then the NSA was found to be not only doing that but also using the meta data to piece together when and where each message was sent from to build a profile?
Well, now you're crazy if you think it's a problem.
Hell... We do DNA catalogs for pets in condo associations to identify people who don't pick up their poo... They can DNA match dogs based upon the poo and fine the owner.
It is actually becoming fairly common and pays for itself in fines.
You can google and see hundreds of articles over the topic. And as there are new tenants, it makes it really easy to implement: "You don't like it? Don't live here." And a majority of people support these actions because negligent dog owners are common. People are actually looking for communities who take this seriously and they can trust to have a cleaner and safer experience because of it. A poorly maintained dog is a negligent dog owner and often exposes people who leave dogs alone for multiple days, don't take care of their dogs, have poorly socialized dogs and loud annoying dogs. People who pick up their poop and keep their dogs and surrounding areas clean usually have better-behaved dogs.
It will begin with opt-in small networks and then eventually grow to larger databases. I think a secure campus for a private school will see a private 'opt-in' system become regular for such locations.
Palindrome wrote: Exactly what sinister purpose are governments going to do with millions of DNA samples?
Racial profiling? Saying you're focusing on one suspect because people with such-and-such a gene are four times more likely to commit a homicide is likely to go over better than admitting you're doing it because he's black.
The only real abuse that a DNA database will realistically fall prey to is insurance companies. If the 'man' was really out to get you it would be trivially easy for him/them/it to get a sample of your DNA.
Especially since if they're already framing you for something you didn't do, they're clearly okay with... framing you for something you didn't do.
Well... just imagine when we go to Single-Payor system... and everyone is in that DNA database.
Why not just make DNA imprinting, drug testing, and RFID chips mandatory for all people at birth,
if you have anything against it, its because you are a criminal with something to hide, and are now a suspect.
There is another angle to this - currently somewhere within the society is a rapist; by screening all members of the school possible of the rape (ergo the males) then potentially by showing that none of them were the rapist this might help the girls recovery and general life at the school - knowing for fact that one of the guys she's surrounded by day to day isn't the rapist.
As for the whole suspect thing that's just common sense. If you refuse sure you're not guilty but its generally considered abnormal in this situation. As a result of that there has to be a reason for the abnormality; could be you just don't want to - could be it infringes upon your rights - could be you did it. Police have to consider all those angles including the last.
But yes in the UK we've had these blanket tests, its a very useful and sensible method when you've a large population and current evidence doesn't allow you to easily whittle it down to a small number. At that point what can you do? The longer time passes the more visual evidence (witnesses) become more unreliable and the easier it becomes for the criminal to hide. They simply have to remain inactive or change their area of operation. A blanket test might well reveal them or scare them into some action that exposes them (eg the linked UK situation where the guy bribed another to take his test for him).
And can carbon be used to build a profile of you? Maybe it would help in that strawman you are constructing
You mean the strawman that you had already constructed?
When was the notion that the government, any government, being able to read emails crazy? On the other hand what actual harm has that caused? Obviously aside from the massive PR damage.
And can carbon be used to build a profile of you? Maybe it would help in that strawman you are constructing
You mean the strawman that you had already constructed?
When was the notion that the government, any government, being able to read emails crazy? On the other hand what actual harm has that caused? Obviously aside from the massive PR damage.
From about 1990 on up to about 2010. I could find you exact quotes of people getting accused of being paranoid because they suggested such a thing, but you'd argue that's just anecdotal anyway.
As far as actual harm the spying has caused? Go ask Dilma Rousseff.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I don't just mean her right. I mean the right of all the other women who use the campus to do so without fearing they'll be assaulted.
That's not to say I think asking the 500 people (many of them kids) for DNA is a good idea. I just think it deserves to enter into the calculus somewhere.
It already was: when laws against rape were implemented. Again, she (and everyone else) have that right. The issue isn't that the right doesn't exist; it does. The issue is that the right has been violated.
whembly wrote: Well... just imagine when we go to Single-Payor system... and everyone is in that DNA database.
Gattica anyone?
A medical transplant committee would already (presumably) have access to your blood and could DNA test you anyway so it's not like this is opening some new terrible door to death panels. Why don't they? Because law suits suck. Why not test DNA and just cover it up? Because people aren't generally in the business of being out to get you. When they are, they tend to get caught because crazy stands out in a crowd.
Further, why does everyone just assume that if a DNA database came into existence, every government employee under the sun would have access to it? If you control the information properly, and regulate its use, then some cop can't just decide a black guy did it, pull some random black guy DNA and go to a tech and say "Frame this guy. Subway for lunch?"
The kind of logic used in these "but the government will violate our rights" arguments is the same kind of crap logic used to say Lizard men live in the center of the Earth led by Hitler and want to take over the world. The government can already violate your rights whever it wants to. Saying "we can't do this it'll be abused" should instantly be met with "have anything useful to say Sherlock?" If anything, a nationally controlled and regulated database would make it harder to fake DNA evidence in criminal cases, not easier.
If someone wants to violate your rights, they will. You don't stop that by not doing something you stop it by putting procedures in place to catch it, and when its too big, as Edward Snowden has shown, being a government employee doesn't make you a mindless drone whose only purpose in life is to violate our freedoms.
gak happens. The only way to live life and not be a paranoid loon is to accept that and move on people. Deal with it when it happens not in some hypothetical world that doesn't exist.
From about 1990 on up to about 2010. I could find you exact quotes of people getting accused of being paranoid because they suggested such a thing, but you'd argue that's just anecdotal anyway.
Actually I would argue that would be naivety. Emails and DNA are completely separate issues however.
daedalus wrote: As far as actual harm the spying has caused? Go ask Dilma Rousseff.
They spying caused harm when it was made public (and was largely stupid to begin with), but what harm has the average man in the street suffered because his/her emails were scanned by some sneaky government software? People really need to get a sense of perspective.
daedalus wrote: As far as actual harm the spying has caused? Go ask Dilma Rousseff.
They spying caused harm when it was made public (and was largely stupid to begin with), but what harm has the average man in the street suffered because his/her emails were scanned by some sneaky government software? People really need to get a sense of perspective.
Okay. Security holes and software leveraged by vague but menacing government agencies could potentially be exploited by our enemies, be it at a corporate or governmental level.
Some of the later Snowden stuff indicated that they were specifically trying to get into files of sysadmins to get passwords and the like, which could additionally compromise businesses.
Finally, there's a lot of suspicion surrounding US made software, services, and network hardware. The common joke about services on places like Slashdot is that you want to go with something hosted in Russia, because you can count on them to respect your rights. That directly hurts those US companies, and thus, the people working at them.
Palindrome wrote: You mean the strawman that you had already constructed?
When was the notion that the government, any government, being able to read emails crazy? On the other hand what actual harm has that caused? Obviously aside from the massive PR damage.
What strawman? Are you actually disputing that the NSA intercepted and read the private emails of US citizens and others? That they did not use meta data to build profiles? All this is known in the public sphere and is a matter of public record. Massive invasion of personal information, unreasonable searching of private correspondence, accusations of breaching confidentiality in relation to legal proceedings, is that enough harm caused?
Which strawman are you claiming that I am arguing? That DNA will not be abused once the sample has been taken? The UK government has been ordered on numerous occasions to destroy DNA samples that it collected in cases such as the OP, but they have instead retained. That is proof that it is already being abused.
Not only that, but there have been several instances here in the UK where the police have blanket tested sections of communities or areas and subsequently discovered perpetrators of other crimes who had hitherto remained unknown thus enabling them to solve legacy crimes where recovered DNA was kept on file.
And hopefully you will never piss off a police officer and find that your on-file DNA has magically appeared in the case file of such a legacy crime.
There's a reason running DNA testing without probable cause and police forces storing people's DNA indefinitely is sinister; DNA evidence is now sufficient to obtain a conviction without any other supporting evidence, providing you have no alibi. It's not limited to angry corrupt police officers either; you'd better not allow your DNA to be taken if you ever planned to run for political office on a radical platform, particularly in a country like the UK, Five would have you fitted up before you'd placed your deposit(and if you think that's paranoia, it's not as if they don't have a history of "extralegal behaviour").
Due process exists for a reason, and IMO regardless of how moral it might seem to "help the police with their inquiries", anyone who does so without first being compelled by a court order is daft.
Palindrome wrote: You mean the strawman that you had already constructed?
When was the notion that the government, any government, being able to read emails crazy? On the other hand what actual harm has that caused? Obviously aside from the massive PR damage.
What strawman? Are you actually disputing that the NSA intercepted and read the private emails of US citizens and others? That they did not use meta data to build profiles? All this is known in the public sphere and is a matter of public record. Massive invasion of personal information, unreasonable searching of private correspondence, accusations of breaching confidentiality in relation to legal proceedings, is that enough harm caused?
Which strawman are you claiming that I am arguing? That DNA will not be abused once the sample has been taken? The UK government has been ordered on numerous occasions to destroy DNA samples that it collected in cases such as the OP, but they have instead retained. That is proof that it is already being abused.
whembly wrote: Well... just imagine when we go to Single-Payor system... and everyone is in that DNA database.
Gattica anyone?
A medical transplant committee would already (presumably) have access to your blood and could DNA test you anyway so it's not like this is opening some new terrible door to death panels. Why don't they? Because law suits suck. Why not test DNA and just cover it up? Because people aren't generally in the business of being out to get you. When they are, they tend to get caught because crazy stands out in a crowd.
Further, why does everyone just assume that if a DNA database came into existence, every government employee under the sun would have access to it? If you control the information properly, and regulate its use, then some cop can't just decide a black guy did it, pull some random black guy DNA and go to a tech and say "Frame this guy. Subway for lunch?"
The kind of logic used in these "but the government will violate our rights" arguments is the same kind of crap logic used to say Lizard men live in the center of the Earth led by Hitler and want to take over the world. The government can already violate your rights whever it wants to. Saying "we can't do this it'll be abused" should instantly be met with "have anything useful to say Sherlock?" If anything, a nationally controlled and regulated database would make it harder to fake DNA evidence in criminal cases, not easier.
If someone wants to violate your rights, they will. You don't stop that by not doing something you stop it by putting procedures in place to catch it, and when its too big, as Edward Snowden has shown, being a government employee doesn't make you a mindless drone whose only purpose in life is to violate our freedoms.
gak happens. The only way to live life and not be a paranoid loon is to accept that and move on people. Deal with it when it happens not in some hypothetical world that doesn't exist.
*sigh*
I really don't mind the DNA database that is managed by a healthcare/academia setting. It'd be considered as Medical Record information that is already protected (as much as it can be) from possible governmental intrusion.
But having such database managed/operated by a Government Agency? feth no.
LordofHats wrote: Further, why does everyone just assume that if a DNA database came into existence, every government employee under the sun would have access to it? If you control the information properly, and regulate its use, then some cop can't just decide a black guy did it, pull some random black guy DNA and go to a tech and say "Frame this guy. Subway for lunch?"
And that's the problem. You have to trust the government to do things right in the first place. This also ties in with the license plate scanners and how the department that was using them couldn't keep the information secure.
hey we test dog doo for DNA, why not test every cigarrette butt, and joint-butt for the DNA, then we can fine people for littering and put them in jail for breaking the drug laws.
But having such database managed/operated by a Government Agency? feth no.
And that's the problem. You have to trust the government to do things right in the first place. This also ties in with the license plate scanners and how the department that was using them couldn't keep the information secure.
You can solve the problems by identifying them and fixing them, or you can identify them and then refuse to play. One of those options is about as useful as a hammer with no head.
easysauce wrote: hey we test dog doo for DNA, why not test every cigarrette butt, and joint-butt for the DNA, then we can fine people for littering and put them in jail for breaking the drug laws.
same priciple.
Long as we're bypassing due process in the name of getting that warm secure feeling, we could empower each police officer to function as a judge too.
Man, would incarceration rates be through the roof.
Overread wrote: There is another angle to this - currently somewhere within the society is a rapist; by screening all members of the school possible of the rape (ergo the males) then potentially by showing that none of them were the rapist this might help the girls recovery and general life at the school - knowing for fact that one of the guys she's surrounded by day to day isn't the rapist.
Then she thinks some stranger is still out there that can get to her at any time.
As for the whole suspect thing that's just common sense. If you refuse sure you're not guilty but its generally considered abnormal in this situation. As a result of that there has to be a reason for the abnormality; could be you just don't want to - could be it infringes upon your rights - could be you did it. Police have to consider all those angles including the last.
It should not be sufficient so that you then can be forced to take one. Thats a velvet fist approach.
But yes in the UK we've had these blanket tests, its a very useful and sensible method when you've a large population and current evidence doesn't allow you to easily whittle it down to a small number. At that point what can you do? The longer time passes the more visual evidence (witnesses) become more unreliable and the easier it becomes for the criminal to hide. They simply have to remain inactive or change their area of operation. A blanket test might well reveal them or scare them into some action that exposes them (eg the linked UK situation where the guy bribed another to take his test for him).
I always get slightly nauseous when someone now says " sensible" or "common sense" the next part means they want to invade your rights about something. Frankly why do police even need a permit? After all you have nothig to hide, do you?
But having such database managed/operated by a Government Agency? feth no.
And that's the problem. You have to trust the government to do things right in the first place. This also ties in with the license plate scanners and how the department that was using them couldn't keep the information secure.
You can solve the problems by identifying them and fixing them, or you can identify them and then refuse to play. One of those options is about as useful as a hammer with no head.
But having such database managed/operated by a Government Agency? feth no.
And that's the problem. You have to trust the government to do things right in the first place. This also ties in with the license plate scanners and how the department that was using them couldn't keep the information secure.
You can solve the problems by identifying them and fixing them, or you can identify them and then refuse to play. One of those options is about as useful as a hammer with no head.
So all I have to do is solve corruption?
And draught, advocate for, then legislate new legal standards of transparency to which government will be held, and which cannot be overridden by simply mentioning the words "national security" to one of the government's tame Judges.
Read my first post for the answer to your question.
I'm going to start a tally for how many posts I find where posters ask a question that was already answered in the exact same conversation. Maybe get me some of that fat cat government research money to prove no one on the internet reads anything but rather just yells at everything else in print (be about as insightful as proving people get mad losing video games).
LordofHats wrote: I'm going to start a tally for how many posts I find where posters ask a question that was already answered in the exact same conversation. Maybe get me some of that fat cat government research money to prove no one on the internet reads anything but rather just yells at everything else in print (be about as insightful as proving people get mad losing video games).
In This Thread:
Everyone getting confused by the difference between "DNA Profiling" and "Genetic Sequencing".
Doing a DNA test (like the one which will be performed on the samples taken in the OP) gives you an image like this:
It doesn't tell you whether someone is black, it doesn't tell you that they're more likely to get cancer, it's basically your fingerprint but with the aspect of familial relation.
What everyone who is going on about 'selling the DNA profiles to insurance companies' is thinking of is Full Genome Sequencing, which is what the news is talking about when they say "Scientists have found a gene that makes if 30% more likely that you'll hate spinach". The latter is a different process, which is time consuming and completely unfeasible at present to perform on 500 samples.
Basically, what they are doing is getting a measure of the likelihood that the Rapist's DNA sample came from a specific person. What you're thinking of is analysing that specific DNA sample to find the propensity for certain diseases and similar.
So here's the problem with that: The process (or at least I would imagine) isn't transparent enough to goes "Thanks for the sample, stand there watching in that window while I put this in the machine and then autoclave the whole lot of it afterwards." It's likely more like "Okay, thanks for the sample. You'll hear from us when we show up to take you in one day, or don't." No one actually knows what happens with that sample afterwards. The point isn't that we're confusing sequencing with testing. The problem is that we're trusting them not to do it while they have the opportunity, or just freeze it and store it until there's a fun reason to revisit it for that purpose.
Keeping samples long after they should have been disposed of, and then refusing to dispose of them
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: You can solve the problems by identifying them and fixing them, or you can identify them and then refuse to play. One of those options is about as useful as a hammer with no head.
That worked so well with the NSA, right? Especially when the POTUS said that he wanted them to continue their snooping on US citizens
But yes in the UK we've had these blanket tests, its a very useful and sensible method when you've a large population and current evidence doesn't allow you to easily whittle it down to a small number. At that point what can you do? The longer time passes the more visual evidence (witnesses) become more unreliable and the easier it becomes for the criminal to hide. They simply have to remain inactive or change their area of operation. A blanket test might well reveal them or scare them into some action that exposes them (eg the linked UK situation where the guy bribed another to take his test for him).
I always get slightly nauseous when someone now says " sensible" or "common sense" the next part means they want to invade your rights about something. Frankly why do police even need a permit? After all you have nothig to hide, do you?
I'm starting to think that the new definition of common sense should be 'to forfeit yours rights'
That worked so well with the NSA, right? Especially when the POTUS said that he wanted them to continue their snooping on US citizens
It's almost like corruption is something you constantly have to battle, making claims that we shouldn't do something because it will be abused frivolous and a waste of brain matter.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like corruption is something you constantly have to battle, making claims that we shouldn't do something because it will be abused frivolous and a waste of brain matter.
You know. Like I said a page ago.
So how many reforms have we had then from fighting the good fight against NSA corruption? Are we ready to forgive Snowden yet for disclosing PRISM? Pretending that the government won't abuse their power and resist surrendering any power is frivolous and a waste of brain matter.
Or how about we respect that people have rights, and that we don't get them to sign them away or else be considered a suspect without any other cause?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And giving the corrput another weapon to use against you is a good thing why?
Because it separates those who will pick up the can from those who won't
Frazzled wrote: And giving the corrput another weapon to use against you is a good thing why?
Because corruption is neither its intended purpose or sole use. Merely a side effect of any given systems existence.
Thats great but doesn't answer the question. I'll restate. Why on earth would you give the corrput another weapon or more power to use against you? please explain this leap of logic.
Frazzled wrote: And giving the corrput another weapon to use against you is a good thing why?
Because corruption is neither its intended purpose or sole use. Merely a side effect of any given systems existence.
With regard to computer security, really, security as a whole, generally it's common practice to limit the vectors for abuse everywhere possible. I don't really think we do that in our government, but we should really start treating it like it's some kind of giant dysfunctional network.
Mr. Burning wrote: What if all 500 or so tests are made and none offer a positive match?
Well, it would serve to highlight why aside from what many folks consider intrusive and warrantless search, using $$$ to compensate for laziness or incompetence on the part of the police is a bad idea.
Assuming about $200 a pop for the tests (what DNA paternity tests cost around here) and 500 samples, that is $100k. Why should tax payers pony up for that if the cops can't do basic police work and narrow down the suspect list? Add in the coerciveness and I'm 100% against it. Not sure what a cop makes in that area of France, but I suspect 100k would be at least a man year if not 2. Wasteful. Wasteful and intrusive.
You're evading again you cute little authoritarian you.
If corruption exists, why give the corrupt another tool to use over you to become more corrupt or protect themselves? Again, where's the bloody logic there?
daedalus wrote: So here's the problem with that: The process (or at least I would imagine) isn't transparent enough to goes "Thanks for the sample, stand there watching in that window while I put this in the machine and then autoclave the whole lot of it afterwards." It's likely more like "Okay, thanks for the sample. You'll hear from us when we show up to take you in one day, or don't." No one actually knows what happens with that sample afterwards. The point isn't that we're confusing sequencing with testing. The problem is that we're trusting them not to do it while they have the opportunity, or just freeze it and store it until there's a fun reason to revisit it for that purpose.
Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.
I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.
Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.
So PRISM and subverting the right to privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable searches was not intentional?
Create clandestine intelligence agencies, and you're gonna do clandestine stuff. Also, no one apparently bothered to ask why on earth monitoring so many communications was at all useful. Solution; clandestine intelligence agencies might not be the best idea anymore (assuming they ever were). I'd honestly debate the long term usefulness of a lot of what the CIA has done over the last 60 years.
Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.
I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.
Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.
Finally, someone who knows what actually happens for most genetic tests.
As well, Americans, PLEASE stop applying the way our law works to the French legal system. Ask anyone who practices law in Louisiana, they can tell you they don't work quite the same way.
If corruption exists, why give the corrupt another tool to use over you to become more corrupt or protect themselves? Again, where's the bloody logic there?
Where's the logic in answering loaded questions? I mean, I get the logic in asking them, especially when a position is enitrley based on fear mongering and assuming the only thing that ever comes from government is bad stuff.
As well, Americans, PLEASE stop applying the way our law works to the French legal system. Ask anyone who practices law in Louisiana, they can tell you they don't work quite the same way.
As well, Americans, PLEASE stop applying the way our law works to the French legal system. Ask anyone who practices law in Louisiana, they can tell you they don't work quite the same way.
As well, Americans, PLEASE stop applying the way our law works to the French legal system. Ask anyone who practices law in Louisiana, they can tell you they don't work quite the same way.
Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.
I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.
Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.
Finally, someone who knows what actually happens for most genetic tests.
Again, as was pointed out back a few pages ago, familial DNA can be used to get around due process when it comes to a suspect's genetic test. If I want your DNA, but I know I don't have enough evidence to get it from you, I can (and people have, so this isn't tinfoil-hatting it up) go after a family member on something completely unrelated, and then use that to completely circumvent the lack of other evidence against you. I.e., violate your right to due process.
LordofHats wrote: Create clandestine intelligence agencies, and you're gonna do clandestine stuff. Also, no one apparently bothered to ask why on earth monitoring so many communications was at all useful. Solution; clandestine intelligence agencies might not be the best idea anymore (assuming they ever were). I'd honestly debate the long term usefulness of a lot of what the CIA has done over the last 60 years.
Clandestine intelligence agencies are not permitted to spy on US citizens. It also flies in the fact of your statement that " corruption is neither its intended purpose or sole use. Merely a side effect of any given systems existence.". By its very nature PRISM was always going to be corrupt.
So;
How many elected officials continue to support the NSA?
So how many reforms have we had then from fighting the good fight against NSA corruption?
Are we ready to forgive Snowden yet for disclosing PRISM?
How many records from PRISM has been wiped?
Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.
I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.
Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.
Finally, someone who knows what actually happens for most genetic tests.
Again, as was pointed out back a few pages ago, familial DNA can be used to get around due process when it comes to a suspect's genetic test. If I want your DNA, but I know I don't have enough evidence to get it from you, I can (and people have, so this isn't tinfoil-hatting it up) go after a family member on something completely unrelated, and then use that to completely circumvent the lack of other evidence against you. I.e., violate your right to due process.
And? I get that that's a thing, but it's completely irrelevent to the point I was addressing. I'm talking about the complaints about what happens to the DNA after it's been obtained, not how they obtain the DNA.
Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.
I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.
Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.
Finally, someone who knows what actually happens for most genetic tests.
Again, as was pointed out back a few pages ago, familial DNA can be used to get around due process when it comes to a suspect's genetic test. If I want your DNA, but I know I don't have enough evidence to get it from you, I can (and people have, so this isn't tinfoil-hatting it up) go after a family member on something completely unrelated, and then use that to completely circumvent the lack of other evidence against you. I.e., violate your right to due process.
And? I get that that's a thing, but it's completely irrelevent to the point I was addressing. I'm talking about the complaints about what happens to the DNA after it's been obtained, not how they obtain the DNA.
I asked this earlier, but it got buried...
If the government maintains a DNA database of all citizens... what would it's purpose of this database?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: By its very nature PRISM was always going to be corrupt.
Which would be relevant if we were discussing whether or not we should start our on PRISM program, but we're not.
How many elected officials continue to support the NSA?
No idea (I know more about the CIA than the NSA, hence why I referenced them above). Unless public opinion becomes so negative as to adversely effect reelection, they probably won't do anything.
Oddly enough, for all the white knighting of American civil rights here, most Americans apparently don't give enough of a damn to do much Which is probably the only point where PRISM would even be relevant to a discussion about national DNA database.
If people don't care enough, corruption just keeps going and going. Why don't they care? I could be ambitious and propose they're too busy living pay check to pay check to become involved but then I might be labeled a social justice warrior (I'll put it on my name tag).
Are we ready to forgive Snowden yet for disclosing PRISM?
Maybe in 30, 40 years If politicians can't be bothered enough to resolve the problem children that are the NSA and CIA, they're not going reach out to help Snowden (and of course, no one likes a tattle tell even when tattling is the right thing)
And? I get that that's a thing, but it's completely irrelevent to the point I was addressing. I'm talking about the complaints about what happens to the DNA after it's been obtained, not how they obtain the DNA.
How is using familial DNA to avoid due process not something that happens AFTER the DNA is collected?
I mean, I get what you're saying regarding DNA profiling vs genetic sequencing. My point is that using either one as some sort of fishing net to avoid due process should be unacceptable regardless of the test used. Whether you see my orange boxes (ala your picture in your first post) or you get to see the breakdown of every chromosome I have, that is rather immaterial to the fact that due process was violated.
As well, Americans, PLEASE stop applying the way our law works to the French legal system. Ask anyone who practices law in Louisiana, they can tell you they don't work quite the same way.
So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?
As a convicted criminal, whose DNA and fingerprint data is held on file, I don't see why providing a swab for DNA testing should cause a problem. It will at least eliminate potential suspects. and yes, if the French authorities are targeting the school faculty, they have an idea that the victims attacker is or was known to the victim or the attacker knew the victim.
Ruling out family and family and friends leaves the school and staff as next possible suspects. The authorities probably have their eye on local criminals too.
So long as the data is destroyed for those unconnected to the attack there shouldn't be a problem.
LordofHats wrote: Which would be relevant if we were discussing whether or not we should start our on PRISM program, but we're not.
It is perfectly relevant. It shows that the government has past form on abusing personal information under the guise of 'national security', and that it cannot be trusted to place limitations or safeguards on abuse
LordofHats wrote: No idea (I know more about the CIA than the NSA, hence why I referenced them above). Unless public opinion becomes so negative as to adversely effect reelection, they probably won't do anything.
Oddly enough, for all the white knighting of American civil rights here, most Americans apparently don't give enough of a damn to do much Which is probably the only point where PRISM would even be relevant to a discussion about national DNA database.
If people don't care enough, corruption just keeps going and going. Why don't they care? I could be ambitious and propose they're too busy living pay check to pay check to become involved but then I might be labeled a social justice warrior (I'll put it on my name tag).
Maybe in 30, 40 years If politicians can't be bothered enough to resolve the problem children that are the NSA and CIA, they're not going reach out to help Snowden (and of course, no one likes a tattle tell even when tattling is the right thing)
So in short, fighting the good fight has none not one thing to turn back NSA corruption once they have acquired power. Maybe now you'll see why so many people would rather prevent government from claiming new powers instead of trying to fight to get them to relinquish power.
Mr. Burning wrote: So long as the data is destroyed for those unconnected to the attack there shouldn't be a problem.
It won't be. The same way that those automated number plate files in California are never deleted. For the same reasons that the UK government fights every order to destroy DNA samples that they no longer have a lawful right to retain
As a convicted criminal, whose DNA and fingerprint data is held on file, I don't see why providing a swab for DNA testing should cause a problem. It will at least eliminate potential suspects. and yes, if the French authorities are targeting the school faculty, they have an idea that the victims attacker is or was known to the victim or the attacker knew the victim.
Ruling out family and family and friends leaves the school and staff as next possible suspects. The authorities probably have their eye on local criminals too.
So long as the data is destroyed for those unconnected to the attack there shouldn't be a problem.
If you read the article, you will find that authorities are trying to test all 500+ people because:
1. They are "capable of committing the rape" (i.e.: male)
2. Were known to be at the school when the attack occurred.
That's pretty much it. They aren't "targeting the school faculty" (they are testing students as well), they have no "idea that the victims attacker is or was known to the victim or the attacker knew the victim" (in fact, family and friends have been ruled out somehow). 2 things to meet: dude, there.
Mr. Burning wrote: As a convicted criminal, whose DNA and fingerprint data is held on file, I don't see why providing a swab for DNA testing should cause a problem. It will at least eliminate potential suspects. and yes, if the French authorities are targeting the school faculty, they have an idea that the victims attacker is or was known to the victim or the attacker knew the victim.
Good. In that case they can show probable cause and obtain a warrant for the DNA of the suspect(s) instead of having 499 samples of innocent people on record.
If the government maintains a DNA database of all citizens... what would it's purpose of this database?
Potential uses;
-Identifying corpses, which leads to
-Criminal investigation uses
-Tracking blood and organ donors nationwide*
-Might have application in combating identity theft
-Probably some kind of scientific hoo nanny would probably be made feasible by it
*Broader blood testing at birth (or even before) would enable quick identification diseases and defects to allow for treatment.
I think we all know that the big one is criminal investigations which also so happens to be the one most people are worried about.
And? I get that that's a thing, but it's completely irrelevent to the point I was addressing. I'm talking about the complaints about what happens to the DNA after it's been obtained, not how they obtain the DNA.
How is using familial DNA to avoid due process not something that happens AFTER the DNA is collected?
I mean, I get what you're saying regarding DNA profiling vs genetic sequencing. My point is that using either one as some sort of fishing net to avoid due process should be unacceptable regardless of the test used. Whether you see my orange boxes (ala your picture in your first post) or you get to see the breakdown of every chromosome I have, that is rather immaterial to the fact that due process was violated.
Ah, reading comprehension fail on my part.
I would agree that that sort of thing is abuse of due process, and is almost always unnacceptable. (Though what would your opinion be on situations where a sample gets a partial match on someone, so tests are performed on their family members?)
Interestingly, getting to see the breakdown of every chromosome you have wouldn't actually be that useful, as most genes are shared, so DNA profiling largely takes place using 'junk' DNA between genes that makes up something like 1% of your DNA. Kinda like comparing two copies of Harry Potter to identify someone using missing apostrophes every few pages or so.
As a convicted criminal, whose DNA and fingerprint data is held on file, I don't see why providing a swab for DNA testing should cause a problem. It will at least eliminate potential suspects. and yes, if the French authorities are targeting the school faculty, they have an idea that the victims attacker is or was known to the victim or the attacker knew the victim.
Ruling out family and family and friends leaves the school and staff as next possible suspects. The authorities probably have their eye on local criminals too.
So long as the data is destroyed for those unconnected to the attack there shouldn't be a problem.
If you read the article, you will find that authorities are trying to test all 500+ people because:
1. They are "capable of committing the rape" (i.e.: male)
2. Were known to be at the school when the attack occurred.
That's pretty much it. They aren't "targeting the school faculty" (they are testing students as well), they have no "idea that the victims attacker is or was known to the victim or the attacker knew the victim" (in fact, family and friends have been ruled out somehow). 2 things to meet: dude, there.
I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?
Still cannot see a problem with the swabbing. It eliminates most everyone and may catch a sex attacker.
*Broader blood testing at birth (or even before) would enable quick identification diseases and defects to allow for treatment.
This is already handled by an NGO, btw. Same people that maintain the bone marrow donor registry I believe. Government doesn't have anything to do with it, beyond the usual HIPPA stuff.
It is perfectly relevant. It shows that the government has past form on abusing personal information under the guise of 'national security',
A program that can only involve a violation of civil rights just by existing is not the same thing as one that could be used to violate civil rights only when someone does something unethical. They are different but I doubt anyone wants to concede to that reality. It doesn't make for good soap boxing about how terrible the government is
So in short, fighting the good fight has none not one thing to turn back NSA corruption once they have acquired power.
As I've struggled to point out in this thread, you fight the good fight or you throw your hands up and refuse to play. Most people refuse to play (or, again ambitious here, don't have the time or money to buy the rule books).
My issue is that instead of realizing they're part of the problem, the Civil Rights White Knights (TM) pretend they're the only sane men in a world of madness.
I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?
Yep, but in the states that would be by 'least intrusive means', which in this case would be the cops putting down the donuts and doing some very basic police work rather than a mass coerced DNA testing.
That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).
Amendments can be changed. And if things change so much in the US political landscape that a DNA database could actually happen, I think it'll find a way around that issue.
Don't need the government for this... it already exists.
yeah but if you go through the trouble of making the database might as well roll it in.
-Might have application in combating identity theft
Now that is kinda interesting... I would have to see it's application to make that detemination, but my default position would be no.
If you're DNA checking everyone at birth, put a code on a birth certificate that identifies the holder's DNA. Could be useful on credit cards too. Identity thieves are pretty creative, but I imagine that would be a huge pain to get around.
Problem is that that expands access to the database outside the government (and call me crazy, but I trust lying politicians more than lying corporate executives... not by much though).
wut? o.O
Massive research studies into the national population. Identify the number of carriers of the genes that cause so and so disease. EDIT: And track the distribution of those gene's over time. Scientifically such a thing would be kind of cool, socially there are all kinds of 'oh no what could happen now" problems.
That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).
Amendments can be changed. And if things change so much in the US political landscape that a DNA database could actually happen, I think it'll find a way around that issue.
No Right under the Bill of Rights has ever been changed in the USA. That would mean figuratively, and literally, war.
That's the big one...sure. But there's those pesky US amendments that wouldn't allow it. (even fething ACLU fights this).
Amendments can be changed. And if things change so much in the US political landscape that a DNA database could actually happen, I think it'll find a way around that issue.
True... but the likely hood of that happening is nil to zip.
Don't need the government for this... it already exists.
yeah but if you go through the trouble of making the database might as well roll it in.
Why? The current systems really don't go outside of it's role. That's not a bad thing ya know.
-Might have application in combating identity theft
Now that is kinda interesting... I would have to see it's application to make that detemination, but my default position would be no.
If you're DNA checking everyone at birth, put a code on a birth certificate that identifies the holder's DNA. Could be useful on credit cards too. Identity thieves are pretty creative, but I imagine that would be a huge pain to get around.
Theorectically, that's cool... again, I don't see how this would work... yet.
I mean, can you see biometrics advancing much? That's why I brought up Gattica.
Problem is that that expands access to the database outside the government (and call me crazy, but I trust lying politicians more than lying corporate executives... not by much though).
True... but, if there's a financial impact, it would behoove private companies more to protect their client as opposed to government officials (who can blame everyone, which then means... no one really gets the blame).
wut? o.O
Massive research studies into the national population. Identify the number of carriers of the genes that cause so and so disease. EDIT: And track the distribution of those gene's over time. Scientifically such a thing would be kind of cool, socially there are all kinds of 'oh no what could happen now" problems.
eh... that is intriguing... sure. But, I'd leave government out of it.
In St. Louis... Washington University is already doing that. They've mapped the genome. Now, their cross referencing their research to data collected by the local Hospital's own patient database.
I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?
Yep, but in the states that would be by 'least intrusive means', which in this case would be the cops putting down the donuts and doing some very basic police work rather than a mass coerced DNA testing.
Declaring that non participants will be numero uno suspects is more of a hindrance than a help but I reckon the French want this aspect of the case wrapped up asap.
It is perfectly relevant. It shows that the government has past form on abusing personal information under the guise of 'national security',
A program that can only involve a violation of civil rights just by existing is not the same thing as one that could be used to violate civil rights only when someone does something unethical. They are different but I doubt anyone wants to concede to that reality. It doesn't make for good soap boxing about how terrible the government is
The whole point of the NSA itself was to intercept foreign communications and to help prevent a repeat of 9/11. Spying on US citizens with no probable cause shows that was completely unethical and had no problem with over reach.
The parallels are there. It is just that you do not wish to acknowledge them. Perhaps this will help;
The NSA has a purpose in intercepting communications of foreign persons of interest. That is in itself not unethical. Creating a program to spay on US citizens without so much as probable cause is unethical.
Police have a purpose in investigating allegations of crime. That is in itself not unethical. Future program that takes DNA for an unconstitutional program is unethical
The NSA still have all their powers and nothing concrete was done about their misfeasance. So again, why would we permit the government assuming powers that we then have to fight at a later date? We know that no government ever likes to relinquish power that it has gained.
LordofHats wrote: As I've struggled to point out in this thread, you fight the good fight or you throw your hands up and refuse to play. Most people refuse to play (or, again ambitious here, don't have the time or money to buy the rule books).
So we're still at the point that nothing ever happened to the NSA (red faces and embarrassment of getting caught aside) and that they are still not only at liberty to continue collecting data on US citizens, but elected representatives are giving them political cover to do so.
LordofHats wrote: My issue is that instead of realizing they're part of the problem, the Civil Rights White Knights (TM) pretend they're the only sane men in a world of madness.
My issue is that people can't see a repeated pattern that governments over reach their power, and refuse to relinquish it when caught, all while people continue to say that no government would ever do that.
True... but the likely hood of that happening is nil to zip.
Won't find me proposing such a thing is happening in a foreseeable future.
Why? The current systems really don't go outside of it's role. That's not a bad thing ya know.
I'm only saying that if you take the time to make the database, it's sensible to roll that function into since they're already doing the work of collecting the data.
I mean, can you see biometrics advancing much?
Biometrics is a question of accuracy. Eventually they're be there. The bigger hurdle is that doing such a thing would need a huge computing infrastructure.
eh... that is intriguing... sure. But, I'd leave government out of it.
If you wanted to do it on a national scale (a massive endeavor), they're the only ones capable. Of course it would probably be more than a little gimmicky.
The whole point of the NSA itself was to intercept foreign communications and to help prevent a repeat of 9/11
The NSA was founded in 1952. It's purpose was to monitor communications intelligence (CIA does human intelligence).
. Spying on US citizens with no probable cause shows that was completely unethical and had no problem with over reach.
Yeah. Give someone a free pass to keep anything secret, bad gaks gonna happen. Comparatively, I'm skeptical we ever needed them in the first place. They are responsible for a rather astonishing number boondoggles.
My preference? Dump them both. The CIA should have been done away with after Iran-Contra made it apperenty they weren't just dangerous but dangerously inept. Pft. We can't even get rid of ATF. Fat chance of getting rid of the CIA or NSA.
The NSA has a purpose in intercepting communications of foreign persons of interest. That is in itself not unethical. Creating a program to spay on US citizens without so much as probable cause is unethical.
Police have a purpose in investigating allegations of crime. That is in itself not unethical. Future program that takes DNA for an unconstitutional program is unethical
And like I've been saying for pages, if you make a hammer, someone will inevitably use it to bash someone's head in instead of a nail (or a nail into a head). Has no real relevance on whether you should keep making hammers (or we could all just start using nail guns).
We know that no government ever likes to relinquish power that it has gained.
And yet, they have. If you pressure them, they will give it up, because less power is better than no power. The problem isn't the government having power its the people being apathetic.
My issue is that people can't see a repeated pattern that governments over reach their power, and refuse to relinquish it when caught, all while people continue to say that no government would ever do that.
And those people are part of the problem too. The world; one big sink or problems
easysauce wrote: Why not just make DNA imprinting, drug testing, and RFID chips mandatory for all people at birth,
if you have anything against it, its because you are a criminal with something to hide, and are now a suspect.
Except the DNA sample would almost certainly be taken in the form of a cheek swab, and the DNA profiling is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be enough of a sample to do both tests.
I know you want to carry on this whole "I don't trust the government, they could do mean things to me" schtick, but in this situation your complaints are categorically untrue; you may not be confusing sequencing with testing, but you're definitely confused as to how the processes work.
I don't want to carry that schtick, but I find it incredibly easy. I'll take your word that a cheek swab wouldn't be enough to perform both tests. I genuinely have no firsthand experience in the business.
What if they take two?
Full Genome Sequencing is an expensive process, and to perform it on 500 DNA samples (which have already been destroyed by DNA profiling) would be silly, regardless of this GATTACA-Lite future you're envisioning where genetic vulnerabilities are sold to insurance companies.
The problem here is that we (Americans) spend 10 billion to spy on 150 million of it's own people. That's the NSA budget vs the population of the US thought to use the Internet. I'm overblowing the situation somewhat, admittedly, because presumably the NSA does something other than watch US citizens, but since all the specific numbers are classified, it's difficult to actually look at the situation without making any assumptions.
Anyway, back to the problem. Cost does not appear to be a barrier to entry for classified projects that someone decides are going to get done come hell or high water. You can't say it with 100% certainty that it couldn't happen at this point because of cost, because it just did with the NSA thing. "The datacenters and bandwidth would cost too much." "it's too logistically hard."
Not so much.
And let me finish by saying that this argument is mostly academic, at least, for me. I know I probably come off sounding like some half-insane bearded recluse who keeps his bodily fluids hidden away in mason jars and chases at shadows that aren't really there. I'm really not. I'm just continually amazed at the reality of now, and speculating toward the future.
LordofHats wrote: The NSA was founded in 1952. It's purpose was to monitor communications intelligence (CIA does human intelligence).
Thank you for the correction. But again, they did not have a remit to spy on US citizens without due cause
LordofHats wrote: Yeah. Give someone a free pass to keep anything secret, bad gaks gonna happen. Comparatively, I'm skeptical we ever needed them in the first place. They are responsible for a rather astonishing number boondoggles.
And how do you think DNA samples will be treated? All that genetic information about people just stored, to be accessed and sifted through. If you thought that abusing communication was bad gak gonna happen what do you think will happen with DNA?
LordofHats wrote: My preference? Dump them both. The CIA should have been done away with after Iran-Contra made it apperenty they weren't just dangerous but dangerously inept. Pft. We can't even get rid of ATF. Fat chance of getting rid of the CIA or NSA.
So you are well aware of various government abuses, across a variety of agencies, you know full well that removing their power is nigh impossible, and yet you want to hand serious power over to them that they will be even more loathe to forfeit.
LordofHats wrote: And like I've been saying for pages, if you make a hammer, someone will inevitably use it to bash someone's head in instead of a nail (or a nail into a head). Has no real relevance on whether you should keep making hammers (or we could all just start using nail guns).
Good. Then surely you can see why people don't want the government having vast databases of DNA.
LordofHats wrote: And yet, they have. If you pressure them, they will give it up, because less power is better than no power. The problem isn't the government having power its the people being apathetic.
It is both. The government should never have that much power, and the people should prevent them having such power.
Instead what we have is people saying that they are opposed to government DNA databases (you know, being the opposite of apathetic), while you tell us that no harm can come from increasing the government's power even after pointing out the excesses of the government.
LordofHats wrote: And those people are part of the problem too. The world; one big sink or problems
Well, at least you understand your place in the scheme of things
I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?
Yep, but in the states that would be by 'least intrusive means', which in this case would be the cops putting down the donuts and doing some very basic police work rather than a mass coerced DNA testing.
Declaring that non participants will be numero uno suspects is more of a hindrance than a help but I reckon the French want this aspect of the case wrapped up asap.
I'll reuse the example someone else already brought up, to try and illustrate why what they're doing is unjustifiable intrusive bull :
You live in a village, that village is far away from any other centres of habitation. One of the houses in the village is burgled. Now, because of the community's relative isolation, the local police assume that the burglar lives in the village, and that they are therefore likely to be storing their ill-gotten gains in one of the village's 500 houses.
The police appear at your door, and demand that you "voluntarily" permit them to search your home, your person, and any digital devices you own for evidence that you are the burglar, and inform you that if you decline to "volunteer" to allow the search, you will become one of their main suspects. No attempt to investigate to validate their assumptions, no attempt to adhere to legal due process, just a blanket demand that every household in your village submits to the same "request" they have made of you.
You really see no issues with that? You would be happy with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" reasoning at play? You would permit the police to root through your possessions and personal files and not for a moment feel you were coerced into doing so?
easysauce wrote: Why not just make DNA imprinting, drug testing, and RFID chips mandatory for all people at birth,
if you have anything against it, its because you are a criminal with something to hide, and are now a suspect.
Works for me.
Yes, but you're a DakkaDakka forum mod, that you are a rampant fascist is no surprise
Yodhrin wrote: ... and inform you that if you decline to "volunteer" to allow the search, you will become one of their main suspects.
... At which point they very quickly find that there is no other evidence linking you to the robbery (assuming, of course, that you didn't do it), and everyone gets on with their lives.
And how do you think DNA samples will be treated? All that genetic information about people just stored, to be accessed and sifted through.
For one you don't give just anyone access. Then you don't make it clandestine because clandestine things just never seem to end well.
If you thought that abusing communication was bad gak gonna happen what do you think will happen with DNA?
Different eggs. I agree that the outrage over PRISM is overblown. Its a scandal, its illegal, and its wrong, but practically it's personally harmed nearly no one. PRISM is more alarming as a pointless illegal operation that seemingly had no purpose or stated goals which should raise the question of how such a thing was ever conceived let alone allowed to happen.
I suspect a DNA database actually has a wider potential door for real abuse to happen than PRISM ever did. I accept that.
Then surely you can see why people don't want the government having vast databases of DNA.
Fear is a powerful thing. I find life easier when I ignore it and push on through. World would be a better place if other people did the same imo.
It is both. The government should never have that much power, and the people should prevent them having such power.
If they have power its because the people allowed them to have it. We allowed the NSA and CIA to be created (oh McCarthyism, the gift that never stopped giving), we allowed the massive expansion of the governments intelligence mechanisms over the past 40 years even though there were countless evident examples not to, we created the environment that allowed something like PRISM to pass.
The government isn't an alien. Its made of people and empowered by people. People can't claim political freedom while denying responsibility for their governments.
while you tell us that no harm can come from increasing the government's power even after pointing out the excesses of the government.
I'm just gonna start counting now (1). I already said that abuse will happen, several times even. It's inevitable. I like more precise criminal investigations and bad guys going to jail more. A DNA database allows nothing that can't already happen and if anything centralizing the control of DNA testing reduces the chances of a frame job, not increase it (its hard to convince techies 100 miles away to support trumped up lies).
Well, at least you understand your place in the scheme of things
(2). I think it's hilarious that I continually say abuse will happen (I say it in every post) but you keep saying I'm in denial that abuse will happen. It would be entertaining if my low expectations of critical reading abilities weren't being revealed to be too high. I need to find James Cameron. He's the only one who can raise the bar at this point.
With police seeming now to need DNA and more cameras to solve crimes, I'm wondering how they used to solve crimes before these things were in use.
I'm so against any kind of "voluntary" DNA testing. I'm not particularly worried about the police , I am more worried about community reaction if it was found out you did not go for testing. I can safely say I would never submit to a DNA test to "solve" a crime.
I hate this whole "if you haven't done any wrong, you don't need to worry". It's my info and if I have a choice whether to hand it over or not I'm not going to hand it over. If the police could do their jobs properly, I wouldn't have to worry at all.
with CCTV the police have enough Info to solve crimes.
Bullockist wrote: With police seeming now to need DNA and more cameras to solve crimes, I'm wondering how they used to solve crimes before these things were in use.
They solve more crimes now, thanks to DNA and CCTV evidence. Every advance in investigation helps, like fingerprints, blood typing...
I'm not particularly worried about the police , I am more worried about community reaction if it was found out you did not go for testing.
So take the test. The "community" is not so worried about vague fears of a theoretical government conspiracy to harvest your DNA for possible future persecution as it is about identifying a rapist.
I hate this whole "if you haven't done any wrong, you don't need to worry". It's my info and if I have a choice whether to hand it over or not I'm not going to hand it over. If the police could do their jobs properly, I wouldn't have to worry at all.
with CCTV the police have enough Info to solve crimes.
Would you advocate setting up CCTV in Catholic Girls Schools? The lavatories, showers and changing rooms are probably where most rapes take place.
I guess at this point, the whole paranoia thing about how the government is out to get me and harvest my organs or something really becomes secondary to the fact that I have kids and if one of them got raped I would want the police to use every and any tool at their disposal to find the perpetrator, even if it meant testing the whole country. Without wishing to sound patronizing, I think it really is one of those things you can't appreciate unless you have children yourself (and yes, I am aware not everyone who has kids thinks the DNA testing is a good idea).
You have to bear in mind with this case that it has been about 6 months I believe since the offence and it looks very much like the police are out of ideas and out of options so a blanket test is really the last shot at catching whoever did it.
Goliath wrote:Ah, reading comprehension fail on my part.
I would agree that that sort of thing is abuse of due process, and is almost always unnacceptable. (Though what would your opinion be on situations where a sample gets a partial match on someone, so tests are performed on their family members?)
Interestingly, getting to see the breakdown of every chromosome you have wouldn't actually be that useful, as most genes are shared, so DNA profiling largely takes place using 'junk' DNA between genes that makes up something like 1% of your DNA. Kinda like comparing two copies of Harry Potter to identify someone using missing apostrophes every few pages or so.
I feel like if you had enough evidence to force a sample from someone, but only ended up with a partial match, that partial match could be used with other existing evidence to get a subpoena for another person's DNA. I'm fine with that, as that is done in the course of an investigation.
I am not fine with "We think it's you but can't prove it, so I'm going to pull your brother over and force a brethalyzer to get HIS dna which I will then use to lasso you."
And yeah, I knew a bunch of DNA sequences are shared, even between species. We match like 20 something percent of fungus DNA I think? Higher for species closer in relation (e.g.: primates and such). I do look forward to our understanding of genetics advancing enough to help solve/cure illnesses and diseases as well.
Mr. Burning wrote:I meant the pupils as well - if they are capable and were there at the time it makes sense to eliminate them don't you think?
Still cannot see a problem with the swabbing. It eliminates most everyone and may catch a sex attacker.
Police work should be able to eliminate suspects without a blanket swabbing of everyone who was anywhere close to the building, that also happens to have a penis. I'm all for catching the perp, but I'm not for trampling the rights of 500+ other people in the process, especially when there isn't even a guarantee that any of them IS the perp.
filbert wrote: I guess at this point, the whole paranoia thing about how the government is out to get me and harvest my organs or something really becomes secondary to the fact that I have kids and if one of them got raped I would want the police to use every and any tool at their disposal to find the perpetrator, even if it meant testing the whole country. Without wishing to sound patronizing, I think it really is one of those things you can't appreciate unless you have children yourself (and yes, I am aware not everyone who has kids thinks the DNA testing is a good idea).
You have to bear in mind with this case that it has been about 6 months I believe since the offence and it looks very much like the police are out of ideas and out of options so a blanket test is really the last shot at catching whoever did it.
Ah yes, the ole "you can't understand if you haven't been there", appeal to emotion nonsense. Wherein we allow emotion to override logic, and we all know emotion makes for such a fantastic basis for justice...
Yodhrin wrote: ... and inform you that if you decline to "volunteer" to allow the search, you will become one of their main suspects.
... At which point they very quickly find that there is no other evidence linking you to the robbery (assuming, of course, that you didn't do it), and everyone gets on with their lives.
Then why place any limits on the scope of police behaviour or state surveillance at all? Afterall, if you have no intention of committing a crime, you should be perfectly happy to have your life observed and catalogued 24 hours a day, every day, from the moment you leave your mother to the moment they bury you in the ground, with no limitations on how the state can use those observations. Why not allow the police to stop any person, at random, and conduct searches without any cause? Why put any limits at all on how police can gather and store evidence? Why even bother with trials or presumption of innocence - it's all so messy and inconvenient, just gets in the way of catching crims, surely any law-abiding person would have nothing to fear if we just allowed the police to operate on their own recognizance, free to investigate as they wish, use any methods they wish, decide their own standards of proof, right? How efficient and tidy such a system would be - no annoying human rights lawyers, no criminals getting off due to legal technicalities, and of course no wrongful convictions because by definition, if you are arrested you must be guilty.
Reductio ad absurdum? It would be, except for the fact that we have concrete examples from our own history -hell, from our own present- that compromising even seemingly minor elements of due process does lead to abuses of power. Afterall, what possible harm could there be in giving up just a wee bit of our legal protection if it allows the government to protect us from those dastardly terrorists, eh?
filbert wrote: I guess at this point, the whole paranoia thing about how the government is out to get me and harvest my organs or something really becomes secondary to the fact that I have kids and if one of them got raped I would want the police to use every and any tool at their disposal to find the perpetrator, even if it meant testing the whole country. Without wishing to sound patronizing, I think it really is one of those things you can't appreciate unless you have children yourself (and yes, I am aware not everyone who has kids thinks the DNA testing is a good idea).
You have to bear in mind with this case that it has been about 6 months I believe since the offence and it looks very much like the police are out of ideas and out of options so a blanket test is really the last shot at catching whoever did it.
I highly recommend you watch a TV series called Broadchurch(it's only 8 episodes), starring David Tennant. First because it's a good watch, but also because it has special relevance to the "think of the children" argument you're deploying, and the consequences when people put it into practice. Pay particular attention to the sub-plot involving the shopkeeper.
Keeping samples long after they should have been disposed of, and then refusing to dispose of them
And how bad is that really. It's not like they can really do anything with them.
Assuming you are 100% correct (and I seriously doubt you are) then there is a BIG reason to dispose of them. It costs the tax payers money to catalog and store the samples. If there is really nothing they can do with them it is a waste of resources to maintain them.
That being the case, why would anyone advocate for more government waste?
Keeping samples long after they should have been disposed of, and then refusing to dispose of them
And how bad is that really. It's not like they can really do anything with them.
Assuming you are 100% correct (and I seriously doubt you are) then there is a BIG reason to dispose of them. It costs the tax payers money to catalog and store the samples. If there is really nothing they can do with them it is a waste of resources to maintain them.
That being the case, why would anyone advocate for more government waste?
I just think it's an overreaction. What do you think they can do with them?
Which strawman are you claiming that I am arguing? That DNA will not be abused once the sample has been taken? The UK government has been ordered on numerous occasions to destroy DNA samples that it collected in cases such as the OP, but they have instead retained. That is proof that it is already being abused.
LordofHats wrote: For one you don't give just anyone access. Then you don't make it clandestine because clandestine things just never seem to end well.
So instead we give wide access to the samples that must be cataloged, collected, stored, monitored, comply with a chain of evidence, and numerous other costly processes? Or how about we don't try to pressure 500 people into giving samples because we can't establish probable cause on one person?
Clandestine or not you are storing and have access to the most intimate genetic knowledge of a person's existence. The government has yet to prove it can even handle things it has responsibility for in compliance with the law and Constitution.
LordofHats wrote: Different eggs. I agree that the outrage over PRISM is overblown. Its a scandal, its illegal, and its wrong, but practically it's personally harmed nearly no one. PRISM is more alarming as a pointless illegal operation that seemingly had no purpose or stated goals which should raise the question of how such a thing was ever conceived let alone allowed to happen.
I suspect a DNA database actually has a wider potential door for real abuse to happen than PRISM ever did. I accept that.
Who agreed that the outrage over PRISM was overblown? I certainly don't.
Do you know how such a thing was conceived? In the same manner as the report in the OP. A likely suspect could not be found/probable cause not established so they had to circumvent the law.
And PRISM was so pointless that the government denied its existence, lied to the public, then when it was finally revealed fought tooth and nail to ensure that it didn't lose access to their ill-gotten data? If they are prepared to do that with something so "pointless" what will they do for such a treasure trove.
LordofHats wrote: Fear is a powerful thing. I find life easier when I ignore it and push on through. World would be a better place if other people did the same imo.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are proposing a rather strange course of action for someone who said just a few comments ago that corruption must always be fought. Or should it only be fought if it isn't scary? Sticking your head in the sand may work for ostriches, but that does not make the issue go away nor resolve itself.
LordofHats wrote: If they have power its because the people allowed them to have it. We allowed the NSA and CIA to be created (oh McCarthyism, the gift that never stopped giving), we allowed the massive expansion of the governments intelligence mechanisms over the past 40 years even though there were countless evident examples not to, we created the environment that allowed something like PRISM to pass.
The government isn't an alien. Its made of people and empowered by people. People can't claim political freedom while denying responsibility for their governments.
But you just said that it is better to ignore it. So which is it; do we fight the corruption, or do we ignore it because it is easier?
LordofHats wrote: I'm just gonna start counting now (1). I already said that abuse will happen, several times even. It's inevitable. I like more precise criminal investigations and bad guys going to jail more. A DNA database allows nothing that can't already happen and if anything centralizing the control of DNA testing reduces the chances of a frame job, not increase it (its hard to convince techies 100 miles away to support trumped up lies).
LordofHats wrote: (2). I think it's hilarious that I continually say abuse will happen (I say it in every post) but you keep saying I'm in denial that abuse will happen. It would be entertaining if my low expectations of critical reading abilities weren't being revealed to be too high. I need to find James Cameron. He's the only one who can raise the bar at this point.
And yet in spite of saying that abuse will occur you stated that you were in favour of the government having access to the DNA samples, then gave continued examples of government corruption. The only thing that you have been consistent in has been your inconsistency.
On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave its judgement in the Marper case related to the controversial National DNA Database used by the UK Police for criminal investigations, stating the retention of cellular samples, fingerprints and DNA profiles constitutes an infringement of the right for private life as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case was brought to court in 2004 by Michael Marper and a boy called "S" who, in separate, unrelated cases, had been taken their DNA after having been arrested. The charges were dropped in both cases but the UK police refused to destroy the DNA samples of the two individuals on the basis of the British law which allowed the retention of DNA and fingerprints. ECHR based its decision on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and decided that the indefinite retention by the UK Government and Police of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints was illegal. "In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society." The court dismissed all arguments brought by the UK Government, stating that "England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence". One of the main concerns expressed by the court was "the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who have not been convicted of any offence and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, are treated in the same way as convicted persons," the ruling adding that especially the retention of children's data following acquittal could be harmful, "given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society."
Following this decision, the UK Government is expected to change its present legislation which allows the police to retain samples of people who are not convicted.
According to reports, there more than 5 million samples presently stored in UK DNA database, out of which between 573,639 to 857,366 are from people with no criminal record. The creation of a DNA database has been questioned by many people. The Information Commissioners Office made a statement last year on this issue warning on the dangers of such a database: "There are significant risks associated with creating a universal database: it would be highly intrusive, and the more information collected about us, the greater the risk of false matches and other mistakes. The potential for technical and human error leading to serious consequences cannot be under estimated." Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve also warned on the dangers brought by the fact that the database can be checked by EU member countries against sensitive personal information. "There is a real risk that a disproportionate number of innocent British citizens will be sucked into foreign criminal investigations."
(The House of Lords has passed an amendment to the Counter Terrorism Bill, proposed on 4 November by Baroness Hanham that would force the Government to show to people how they can have their samples removed from the database.) Correction - This amendment was not adopted in the end by the UK Parliament. The act was adopted as the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.
One possible approach of the UK Government, which would be accepted by ECHR, could be that of Scotland police. According to the Scottish Criminal Procedure Act, an individual's DNA samples and resulting profile must be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or is granted an absolute discharge. Biological samples and profiles may, however, be retained for three years in case the respective person is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences even if not convicted.
European Court of Human Rights - Grand Chamber Judgement - Case of S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (4.12.2008)
The UK government finally acted after this case, and decided that if they collected DNA from you and you aren't convicted the good news is that they will only keep it on file for six years
http://www.out-law.com/page-10516
The Government will remove from its DNA database the profiles of most adults arrested but not charged or convicted of an offence after six years. The Home Office announcement follows a ruling against the UK by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).11 Nov 2009
The proposed six-year limit excludes terrorism suspects, including juvenile suspects.
The ECHR ruled last December that the UK Government's "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of DNA information was not fair and was a "disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life", as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the wake of that judgment the Home Office said earlier this year that it planned to retain DNA profiles on innocent people for a maximum period of 12 years. Critics said that that Government's plans did not go far enough.
"These proposals are not quite two fingers to the European Court of Human Rights but they come pretty close," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, at the time.
Following a public consultation, which received more than 500 responses, the Home Office said today that it will remove from the National DNA Database the profiles of all adults arrested but not charged or convicted of any recordable offence after six years.
It will also remove profiles of 16 and 17 year-old juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of serious offences after six years; it will remove profiles of all other juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of a recordable offence after three years, regardless of age at arrest; and it will retain DNA profiles of all juveniles convicted of all but the most serious recordable offences for five years, and indefinitely for any further convictions.
The plans do not extend to those arrested on suspicion of terrorism or national security offences. According to the Home Office, "material taken under any regime (including the Terrorism Act 2000,) would be able to be retained beyond the 6-year point where there is a case for doing so on the basis of a case by case review on national security grounds."
"This would require a review by a senior police officer every two years – although data would be deleted if it became clear between reviews that its retention would no longer be necessary. The policy for juveniles would be similar but would take account of the differential treatment proposed for juveniles more generally."
The UK maintains the largest national DNA database in the world. The Government says it plays an essential role in fighting crime and providing justice for victims.
"Between April 1998 and September 2009 there were more than 410,589 crimes with DNA matches, providing the police with a lead on the possible identity of the offender," said the Home Office in a statement today.
The proposals also include plans to destroy all DNA samples, such as blood, urine or mouth swabs used to create the DNA profile that is added to the database. The Government also plans to give police new powers to take DNA samples from anyone convicted abroad, or convicted before the creation of the DNA database in 1995.
The Government said that it intends to continue retaining the DNA profiles of all adults convicted of a recordable offence indefinitely, as well as the profiles of all juveniles convicted of the most serious offences, such as murder, rape, manslaughter and serious assault.
Under the proposals, fingerprints will be retained for the same time periods as DNA profiles.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson acknowledged a need for balance in the database.
"It is vital that we maintain the capacity of the DNA database to provide as many detections as possible by making sure the right people are on it," he said. "But we must balance this with the consideration of when other people should come off.
"I believe the proposals I am announcing today represent the most proportionate approach to DNA retention, as well as the most effective way of ensuring the database continues to help us tackle crime."
Liberty's Chakrabarti said today that she believes the Government is still not going far enough to protect human rights.
“It seems the Government still refuses to separate the innocent and the guilty and maintains a blanket approach to DNA retention," said Chakrabarti. "This grudgingly modified policy creates a repeat collision course with the Courts and Ministers look stubborn rather than effective or fair."
"Nobody disputes the value of DNA and anyone arrested can have a sample taken and compared to crime scenes," she said. "But stockpiling the intimate profiles of millions of innocent people is an unnecessary recipe for error and abuse."
"Politicians need to show us that they care about the presumption of innocence and not just when MPs expenses are being discussed," said Chakrabarti.
Liberty says that a correct and proportionate approach to the National DNA Database would be based on allowing retention of DNA for those convicted or cautioned for a small number of serious offences, mainly involving sexual assault or violence.
it always starts with violating peoples rights for the best possible reasons.
then slowly its used for less then best possible reasons.
the saying "those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither, and will lose both" is true, and you ignore the lessons of history at your own, and everyone elses, peril.
Its ignorant people who dont mind/cant see the tip of the wedge, and in fact support it, who end up ruining it for the rest of us.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Clandestine or not you are storing and have access to the most intimate genetic knowledge of a person's existence.
KK mentioned false positives earlier. A current problem facing any potential application of a vast national DNA database is the limitations of testing. A techie did an experiment in Arizona a few years back to see how many false positives she could produce using current testing methods (FBI says its a 1 in 43 billion chance). She did 1500 tests and got 12 false positives. Such a thing would be useless until technology has further advanced to make testing more accurate but I'm talking about the fact that
DNA isn't as unique as people think it is.
Having your DNA isn't the same as having you because your DNA is not the sum of your person and there's millions of Americans with the same DNA strands as you.
The government has yet to prove it can even handle things it has responsibility for in compliance with the law and Constitution.
Like that'll ever happen. Federal government has been battling what the Constitution says it can and can't do since day 1. Imagine it'll always be that way. Good thing we have so many lawyers
Who agreed that the outrage over PRISM was overblown? I certainly don't.
In the big list of government scandals, I'd rank PRISM pretty low on damage. I mean, the ATF gunwalking scandal actually got people killed. Mostly Mexicans, but they're people too.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are proposing a rather strange course of action for someone who said just a few comments ago that corruption must always be fought. Or should it only be fought if it isn't scary? Sticking your head in the sand may work for ostriches, but that does not make the issue go away nor resolve itself.
It's funny because when I see people say "it can be abused" and then stop I can only think they're sticking their heads in the sand. Everything can be abused. That statement is as useless as "I'm offended" and "the sky is blue."
But you just said that it is better to ignore it. So which is it; do we fight the corruption, or do we ignore it because it is easier?
(3). Read my first post.
And yet in spite of saying that abuse will occur you stated that you were in favour of the government having access to the DNA samples, then gave continued examples of government corruption. The only thing that you have been consistent in has been your inconsistency.
(4) The fact government exists means there will be abuse (again, my first post). Establish a police force? There will be corruption eventually. Can't stop it from happening, but not having any police probably wouldn't end well so we're stuck with them and dealing with that corruption when it happens. Yin and yang.
My position is that corruption is inevitable unless you want to live without government. Accepting that, its perfectly rational to accept that corruption isn't a valid reason not to enact a policy so long as it is useful (like the NSA or CIA, which are crazy corrupt with huge budgets, and seemingly spend all their time enacting plans of questionable usefulness). I guess we could call my position intense pragmatism (which is an American philosophical concept, so I still get to be very American ).
The UK government was taken to court in 2008 for refusing to destroy DNA samples from innocent people, including samples taken from minors.
On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave its judgement in the Marper case related to the controversial National DNA Database used by the UK Police for criminal investigations, stating the retention of cellular samples, fingerprints and DNA profiles constitutes an infringement of the right for private life as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case was brought to court in 2004 by Michael Marper and a boy called "S" who, in separate, unrelated cases, had been taken their DNA after having been arrested. The charges were dropped in both cases but the UK police refused to destroy the DNA samples of the two individuals on the basis of the British law which allowed the retention of DNA and fingerprints. ECHR based its decision on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and decided that the indefinite retention by the UK Government and Police of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints was illegal. "In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society." The court dismissed all arguments brought by the UK Government, stating that "England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence". One of the main concerns expressed by the court was "the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who have not been convicted of any offence and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, are treated in the same way as convicted persons," the ruling adding that especially the retention of children's data following acquittal could be harmful, "given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society."
Following this decision, the UK Government is expected to change its present legislation which allows the police to retain samples of people who are not convicted.
According to reports, there more than 5 million samples presently stored in UK DNA database, out of which between 573,639 to 857,366 are from people with no criminal record. The creation of a DNA database has been questioned by many people. The Information Commissioners Office made a statement last year on this issue warning on the dangers of such a database: "There are significant risks associated with creating a universal database: it would be highly intrusive, and the more information collected about us, the greater the risk of false matches and other mistakes. The potential for technical and human error leading to serious consequences cannot be under estimated." Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve also warned on the dangers brought by the fact that the database can be checked by EU member countries against sensitive personal information. "There is a real risk that a disproportionate number of innocent British citizens will be sucked into foreign criminal investigations."
(The House of Lords has passed an amendment to the Counter Terrorism Bill, proposed on 4 November by Baroness Hanham that would force the Government to show to people how they can have their samples removed from the database.) Correction - This amendment was not adopted in the end by the UK Parliament. The act was adopted as the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.
One possible approach of the UK Government, which would be accepted by ECHR, could be that of Scotland police. According to the Scottish Criminal Procedure Act, an individual's DNA samples and resulting profile must be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or is granted an absolute discharge. Biological samples and profiles may, however, be retained for three years in case the respective person is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences even if not convicted.
European Court of Human Rights - Grand Chamber Judgement - Case of S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (4.12.2008)
The UK government finally acted after this case, and decided that if they collected DNA from you and you aren't convicted the good news is that they will only keep it on file for six years
http://www.out-law.com/page-10516
The Government will remove from its DNA database the profiles of most adults arrested but not charged or convicted of an offence after six years. The Home Office announcement follows a ruling against the UK by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).11 Nov 2009
The proposed six-year limit excludes terrorism suspects, including juvenile suspects.
The ECHR ruled last December that the UK Government's "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of DNA information was not fair and was a "disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life", as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the wake of that judgment the Home Office said earlier this year that it planned to retain DNA profiles on innocent people for a maximum period of 12 years. Critics said that that Government's plans did not go far enough.
"These proposals are not quite two fingers to the European Court of Human Rights but they come pretty close," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, at the time.
Following a public consultation, which received more than 500 responses, the Home Office said today that it will remove from the National DNA Database the profiles of all adults arrested but not charged or convicted of any recordable offence after six years.
It will also remove profiles of 16 and 17 year-old juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of serious offences after six years; it will remove profiles of all other juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of a recordable offence after three years, regardless of age at arrest; and it will retain DNA profiles of all juveniles convicted of all but the most serious recordable offences for five years, and indefinitely for any further convictions.
The plans do not extend to those arrested on suspicion of terrorism or national security offences. According to the Home Office, "material taken under any regime (including the Terrorism Act 2000,) would be able to be retained beyond the 6-year point where there is a case for doing so on the basis of a case by case review on national security grounds."
"This would require a review by a senior police officer every two years – although data would be deleted if it became clear between reviews that its retention would no longer be necessary. The policy for juveniles would be similar but would take account of the differential treatment proposed for juveniles more generally."
The UK maintains the largest national DNA database in the world. The Government says it plays an essential role in fighting crime and providing justice for victims.
"Between April 1998 and September 2009 there were more than 410,589 crimes with DNA matches, providing the police with a lead on the possible identity of the offender," said the Home Office in a statement today.
The proposals also include plans to destroy all DNA samples, such as blood, urine or mouth swabs used to create the DNA profile that is added to the database. The Government also plans to give police new powers to take DNA samples from anyone convicted abroad, or convicted before the creation of the DNA database in 1995.
The Government said that it intends to continue retaining the DNA profiles of all adults convicted of a recordable offence indefinitely, as well as the profiles of all juveniles convicted of the most serious offences, such as murder, rape, manslaughter and serious assault.
Under the proposals, fingerprints will be retained for the same time periods as DNA profiles.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson acknowledged a need for balance in the database.
"It is vital that we maintain the capacity of the DNA database to provide as many detections as possible by making sure the right people are on it," he said. "But we must balance this with the consideration of when other people should come off.
"I believe the proposals I am announcing today represent the most proportionate approach to DNA retention, as well as the most effective way of ensuring the database continues to help us tackle crime."
Liberty's Chakrabarti said today that she believes the Government is still not going far enough to protect human rights.
“It seems the Government still refuses to separate the innocent and the guilty and maintains a blanket approach to DNA retention," said Chakrabarti. "This grudgingly modified policy creates a repeat collision course with the Courts and Ministers look stubborn rather than effective or fair."
"Nobody disputes the value of DNA and anyone arrested can have a sample taken and compared to crime scenes," she said. "But stockpiling the intimate profiles of millions of innocent people is an unnecessary recipe for error and abuse."
"Politicians need to show us that they care about the presumption of innocence and not just when MPs expenses are being discussed," said Chakrabarti.
Liberty says that a correct and proportionate approach to the National DNA Database would be based on allowing retention of DNA for those convicted or cautioned for a small number of serious offences, mainly involving sexual assault or violence.
it always starts with violating peoples rights for the best possible reasons.
then slowly its used for less then best possible reasons.
the saying "those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither, and will lose both" is true, and you ignore the lessons of history at your own, and everyone elses, peril.
Its ignorant people who dont mind/cant see the tip of the wedge, and in fact support it, who end up ruining it for the rest of us.
Yup. It started out with intercepting communications of Americans suspected of terrorism, and morphed into collecting meta data on everyone just in case. Here is how well UK terrorism law has been (ab)used;
To spy on a fisherman harvesting shellfish
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights
Spoiler:
A council that used controversial powers to spy on a family to check whether they were living in the correct school catchment area has done the same to keep an eye on local fishermen, it emerged yesterday.
Poole borough council is using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) - a law brought in to combat terrorism and cyber crime - to scrutinise people gathering shellfish.
The Dorset harbour has valuable populations of cockles, oysters, mussels and clams. Officials used the controversial law to make sure stocks were not being harmed or taken from banned areas.
Human rights campaigners said the revelations, which the council released under the Freedom of Information Act, illustrated why the Ripa law should be reformed.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "You do not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You can care about serious crime and terrorism without throwing away our personal privacy.
"The law must be reformed to require 'sign-off' by judges, not self-authorisation by over-zealous bureaucrats."
Last month the council admitted spying on a family to check they were living in the correct school catchment area. Jenny Paton, 39, Tim Joyce, 37, and their three daughters had their movements scrutinised and timed by an undercover official.
A detailed log of the family's activities was kept with statements including "curtains open and all lights on in premises", but no action was taken against them.
Since then it has emerged that councils are using the powers for a variety of offences, such as littering or dogs fouling pavements.
Some local authorities have used the act more than 100 times in the last 12 months to conduct surveillance, mainly against people suspected of being linked to rogue trading, benefit fraud and antisocial behaviour involving criminal damage.
Poole and other councils have argued that the act is not simply intended to target very serious criminals and terrorists.
According to the Home Office, the act "legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism".
Poole said it had used the act 17 times since 2005. In March of that year, it used the law to "ascertain which person caused damage to a barrier". In September 2006, Poole used it again to "identify persons continually vandalising door entry systems to ground floor flats".
In addition, the council used the powers to try to find out who was stealing from a tip and to monitor a property from which it thought drugs were being dealt.
On four occasions the powers were used to see if fishermen were gathering shellfish from a prohibited area in Poole harbour.
Council officials have said the surveillance lasted on average for two weeks for the purpose of "preventing or detecting crime or for preventing disorder".
Tim Martin, head of legal and democratic services at the council, said: "Illegal shellfish dredging can cause harm to the conservation of stocks in the harbour and could also lead to a potentially serious public health risk if illegally fished stock is not fit for consumption."
Councils in southern England have routinely used powers brought in to fight crime - including terrorism - to spy on people, the BBC has learned.
Figures obtained by BBC South show the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) was used more than 750 times by the councils in 2007/08.
The figures relate to Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Dorset, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and West Sussex.
Overall, only one eighth of the council inquiries resulted in further action.
Under Ripa laws, councils can access phone and email records and use surveillance to detect or stop a criminal offence.
The BBC South investigation discovered councils in southern England had used Ripa to investigate matters including illegal taxis, dog fouling, child protection issues, benefit fraud, noise nuisance and planning enforcement.
The new council leadership has insisted the council will no longer use 'big brother' tactics
Gosport Borough Council spokeswoman
Local Government Association chairman Sir Simon Milton said overzealous use of the powers could alienate the public.
He has written to councils warning them about using the powers for "trivial offences" such as dog fouling.
The figures reveal Gosport Borough Council used Ripa to investigate whether illegal clam pickers were operating.
West Berkshire used the powers 192 times - 24 cases resulted in further action with police, courts, or other agencies, although it is not known if any resulted in convictions.
The figures were all obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
A Gosport Borough Council spokeswoman said Ripa had been used because "people were harvesting clams from an unclassified bed".
'Hugely disproportionate'
"This is illegal and if the clams had got into the food chain it could have proved potentially dangerous to the public, so officers decided that surveillance would be used to stop the practice.
"However the new council leadership has insisted the council will no longer use 'big brother' tactics in future."
She said Ripa would only be used for "really serious offences and only with prior member approval".
Meanwhile Poole Borough Council, which admitted in April it had spied on a family to see if they really did live in a school catchment area, said it was reviewing its use of the powers.
Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce
Tim Joyce and Jenny Paton were exonerated after surveillance
Tim Joyce and Jenny Paton and their children were put under surveillance by the council for more than two weeks without their knowledge.
Miss Paton described it as "hugely disproportionate". The couple were cleared of any wrongdoing.
At the time the council defended its actions, but on Monday a spokesperson said the use of such surveillance methods was "already scheduled to be reviewed by a council scrutiny committee in July".
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has begun an investigation over the council's use of the powers, after expressing "concerns".
The council also admitted using the powers on a total of 17 separate occasions since 2005, including to make sure fisherman were not illegally gathering shellfish in Poole Harbour.
The revelations have led to claims that councils are being vindictive and wasting taxpayers’ money.
Civil liberty groups are demmanding changes to the law so that councils will have to ask for judges’ consent before they can use covert surveillance.
The widespread use of the new Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was revealed in a survey, in which 46 councils admitted they had invoked the law 1,343 times.
However, all 468 local authorities in Britain have the power to track someone they think has – or intends to – commit a crime.
Some have already admitted using the law to spy on a family to check it lived in the right school catchment area and to check on children trying to buy alcohol.
Rights group Privacy International demanded a ‘root and branch review’ of the act.
Director Simon Davies said: ‘Local authorities can be very petty and vindictive and they can become obsessed with issues like dog fouling, and there can be a lack of judgment.’
Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: ‘The law must be reformed to req- uire sign-off by judges not self-author- isation by over-zealous bureaucrats.’
But chairman of the Local Government Association Sir Simon Milton insisted councils were using ‘every weapon in their arsenal to catch the rogue traders, doorstep criminals and scam artists who cheat the taxpayer and prey on the vulnerable and the elderly’.
South Lanarkshire Council placed staff members suspected of wrongdoing under surveillance using the powers, which were introduced to combat serious crime and terrorism.
The legislation allows local authorities to install hidden cameras, intercept emails and secretly follow people who are suspected of breaking the law.
An inspection by the UK Government's Office of Surveillance Commissioners found that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act (RIPSA) had been used three times against employees in the last three years.
Bosses at South Lanarkshire were warned not to use the powers against their own staff in future as they were not introduced for that purpose.
Staff at the council have now been told that the practice will cease.
In a report to councillors, Paul Manning, the council's executive director of finance and corporate resources, said: "The inspector noted that three applications were in relation to surveillance of council employees.
"He stated that RIPSA should only be engaged when the council is acting in relation to its core functions and recommended that we cease to use RIPSA in relation to surveillance of our employees.
"It has been agreed with the head of personnel services that RIPSA will no longer be used for this purpose but that surveillance of employees should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as that involved in RIPSA applications.
"A separate set of documentation has been prepared for these purposes which removes reference to RIPSA but otherwise requires the same tests of necessity and proportionality to be met. The unions have been consulted and are in agreement with this action."
Under RIPSA legislation, councils are able to use directed surveillance, such as the bugging or photographing of someone in a public place, or undercover agents to gather evidence.
Councils do not need to go to court but can green light their own covert operations.
Scottish local authorities have used the powers more than 1500 times over the last five years.
However, they have previously been criticised for launching spying operations for trivial reasons.
Probes have been launched into loud televisions, slamming doors, vandalised washing lines and people running up and down stairs. Others targeted have included litter louts, flytippers and those who fail to clean up after their dogs.
Nick Pickles, director of privacy and civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, called for officials to be held to account for approving the use of the powers to carry out surveillance on staff at the council.
He said: "Undercover surveillance is not something to be used lightly and these serious powers were not introduced for council managers to snoop on their staff.
"Organisations shouldn't be able to approve their own surveillance operations because it leads to exactly this kind of abuse.
"Of course the central question is that a council officer had to sign off on these operations as necessary and proportionate when they were clearly not. They should be held to account for that failure."
Paul Manning, the authority's Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Resources, said: "The council has rigorous standards in place for any investigation concerning employees.
"After its routine inspection last year the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) issued a positive report which stated that 'the Council has a professional approach in relation to the use of RIPSA legislation and has appropriate systems and processes in place to conduct covert activity effectively.'
"The OSC recommended four minor changes to the protocols, including that RIPSA should not be used if the council has to carry out surveillance of employees. There was no suggestion that any inappropriate surveillance had been done. Rather, the recommendation simply suggested such surveillance should not be under reference to RIPSA.
"We agreed these changes but in doing so took steps to ensure that any surveillance of employees should remain subject to the same level of scrutiny that is applied to RIPSA applications. That offers employees the same levels of protection as the general public, and this was agreed with the trades unions when the changes were made following the OSC inspection."
Cambridgeshire County Council adopted surveillance techniques to bring Rashmi and Dips Solanki, who run the general store in Melbourn, to court after officials discovered that a number of children were working for the store as paper boys.
The Solankis now have a criminal record, after being found guilty at Cambridge Magistrates' Court of employing delivery boys without a valid permit. They had denied the charges, claiming that there had been a simple mix-up over paperwork.
Afterwards, they hit out at the council for monitoring them and their paper boys by using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which was drawn up to help authorities prevent serious crime, including terrorism.
Mrs Solanki, the former sub postmistress for the village, said: "It's ridiculous. We only found out they had been spying on us when we heard about it in court.
"It was a complete waste of everyone's time and came out of confusion over paperwork.
"At the end of the day it could have all been easily sorted out if the council had just spoken to us."
But the council defended its use of the powers to investigate the couple.
A spokesman said: "Officers did use RIPA powers to investigate this case. We are required to follow the law that those employing children should have a valid work permit.
"We were simply enforcing the law."
Simon Reeve, prosecuting, told the court the Solankis ignored letters and visits from a child employment officer informing them that they could only employ children with a valid permit.
Permits for paper boys or girls should be approved by the child's parents, school and local education authority. The court was told eight applications for work permits had been sent to the children's school.
Three had been signed, five had not.
The Solankis were handed six-month conditional discharges.
Mrs Solanki said: "It should never have gone to court. The whole thing was really stupid. We just want to put it behind us now."
Andrew Lansley, the Tory MP for South Cambridgeshire, said: "These powers should only be used for the scope they were intended, which is to tackle serious crime and terrorism."
RIPA laws were recently used by Cambridge City Council to monitor punt operators using CCTV and to count beggars in the city centre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: KK mentioned false positives earlier. A current problem facing any potential application of a vast national DNA database is the limitations of testing. A techie did an experiment in Arizona a few years back to see how many false positives she could produce using current testing methods (FBI says its a 1 in 43 billion chance). She did 1500 tests and got 12 false positives. Such a thing would be useless until technology has further advanced to make testing more accurate but I'm talking about the fact that
DNA isn't as unique as people think it is.
Having your DNA isn't the same as having you because your DNA is not the sum of your person and there's millions of Americans with the same DNA strands as you.
I remember a very similar argument in relation to meta data. That the government wasn't actually reading your emails, just building up a profile of where you when, when you were there, how often you were there, who you contacted, how long you contacted that person for, etc. Nothing invasive about that at all.....
If there are so many people with the same DNA strands as me then surely having my DNA is pointless and there should never be any cause for them to request it, much less store it etc. at great expense
LordofHats wrote: Like that'll ever happen. Federal government has been battling what the Constitution says it can and can't do since day 1. Imagine it'll always be that way. Good thing we have so many lawyers
That is such a fine example of missing the point I don't even know where to begin
LordofHats wrote: In the big list of government scandals, I'd rank PRISM pretty low on damage. I mean, the ATF gunwalking scandal actually got people killed. Mostly Mexicans, but they're people too.
You're right. Violating the rights of just about every American who has ever sent an email, text message, made a phone call, etc. is no big deal really. . .
LordofHats wrote: It's funny because when I see people say "it can be abused" and then stop I can only think they're sticking their heads in the sand. Everything can be abused. That statement is as useless as "I'm offended" and "the sky is blue."
"I'm offended" is meaningless because it is now used as a tool to silence an opposing point of view
"The sky is blue" is often a statement that is accepted as factually correct
Saying the government is liable to abuse new powers (as well as old) is a statement well founded on a wealth of evidence that continues to grow rather than diminish
And yet in spite of saying that abuse will occur you stated that you were in favour of the government having access to the DNA samples, then gave continued examples of government corruption. The only thing that you have been consistent in has been your inconsistency.
(4) The fact government exists means there will be abuse (again, my first post). Establish a police force? There will be corruption eventually. Can't stop it from happening, but not having any police probably wouldn't end well so we're stuck with them and dealing with that corruption when it happens. Yin and yang.
My position is that corruption is inevitable unless you want to live without government. Accepting that, its perfectly rational to accept that corruption isn't a valid reason not to enact a policy so long as it is useful (like the NSA or CIA, which are crazy corrupt with huge budgets, and seemingly spend all their time enacting plans of questionable usefulness). I guess we could call my position intense pragmatism (which is an American philosophical concept, so I still get to be very American ).
I would not describe your position as pragmatic. Conflicted and inconsistent yes, trying to apply absolutes to one are while seeing other parts of the system as various shades of grey, yes.
I remember a very similar argument in relation to meta data. That the government wasn't actually reading your emails, just building up a profile of where you when, when you were there, how often you were there, who you contacted, how long you contacted that person for, etc. Nothing invasive about that at all.....
Yeah and if you're a marketing firm, that data is really valuable. I question the utility of such a thing to a government. Even a tyrannical one. I never said it wasn't invasive, of course it was. But your daily schedule ain't that fantastic and if the government wants my porn stash I'm happy to share (the NSA must be bored doing something so menial by now they could use the break).
EDIT: And thats an invitation NSA. Because come on, like PRISM is the only gak you guys have going on in your walls.
If there are so many people with the same DNA strands as me then surely having my DNA is pointless and there should never be any cause for them to request it, much less store it etc. at great expense
In the same way that your opinion isn't so special. Its the same one as millions of other people. Sure it identifies you but its not like it defines everything of your being either. A sufficiently precise test can narrow down the population so much that even if a few false positives pop up, the application of process of elimination would statistically leave only 1 person. We just need the technology and to get the police to start using their god damn common sense more often.
That is such a fine example of missing the point I don't even know where to begin
It's precisely on point. No government at any point in history has managed to perfectly live up to its responsibilities. Probably because people are imperfect (which again, my entire premise here, so 5). So congratulations. You've stated the obvious and I agree with the obvious because its obvious. How insightful.
You're right. Violating the rights of just about every American who has ever sent an email, text message, made a phone call, etc. is no big deal really. . .
Oh no, they violated your rights. Almost like we should do something about that... Like getting rid of the NSA since they're more trouble than they're worth (6). On the scale of evil, I rank a lot of things worse than PRISM. PRISM is insulting and a waste of money, but its not up to snuff with Tuskegee let alone a lot of the other gak the US Government has done in its tenure.
"I'm offended" is meaningless because it is now used as a tool to silence an opposing point of view
"The sky is blue" is often a statement that is accepted as factually correct
Saying the government is liable to abuse new powers (as well as old) is a statement well founded on a wealth of evidence that continues to grow rather than diminish
It's almost like I'm accusing you of contribution nothing to the conversation beyond a factual statement taken as being true that you throw out as an attempt to get the other side to shut up because you find yourself unable to come up with anything else or are incapable of realizing that the statement is agreed to and continuing to repeat it is just a failure of comprehension.
Conflicted and inconsistent yes, trying to apply absolutes to one are while seeing other parts of the system as various shades of grey, yes.
Why does it have to be consistent (assuming it isn't)? Because that fits easier into a box? Pft. You can't put me in a box man;
The position is staggeringly consistent. Corruption is a necessary evil of government. If you accept the existence of government then you accept having to tackle corruption (an unending battle) and the accusation that something will be abused becomes a nonsense statement. It's the government. Anything it does can be abused. Saying it is contributing the obvious. The word is just thrown out in place of "I don't like that" because abuse is a scary word that makes it seem like your conflict is more than just one of personal opinion (not that I have issues with differing opinion, but I do have a problem with people dressing up opinion in a shining cloak of righteousness).
Kind of sums it up. Should lead with that next time.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah and if you're a marketing firm, that data is really valuable. I question the utility of such a thing to a government. Even a tyrannical one. I never said it wasn't invasive, of course it was. But your daily schedule ain't that fantastic and if the government wants my porn stash I'm happy to share (the NSA must be bored doing something so menial by now they could use the break).
EDIT: And thats an invitation NSA. Because come on, like PRISM is the only gak you guys have going on in your walls.
You honestly can't envision what use it would be to a government agency to be able to make predictions based off your genetics for your diseases, behaviours, etc? Again - meta data is hugely boring yet the NSA invested a vast amount of time and resources into collected, analyzing, storing, and maintaining their records.
LordofHats wrote: In the same way that your opinion isn't so special. Its the same one as millions of other people. Sure it identifies you but its not like it defines everything of your being either. A sufficiently precise test can narrow down the population so much that even if a few false positives pop up, the application of process of elimination would statistically leave only 1 person. We just need the technology and to get the police to start using their god damn common sense more often.
So it is a useful thing to have on record after all. Do you see what I mean about your consistent inconsistency? It makes it difficult to have a conversation when someone changes their position every time the direction of the wind changes.
No. We need the police to use their investigatory powers. Rounding up 500 people because they were in the same building as a crime is not probable cause, and saying "DNA sample or else you are a suspect" is not common sense - unless we use the emerging definition of common sense, which is 'to sign away your rights'
LordofHats wrote: It's precisely on point. No government at any point in history has managed to perfectly live up to its responsibilities. Probably because people are imperfect (which again, my entire premise here, so 5). So congratulations. You've stated the obvious and I agree with the obvious because its obvious. How insightful.
Well done. You managed to get my disdain for the idea of Utopia that could have been gleaned from several responses to other posters. I never once said that I expect a government to "perfectly live up to its responsibilities" so you can drop the strawman. I do expect them to behave in a manner compatible with their legal powers and the Constitution. As we have seen they are falling short of that most basic test.
LordofHats wrote: Oh no, they violated your rights. Almost like we should do something about that... Like getting rid of the NSA since they're more trouble than they're worth (6). On the scale of evil, I rank a lot of things worse than PRISM. PRISM is insulting and a waste of money, but its not up to snuff with Tuskegee let alone a lot of the other gak the US Government has done in its tenure.
That is a beautiful example of whataboutery.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like I'm accusing you of contribution nothing to the conversation beyond a factual statement taken as being true that you throw out as an attempt to get the other side to shut up because you find yourself unable to come up with anything else or are incapable of realizing that the statement is agreed to and continuing to repeat it is just a failure of comprehension.
Maybe if your position was not so contradictory, sorry - pragmatic- there would be a lot less confusion
LordofHats wrote: Why does it have to be consistent (assuming it isn't)? Because that fits easier into a box? Pft. You can't put me in a box man;
The position is staggeringly consistent. Corruption is a necessary evil of government. If you accept the existence of government then you accept having to tackle corruption (an unending battle) and the accusation that something will be abused becomes a nonsense statement thrown out in place of "I don't like that" because abuse is a scary word that makes it seem like your conflict is more than just one of personal opinion (not that I have issues with differing opinion, but I do have a problem with people dressing up opinion in a shining cloak of righteousness).
Kind of sums it up. Should lead with that next time.
There has to be at least some level of consistency because if you aren't sure what you're saying or what point you want to try and get across it makes having any sort of discussion somewhat tricky. On the one hand you're saying that corruption must be fought, then you're saying to ignore it and get on with life; that governments can be trusted with DNA being given to an unspecified agency because it will not be abused, but the NSA and CIA need dismantled because they abuse their power.
Had I just said that corruption may occur then perhaps I would have sympathy for your argument. However given the fact that I presented clear examples of government corruption (that you agreed with) and showed a pattern of disregard for individual liberties I think that I have managed to substantiate my position
You honestly can't envision what use it would be to a government agency to be able to make predictions based off your genetics for your diseases, behaviours, etc? Again - meta data is hugely boring yet the NSA invested a vast amount of time and resources into collected, analyzing, storing, and maintaining their records.
For what? Some grand conspiracy the purge the undesirables? Please. The NSA has gather a massive amount of ultimately useless information, no doubt as part of some ill conceived plan to protect the American people. It's ends justify the means except the end doesn't even achieve the goal they wanted in the first place which is the story of both the CIA and the NSA going on 70 years now. And that just makes the means even more mind numbing. I could at least say "well you get points for trying" if the end goal was one that actually worked but all that money and they can't even get that bit right.
Do you see what I mean about your consistent inconsistency? It makes it difficult to have a conversation when someone changes their position every time the direction of the wind changes.
I haven't changed it you just seem to miss every pitch.
We need the police to use their investigatory powers.
Then you are accepting the inevitable fact that sooner or later, they'll abuse it. Whether you realize it or not, it is what you've done. If you give someone power you have to be prepared for the inevitable fact that someone will abuse it. Instead of saying "we can't have police they'll abuse their power" we say "we need police, we'll deal with the abuse when it happens." Glad to see that you only reject my argument when it doesn't suit your fancy.
"DNA sample or else you are a suspect"
Part of the reason the cops have such a hard time is because its hard dealing with double standards. "Volunteer your DNA so we can eliminate you, no? Okay have a nice day" sounds nice until later down the road it's revealed that one of the people who said no actually did it then they have to field questions about why they didn't check out everyone who said no as a precaution.
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. So we end up with bumbling police forces that stumble over their words and do stupid things.
I do expect them to behave in a manner compatible with their legal powers and the Constitution.
See, you say you disdain utopia, and then you say this. Inconsistency much? I accept that this will never happen because the world isn't perfect. I'm just not going to throw ideas out the window while saying that and holding up lofty ideals about what the government should do but isn't going to do. The best any of us can hope for is to push a minimal standard (which is basically the point of the Bill of Rights) but that doesn't mean we can kick back and just do nothing. Unless pushed back, the government will overstep its bounds.
On the one hand you're saying that corruption must be fought, then you're saying to ignore it and get on with life;
(7) Accept the reality of the world that corruption is inevitable. Battle it when it happens. Be prepared that it'll happen again because it will. Once that is a reality that is accepted, the risk of abuse ceases to be a meaningful argument not to do something, seeing as your already resolved to battling the inevitable outcome. EDIT: In this I'm saying that the risk of abuse is not a meaningful argument in itself not to grant power because they already have power and they're already abusing it.
I guess calling me inconsistent is easier than polishing comprehensive reading. I should make combo multipliers. Make a leader board.
the NSA and CIA need dismantled because they abuse their power.
(8) They need dismantling because of their abuse of power and lack of useful contributions to society (Arming and training the Afghanis fighting the USSR worked out so well for us 20 years later didn't it? Best part is that they didn't even need the help!). I doubt anyone could meaningfully argue that with the proper technological sophistication, a national DNA database wouldn't result in criminals getting convicted. That's never really been in question.
Just to be that guy, if the lights were out and the victim couldn't identify the attacker, why are they only trying the men (assuming that they don't know something we don't)?
I would assume that spermicide was found or the victim was at least able to indentified her attacker as a male. Maybe both. It should be obvious from basic forensics in what manner the victim was attacked.
I imagine the only way the attacker's sex could be in question is if the victim was violated with an object rather than an appendage but then what are they comparing the DNA they're collecting to?
LordofHats wrote: I would assume that spermicide was found or the victim was at least able to indentified her attacker as a male. Maybe both. It should be obvious from basic forensics in what manner the victim was attacked.
I imagine the only way the attacker's sex could be in question is if the victim was violated with an object rather than an appendage but then what are they comparing the DNA they're collecting to?
Hair, saliva, god-knows-what? They probably know what they're doing, I was just throwing the thought out.
Insaniak had missed that you were responding to the UK issue, rather than the actual topic.
easysauce wrote: the saying "those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither, and will lose both" is true, and you ignore the lessons of history at your own, and everyone elses, peril..
How does volunteering for a DNA test impinge on your freedom?
Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them. Regardless of what, if any, action is taken, the threat is there. And remember, this threat is being made against over 400 minors, not just adults.
That is coercion. It is thuggery. It is lazy police work.
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them.
Well, yes... Again, it would mean that police would quickly find that there is no actual evidence implicating them, at which point they would move on.
Voluntarily taking the test just means you can skip that part.
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them. Regardless of what, if any, action is taken, the threat is there. And remember, this threat is being made against over 400 minors, not just adults.
That is coercion. It is thuggery. It is lazy police work.
Acting suspiciously is being in a locale about the time of the crime? Lets face it , that is the reason for the DNA test, no other reason is given for them taking it. If it is voluntary then refusing it cannot be looked on as suspicious otherwise there is coercion involved. It's take it or be treated as a suspect.
Bullockist wrote: Acting suspiciously is being in a locale about the time of the crime?
No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
Because your right to choose who gets to handle your saliva is more important than bringing a rapist to justice.
No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
That's not really the point. As far as the police know, maybe you really have an objection, or maybe you're not brain dead enough to hand over DNA after raping someone. They have no idea. Only way to find out is to investigate (I assume we pay them for this). EDIT: And that's not assuming guilt. Say they didn't ask for volunteers at all. Well then everyone is a suspect and they're checking everyone anyway.
The general public equates the terms suspect, perpetrator, and accused. A suspect is not accused of a crime. Its merely someone the police have think might have committed a crime, which come on. That's such a broad thing that getting worked up about it says more about the people making an outcry over it than it does about the cops. Really all it says is that as far as police know you had opportunity, and who doesn't? A lot of jurisdictions don't even use the term anymore (hasn't stopped news outlets from using it though, so yeah. Bllame the media).
Bullockist wrote: Acting suspiciously is being in a locale about the time of the crime?
No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
Because your right to choose who gets to handle your saliva is more important than bringing a rapist to justice.
You make it sound trite, but at the end of the day, why ever presume anyone is innocent ever? I mean, we COULD implant everyone with GPS that reports back to a global server. We really could, it's not as cost prohibitive as you might think it would be.
I could build a gps device that would fit in an Altoids tin for less than 50 USD, that would report my location from any open wireless signal within range. I could do that literally tomorrow. And that's just some random guy slapping together whatever hobbyist electronics are available on the consumer market. A mass produced version of that which operated on a cellular signal would be a fraction of that. We could make it a requirement of whatever national ID/drivers license/Citizen Card you wanted to make it a part of My question is, with all the crimes that would preven.. err, allow us to immediately determine the responsible party of after they are committed, why don't we?
The phone companies already know where your phone is, with a time stamp, to a good enough accuracy that the info can be used for criminal investigations. I mean that it can place your phone close enough to the where and when of a crime that you can be ruled in as a suspect.
insaniak wrote: No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
Because your right to choose who gets to handle your saliva is more important than bringing a rapist to justice.
It is, yes. My right to privacy, due process, and freedom from undue search and seizure is also more important than stopping a sex trade ring, an insurance fraud scam, an armed robbery, 9/11 Part Two, drunk driving, or any other crime you care to name.
LordofHats wrote: For what? Some grand conspiracy the purge the undesirables? Please. The NSA has gather a massive amount of ultimately useless information, no doubt as part of some ill conceived plan to protect the American people. It's ends justify the means except the end doesn't even achieve the goal they wanted in the first place which is the story of both the CIA and the NSA going on 70 years now. And that just makes the means even more mind numbing. I could at least say "well you get points for trying" if the end goal was one that actually worked but all that money and they can't even get that bit right.
Strawman much? I don't recall making any mention of purges
You do know that constantly pointing you how inept and abusive the NSA and CIA are in the realm of rights and liberty strengthens my argument, right?
LordofHats wrote: I haven't changed it you just seem to miss every pitch.
When the pitch breathlessly goes from we must fight corruption, to lets all stick our heads in the sand it makes it hard to hit
LordofHats wrote: Then you are accepting the inevitable fact that sooner or later, they'll abuse it. Whether you realize it or not, it is what you've done. If you give someone power you have to be prepared for the inevitable fact that someone will abuse it. Instead of saying "we can't have police they'll abuse their power" we say "we need police, we'll deal with the abuse when it happens." Glad to see that you only reject my argument when it doesn't suit your fancy.
Because asking that the police exercise their powers lawfully and investigate a crime without violating the rights of 500 people who were in the same building as a crime is a clear acceptance that abuse will occur....
LordofHats wrote: Part of the reason the cops have such a hard time is because its hard dealing with double standards. "Volunteer your DNA so we can eliminate you, no? Okay have a nice day" sounds nice until later down the road it's revealed that one of the people who said no actually did it then they have to field questions about why they didn't check out everyone who said no as a precaution.
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. So we end up with bumbling police forces that stumble over their words and do stupid things.
Except they didn't say that. What they said was give us your DNA or you are a suspect.
LordofHats wrote: See, you say you disdain utopia, and then you say this. Inconsistency much? I accept that this will never happen because the world isn't perfect. I'm just not going to throw ideas out the window while saying that and holding up lofty ideals about what the government should do but isn't going to do. The best any of us can hope for is to push a minimal standard (which is basically the point of the Bill of Rights) but that doesn't mean we can kick back and just do nothing. Unless pushed back, the government will overstep its bounds.
Behaving within legal bounds is not utopian, that is the reason why there are penalties for transgression.
LordofHats wrote: (7) Accept the reality of the world that corruption is inevitable. Battle it when it happens. Be prepared that it'll happen again because it will. Once that is a reality that is accepted, the risk of abuse ceases to be a meaningful argument not to do something, seeing as your already resolved to battling the inevitable outcome. EDIT: In this I'm saying that the risk of abuse is not a meaningful argument in itself not to grant power because they already have power and they're already abusing it.
So corruption will happen. So remind me why we willingly allow it to happen instead of the much more difficult fight of trying to curb its excesses? Case in point - the NSA. Should they ever have been allowed to intercept data on US citizens with no probable cause? No. What happened? They did just this, and elected representatives refused to rein them in.
LordofHats wrote: I guess calling me inconsistent is easier than polishing comprehensive reading. I should make combo multipliers. Make a leader board.
Or I could give examples of inconsistencies, like I have been.
LordofHats wrote: (8) They need dismantling because of their abuse of power and lack of useful contributions to society (Arming and training the Afghanis fighting the USSR worked out so well for us 20 years later didn't it? Best part is that they didn't even need the help!). I doubt anyone could meaningfully argue that with the proper technological sophistication, a national DNA database wouldn't result in criminals getting convicted. That's never really been in question.
No one is arguing against criminals being convicted. What is being argued against is how many individual rights get curtailed or sacrificed to get there.
However, investigators warned that those who refused to take the test could be designated as "suspects" and face a search of their homes in order to obtain a DNA sample.
That's such bs. So it never was a voluntary test, because if you refuse they'll search your house and take your DNA anyway.
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them.
Well, yes... Again, it would mean that police would quickly find that there is no actual evidence implicating them, at which point they would move on.
Voluntarily taking the test just means you can skip that part.
You've said this twice now. You do realize that's not even remotely true some times right? That police can and will focus in on a target despite all reason or lack of evidence? It's like you've never heard of a false conviction.
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them.
Well, yes... Again, it would mean that police would quickly find that there is no actual evidence implicating them, at which point they would move on.
Voluntarily taking the test just means you can skip that part.
You do realize there is no actual evidence implicating them even if they do not submit to the coercion, right? If the cops had evidence implicating anyone they would not be going on this fishing expedition.
However, investigators warned that those who refused to take the test could be designated as "suspects" and face a search of their homes in order to obtain a DNA sample.
That's such bs. So it never was a voluntary test, because if you refuse they'll search your house and take your DNA anyway.
However, investigators warned that those who refused to take the test could be designated as "suspects" and face a search of their homes in order to obtain a DNA sample.
That's such bs. So it never was a voluntary test, because if you refuse they'll search your house and take your DNA anyway.
Note the use of the word 'could'...
Yep, a threat. A coercive act. Just like when the mob would tell you if you don't pay for their protection, your business 'could' catch on fire. And in this case, a threat made to several hundred minors.
That's certainly one (rather paranoid) way to take it.
Given my dealings with law enforcement in the past, though, I can't help but think that it's an interpretation that is spawned from Hollywood more than actual reality, though.
The judge obviously didn't love freedom, probably came from a country that has never had nothing to do with the concept and, after this body blow to freedom, never will.
Because asking that the police exercise their powers lawfully and investigate a crime without violating the rights of 500 people who were in the same building as a crime is a clear acceptance that abuse will occur....
I'm not talking about that I'm talking more generally. Create a police force and you're going to get crap like Stop and Frisk. That kind of thing will happen. So instead of whining about how creating a police force will result in abuse, we've resolved ourselves to having to go through the public debate of such things, the law suits, the messy press conferences where cops try to cover their asses for a terrible idea, politicians spin it to their advantage in a crazy game of twister, all while some people are completley focused on ending it forever and some other people are debating if maybe we should keep it around (good thing we didn't. Another fine example of a terrible idea).
Except they didn't say that. What they said was give us your DNA or you are a suspect.
That's called getting butt hurt over nothing. I explained what a suspect is to the police (at least in the US, so when they translate a French source I figure it basically means the same thing ). An apartment gets broken into, everyone in the building had opportunity. Only way to investigate is to go asking door to door for alibis and if anyone saw anything.
It's the same principle. If a girl is raped in vacinity of her school, it's completely rational to assume someone at the school did it as a starting point. I imagine her immediate friends and family are already ruled out, or else there's a competence issue that needs to be addressed. The police can either then investigate the entire student body and the faculty, or they can ask for volunteers, eliminate a bunch of them and save time (which is tax payer money) and then they only have the conciencious objectors and maybe the person who actually did it to check out. Why is this not a violation of anyone's rights? Because all those people would be investigated anyway even if no volunteers were requested at all. This just saves the police from having to investigate 500 people because anyone who comes forward to give DNA probably didn't do it.
Suspects aren't accused of anything. Being offended at being called a suspect is being offended a cop looked you in the eye. Its knee jerk whining about something the police have to do (typical investigations might go through dozens of suspects before charges are considered against anyone). At that point you might as well make it a law they can't investigate anything. The sheer act of deciding someone had opportunity and maybe did it is violation of civil rights, which is an absurd standard.
Should they ever have been allowed to intercept data on US citizens with no probable cause? No. What happened? They did just this, and elected representatives refused to rein them in.
Yep. That's what happens when you have a government, give it power, and create an environment where elected representatives are able to get away with not doing their job. No elected official is going to ever have to account for PRISM, even though their supposed to be the ones oversighting the NSA (Then again, free pass to keep secrets, so for all we know the NSA was lying to them too. This clandestine thing really isn't working out (10)). So we're still stuck with the NSA, which probably has something else going on that's worse anyway and I won't be shocked if/when they replace PRISM with a cooler sounding acronym and just carry on with their waste of time and money.
What is being argued against is how many individual rights get curtailed or sacrificed to get there.
Yeah. Which is slightly different from clandestine organizations that have made a habit of spending their budgets and resources on things that in the long run have frequently turned out to be terrible ideas that didn't even achieve the goals the agencies had in the first place. No one's ever questioned that a DNA database would be useful. It's questioned because people aren't comfortable with it, which I chalk up to people having an inflated idea of worth of the information. Saying it'll be abused is a frivilous statement because obviously that's what regulation exists for (like we regulate everything else). Acting like setting limits on the government is enough to get them to tow the line is fantasy. They'll over step no matter what sooner or later and need to be put back in line assuming people aren't too apathetic to care.
No-one is thought to have refused to be tested.
And at that point the DNA tests are just formality (cause maybe the perpetrator really is that stupid). Presumably it wasn't a family member or close friends either which drops the chances of ever finding who did it rather low
LordofHats wrote: I imagine her immediate friends and family are already ruled out, or else there's a competence issue that needs to be addressed.
Why ?
Rape by a complete stranger is so rare we can almost accuse Hollywood of inventing it from wholecloth. If someone is raped 99% of the time its someone they know or regularly cross paths with. That puts friends and family at the top of the list for probability, and any decent rape investigation should immediately rule them out as a possibility before moving on to other people.
I assume the cops have done this. If they haven't, I question their competence.
What if they have neither managed to find evidence ruling them out or proving their culpability ? [edit]Oh, wait, DNA test. Sorry, I was being stupid.[/edit]
Because sexual assaults especially among children/minors are commonly committed by people close to them so family and friends are the first people the police look at believe it or not but being a target of a random sex assault is not that common but it dose happen, and from what the original post said is that her family and friends were excluded so they went to the blanket testing.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What if they have neither managed to find evidence ruling them out or proving their culpability ?
[edit]Oh, wait, DNA test. Sorry, I was being stupid.[/edit]
You collect alibi's, use judgement, make the best guess you can about whether any of them did it and proceed from there. All they can do really (unless they DNA tested those people already). Don't know. I prefer the police check all avenues before zeroing in on anyone in particular. I would think that idea would be more popular than it seems to be.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not talking about that I'm talking more generally. Create a police force and you're going to get crap like Stop and Frisk. That kind of thing will happen. So instead of whining about how creating a police force will result in abuse, we've resolved ourselves to having to go through the public debate of such things, the law suits, the messy press conferences where cops try to cover their asses for a terrible idea, politicians spin it to their advantage in a crazy game of twister, all while some people are completley focused on ending it forever and some other people are debating if maybe we should keep it around (good thing we didn't. Another fine example of a terrible idea).
You mean the same policy that was outside their legal powers, and you're using that as a counter point to my wish that they act legally?
When did I say or whine that creating a police force would result in abuse? I haven't. This is another strawman that you have erected to tilt at.
LordofHats wrote: That's called getting butt hurt over nothing. I explained what a suspect is to the police (at least in the US, so when they translate a French source I figure it basically means the same thing ). An apartment gets broken into, everyone in the building had opportunity. Only way to investigate is to go asking door to door for alibis and if anyone saw anything.
It's the same principle. If a girl is raped in vacinity of her school, it's completely rational to assume someone at the school did it as a starting point. I imagine her immediate friends and family are already ruled out, or else there's a competence issue that needs to be addressed. The police can either then investigate the entire student body and the faculty, or they can ask for volunteers, eliminate a bunch of them and save time (which is tax payer money) and then they only have the conciencious objectors and maybe the person who actually did it to check out. Why is this not a violation of anyone's rights? Because all those people would be investigated anyway even if no volunteers were requested at all. This just saves the police from having to investigate 500 people because anyone who comes forward to give DNA probably didn't do it.
Suspects aren't accused of anything. Being offended at being called a suspect is being offended a cop looked you in the eye. Its knee jerk whining about something the police have to do (typical investigations might go through dozens of suspects before charges are considered against anyone). At that point you might as well make it a law they can't investigate anything. The sheer act of deciding someone had opportunity and maybe did it is violation of civil rights, which is an absurd standard.
Except it isn't the same. Going door to door and making inquiries is part of investigation, and helps form the basis for establishing due cause for a warrant. Requesting DNA on pain of becoming a suspect is not the same.
And yes, you are perfectly entitled to be offended at being a suspect. To be suspected of something means that the police have a probable cause to investigate you, and the obvious inference is that you have done something wrong and will have to defend your name.
LordofHats wrote: Yep. That's what happens when you have a government, give it power, and create an environment where elected representatives are able to get away with not doing their job. No elected official is going to ever have to account for PRISM, even though their supposed to be the ones oversighting the NSA (Then again, free pass to keep secrets, so for all we know the NSA was lying to them too. This clandestine thing really isn't working out (10)). So we're still stuck with the NSA, which probably has something else going on that's worse anyway and I won't be shocked if/when they replace PRISM with a cooler sounding acronym and just carry on with their waste of time and money.
Good. So you should agree then that giving them more power and a wealth of genetic knowledge that is infinitely more useful than meta data with the current political is not a good idea.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah. Which is slightly different from clandestine organizations that have made a habit of spending their budgets and resources on things that in the long run have frequently turned out to be terrible ideas that didn't even achieve the goals the agencies had in the first place. No one's ever questioned that a DNA database would be useful. It's questioned because people aren't comfortable with it, which I chalk up to people having an inflated idea of worth of the information. Saying it'll be abused is a frivilous statement because obviously that's what regulation exists for (like we regulate everything else). Acting like setting limits on the government is enough to get them to tow the line is fantasy. They'll over step no matter what sooner or later and need to be put back in line assuming people aren't too apathetic to care.
Regulation like has existed for all that meta data captured and retained by the NSA? Regulation like politicians giving cover for the NSA?
You claim to be pragmatic, give plenty of reasons why we should not trust government agencies, say that the current political climate allows abuse to happen, that corruption needs to be fought, and then still insist that mere regulation is the answer when it has been shown to be ineffective. And you wonder why I say that it is hard to have a meaningful discussion which such an inconsistent position.
LordofHats wrote: And at that point the DNA tests are just formality (cause maybe the perpetrator really is that stupid). Presumably it wasn't a family member or close friends either which drops the chances of ever finding who did it rather low
No. They are not just a formality. Saying that DNA testing 500 people is just a formality because they happened to be in the same building as a crime is not a formality, and it should never be accepted as such. This was a fishing expedition.
LordofHats wrote: I imagine her immediate friends and family are already ruled out, or else there's a competence issue that needs to be addressed.
Why ?
Rape by a complete stranger is so rare we can almost accuse Hollywood of inventing it from wholecloth. If someone is raped 99% of the time its someone they know or regularly cross paths with. That puts friends and family at the top of the list for probability, and any decent rape investigation should immediately rule them out as a possibility before moving on to other people.
I assume the cops have done this. If they haven't, I question their competence.
I'm pretty sure one of the articles in this thread said they ruled out friends & family before going to get the DNA tests from everybody at the school
EDIT: From Kilkrazy's link at the bottom of Pg 7
The Guardian wrote:Pagenelle defended the delay in carrying out the testing, saying detectives had to make sure the DNA found on the victim's clothes did not come from a relative or from someone already on the national genetic database.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean the same policy that was outside their legal powers, and you're using that as a counter point to my wish that they act legally?
I'm saying that you wishing that they act legally is counter to your claim you don't believe in utopia. Always expect them to overstep. They will.
Except it isn't the same. Going door to door and making inquiries is part of investigation, and helps form the basis for establishing due cause for a warrant. Requesting DNA on pain of becoming a suspect is not the same.
All those people theat they're going to talk to door to door? Witnesses. They say they saw Bernie down the hall glaring at the apartment door minutes before it was busted down? Bernie is now a suspect. All that really means is that Bernie had opportunity. He can be placed in the vacinity of the crime scene at the time. If a girl is raped near or in her school, pretty much everyone there has opporunity. Everyone is a suspect. They'd all be suspects anyway. At worst, the police phrased what was happening poorly. No one is going to be investigated who wouldn't have been investigated anyway. They'd just save everyone time by offering an immediate out.
To be suspected of something means that the police have a probable cause to investigate you, and the obvious inference is that you have done something wrong and will have to defend your name.
Except that's not how the police define the term (except in Law and Order). This perception is also why many US jurisdictions now use Person of Interest instead of suspect, but then that word is dirty now too so the phrase is changing to Possible Person of Interest.
Good. So you should agree then that giving them more power and a wealth of genetic knowledge that is infinitely more useful than meta data with the current political is not a good idea.
The meta data says more about you than DNA. And no. The basic concept of PRISM is currently against the law. Laws can change. With proper oversight the gathering of information is fine with me assuming laws allow it. At that point my objection is that this kind of information gathering is a trial of triviality. It doesn't achieve any useful purpose for the people (unless the US government wants to start its own advertising campigns, and who wants more ads?)
give plenty of reasons why we should not trust government agencies
Because no one should ever trust government agencies. But we need them. Therefore we must prepare ourselves to keep them in line. Accepting that, being afraid of them doing something we know they will eventually do is frivilous. It's the difference between paranoia and sensible caution.
say that the current political climate allows abuse to happen
Any political climate allows abuse to happen. What kind will vary. The current one (for the NSA) is that we have a organization with a huge budget and a free pass to keep secrets, which seems incompatibile with regulation entirely. Obviously the problem with the NSA is that they aren't being regulated in any meaningful manner and arguably you can't meaningfully regulate a clandestine organization.
and then still insist that mere regulation is the answer when it has been shown to be ineffective.
(11).
No. They are not just a formality.
They are in an investigative sense. You only run the tests at this point to be sure. Someone who raped a girl probably isn't dumb enough to give DNA, so from a police stand point it wasn't someone at the school.
This was a fishing expedition.
A fishing expedition is DNA testing an entire city block when a crime occured at a specific location. When that location is generally made up of the same people everyday, all of them in direct proximity of a crime, it's not a fishing expedition. Especially since the test is voluntary, not coerced. You can scream "they called me a suspect" all you want but it says more about what you know about police investigations than it does about the state's considerations for the rights of citizens.
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them.
Well, yes... Again, it would mean that police would quickly find that there is no actual evidence implicating them, at which point they would move on.
Voluntarily taking the test just means you can skip that part.
So you are given a choice between doing the DNA test, and having the jack boots over turn every shelf, matress, and generally trash your property looking for evidence.
In fact if you have a lack of evidence, it just means they have to actually look harder to find the evidence.
they cannot say there is no evidence against you, until they look, and looking involves going through your home/belongings/ect with a fine toothed boot.
So you are given a choice between doing the DNA test, and having the jack boots over turn every shelf, matress, and generally trash your property looking for evidence.
There's a mile of difference between refusing a DNA test, and the police getting a warrant. Any judge who uses the former as reason to approve the later will quickly see the decision overturned because that's not even close to the standard of evidence needed for a warrant.
LordofHats wrote: I'm saying that you wishing that they act legally is counter to your claim you don't believe in utopia. Always expect them to overstep. They will.
Pretty sure that we covered this, so let me just restate a simple fact - asking someone to behave within their legal powers and not exceed them is not utopian
LordofHats wrote: All those people theat they're going to talk to door to door? Witnesses. They say they saw Bernie down the hall glaring at the apartment door minutes before it was busted down? Bernie is now a suspect. All that really means is that Bernie had opportunity. He can be placed in the vacinity of the crime scene at the time. If a girl is raped near or in her school, pretty much everyone there has opporunity. Everyone is a suspect. They'd all be suspects anyway. At worst, the police phrased what was happening poorly. No one is going to be investigated who wouldn't have been investigated anyway. They'd just save everyone time by offering an immediate out.
So your example has corroborating witnesses that places a given person within the area the crime took place at the approximate time. That is probable cause for a warrant and further investigation. Merely being one of 500 males in a building with nothing else to tie them to the actual crime scene is not comparable
LordofHats wrote: Except that's not how the police define the term (except in Law and Order). This perception is also why many US jurisdictions now use Person of Interest instead of suspect, but then that word is dirty now too so the phrase is changing to Possible Person of Interest.
And yet here you are objecting to a phrase that you have been content to use until this point. Given the perception that the "word is dirty" I'm sure you'll understand why people who were merely in he building at the time and object to their rights being violated may object to being called a suspect
LordofHats wrote: The meta data says more about you than DNA. And no. The basic concept of PRISM is currently against the law. Laws can change. With proper oversight the gathering of information is fine with me assuming laws allow it. At that point my objection is that this kind of information gathering is a trial of triviality. It doesn't achieve any useful purpose for the people (unless the US government wants to start its own advertising campigns, and who wants more ads?)
So if it is so worthless why does the government require it? Especially given the obvious expense involved. This point has been made several times with no counterpoint
LordofHats wrote: Because no one should ever trust government agencies. But we need them. Therefore we must prepare ourselves to keep them in line. Accepting that, being afraid of them doing something we know they will eventually do is frivilous. It's the difference between paranoia and sensible caution.
So we should never trust a government agency, but we should be totally cool with them having our DNA on file? Again I would point out the inherent contradiction in your statement.
Paranoia; "Paranoia /ˌpærəˈnɔɪə/ (adjective: paranoid /ˈpærənɔɪd/) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion"
Sensible precaution; "caution employed beforehand; prudent foresight."
Given the evidence that the government have abused data in such an indiscriminate way do you think that people's fears can be prudent, or irrational
LordofHats wrote: Any political climate allows abuse to happen. What kind will vary. The current one (for the NSA) is that we have a organization with a huge budget and a free pass to keep secrets, which seems incompatibile with regulation entirely. Obviously the problem with the NSA is that they aren't being regulated in any meaningful manner and arguably you can't meaningfully regulate a clandestine organization.
And what do you think will happen with the current political climate if the government held vast stores of DNA?
LordofHats wrote: They are in an investigative sense. You only run the tests at this point to be sure. Someone who raped a girl probably isn't dumb enough to give DNA, so from a police stand point it wasn't someone at the school.
Run the tests to be sure of what? They have no suspect. They have nothing to be sure about. If they had anything to be sure of it would have constituted probable cause and they would have obtained a warrant thus avoiding having to take DNA from 500 people.
LordofHats wrote: A fishing expedition is DNA testing an entire city block when a crime occured at a specific location. When that location is generally made up of the same people everyday, all of them in direct proximity of a crime, it's not a fishing expedition. Especially since the test is voluntary, not coerced. You can scream "they called me a suspect" all you want but it says more about what you know about police investigations than it does about the state's considerations for the rights of citizens.
Or like a DNA sweep in a building with 500 males who are only being compelled to provide DNA because they happened to be in the building. The test is not voluntary. For something to be voluntary it must be freely given. Being labelled a suspect in he rape of a child carries a huge social stigma, to pretend otherwise is contemptuous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: So you are given a choice between doing the DNA test, and having the jack boots over turn every shelf, matress, and generally trash your property looking for evidence.
In fact if you have a lack of evidence, it just means they have to actually look harder to find the evidence.
they cannot say there is no evidence against you, until they look, and looking involves going through your home/belongings/ect with a fine toothed boot.
It is worse than that. You now have the social stigma of being a suspect in a case were a child was raped.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Pretty sure that we covered this, so let me just restate a simple fact - asking someone to behave within their legal powers and not exceed them is not utopian
Agreed. So why do you expect them too? Either you do and we disagree, or you don't and we do agree (on that point).
LordofHats wrote: Merely being one of 500 males in a building with nothing else to tie them to the actual crime scene is not comparable
Which is why they asked for volunteers. Suspect is an extremely broad thing.
LordofHats wrote: And yet here you are objecting to a phrase that you have been content to use until this point.
I covered this on my first post of the subject. I have no issue with suspect as word. I have issue with people widly exaggerating what that word entails.
So if it is so worthless why does the government require it? Especially given the obvious expense involved. This point has been made several times with no counterpoint
That's because I agree with you... Numerous times. It's a waste of money. Some idiot at some point in time might have had a solid idea for a useful surveillance system along the lines of PRISM, but PRISM itself is just pointless.
Given the evidence that the government have abused data in such an indiscriminate way do you think that people's fears can be prudent, or irrational
The government hasn't abused data (that we know of). it's abused privacy to collect data. Difference.
And what do you think will happen with the current political climate if the government held vast stores of DNA?
I don't think it can happen at all in the current political climate (another point I've already made with Whembly). The current climate is incompatible.
Run the tests to be sure of what?
Because if you ask for DNA and then don't test the DNA you gather assuming that no one would give it up if they committed a crime, criminals would just give it up because you're not testing it. You have to test it or collecting it in the first place loses its investigative purpose.
If they had anything to be sure of it would have constituted probable cause and they would have obtained a warrant thus avoiding having to take DNA from 500 people.
This is what I mean by double standard.
"We have 500 people with opportunity. We need to cut that number down or this will take forever."
"How about we collect some DNA to rule people out?"
"We'd need a warrant for that."
"Lets ask for volunteers. They do it on TV all the time. We can do that too right?"
"Judge says its okay. Let's do it."
*Internet outrage* "You can't collect DNA without a warrant?!"
"We're asking for volunteers so we have fewer people to investigate."
"So if I don't give DNA you'll investigate me? NAZIS!"
"..."
If you are so butt hurt over the police investigating you, give DNA and they won't have to. That's the point. If you don't want to give DNA they'll go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway. Which is investigate. The standard by which you expect the police to work under is impossible.
The bold part is the important part. The reason this doesn't violate any civil rights is because all 500 of those people would be investigated anyway. All of them. The purpose of asking for people to step forward is to save the police the time of checking up on all 500 of them. All not giving DNA does is lead to the police doing what they were going to do anyway.
People make a bigger deal out of this than there is.
Being labelled a suspect in he rape of a child carries a huge social stigma, to pretend otherwise is contemptuous.
I don't pretend otherwise. That's really my entire point. People get really stupid about that word. That's why the police have started to use other words (again, blame the media for continued use of suspect in reporting).
LordofHats wrote: "We have 500 people with opportunity. We need to cut that number down or this will take forever."
"How about we collect some DNA to rule people out?"
"We'd need a warrant for that."
"Lets ask for volunteers. They do it on TV all the time. We can do that too right?"
"Judge says its okay. Let's do it."
*Internet outrage* "You can't collect DNA without a warrant?!"
"We're asking for volunteers so we have fewer people to investigate."
"So if I don't give DNA you'll investigate me? NAZIS!"
"..."
I get it now! Muggers don't actually commit any crimes, they just encourage people to volunteer their money.
I get it now! Muggers don't actually commit any crimes, they just encourage people to volunteer their money.
The police aren't threatening anyone. They're telling them the gods honest truth that if that they'll be investigated, which would mean something only if the police weren't already going to do that. They could just do it the old fashion way, but I always thought people liked the government spending less money.
If you know someone who was a victim of a crime, you've already been a suspect at least once in your life. How anyone conceives that being a suspect instantly means storm troopers are going to kick down your door and Vader is going to force choke you till you give him the Death Star plans is bizarre.
LordofHats wrote: The police aren't threatening anyone. They're telling them the gods honest truth that if that they'll be investigated, which would mean something only if the police weren't already going to do that. They could just do it the old fashion way, but I always thought people liked the government spending less money.
If you know someone who was a victim of a crime, you've already been a suspect at least once in your life. How anyone conceives that being a suspect instantly means storm troopers are going to kick down your door and Vader is going to force choke you till you give him the Death Star plans is bizarre.
Anyone know if refusing to take this voluntary DNA test would result in enough of the French equivalent of probable cause to justify issuing a warrant forcing someone to take a DNA test?
Seaward wrote: Anyone know if refusing to take this voluntary DNA test would result in enough of the French equivalent of probable cause to justify issuing a warrant forcing someone to take a DNA test?
That's a pretty low bar for probable cause (doesn't look like France has 'probable cause' as a legal concept).
A quick look on the internet says the in this case the French police method is that the case is handed to a Magistrate (judge) the moment a crime is determined to have happened. The Judge then supervises the investigation and his/her permission is required for any search, seizure, or arrest. EDIT: Wiki to the rescue.
So either;
1) Give your DNA to the government who will keep it and be reluctant to dispose of it, with no regard for your rights
2) Be a suspect in a child rape case
See I prefer;
3) The police to exercise the duty they are responsible for, investigate, form a reasonable suspicion, obtain a warrant, and not take disproportionate action against 500 people who just so happened to be in the building at the same time as a crime was committed.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 1) Give your DNA to the government who will keep it and be reluctant to dispose of it, with no regard for your rights
On what are you basing the assumption that they won't destroy it as they have said they will?
3) The police to exercise the duty they are responsible for, investigate, form a reasonable suspicion, obtain a warrant, and not take disproportionate action against 500 people who just so happened to be in the building at the same time as a crime was committed.
They did that. It didn't turn up the perpetrator. So now they are asking those 500 people to help them out.
LordofHats wrote: Agreed. So why do you expect them too? Either you do and we disagree, or you don't and we do agree (on that point).
Why do I expect an organization to act within their legal confines? Quite simple, because they have clear limits on their powers for a reason and to act outside of those powers would be ultra vires.
LordofHats wrote: Which is why they asked for volunteers. Suspect is an extremely broad thing.
Volunteer or be a suspect in a child rape case. Pretty sure we covered the difference between volunteering and coercion at the start of the discussion. Volunteering a sample means that you do so of your own free will and volition, without pressure or fear of punishment. The "sample, or else" is not a statement requesting volunteers.
LordofHats wrote: I covered this on my first post of the subject. I have no issue with suspect as word. I have issue with people widly exaggerating what that word entails.
Suspect; to believe to be guilty, false, counterfeit, undesirable, defective, bad, etc., with little or no proof: to suspect a person of murder.
Given the nature of the crime it is hard to overstate why some would be concerned about being branded a suspect because they don't want to sign away their rights
LordofHats wrote: That's because I agree with you... Numerous times. It's a waste of money. Some idiot at some point in time might have had a solid idea for a useful surveillance system along the lines of PRISM, but PRISM itself is just pointless.
And PRISM shows you exactly how hard the government is prepared to fight for useless data. Now imagine trying to get off the DNA database (I'll give you a clue, look at the UK after it lost a court case - it now only holds DNA on innocent people for 6 years)
LordofHats wrote: The government hasn't abused data (that we know of). it's abused privacy to collect data. Difference.
You're right. And that is much worse, and further evidence that substantiates my claim that the government cannot be trusted in respecting privacy
LordofHats wrote: I don't think it can happen at all in the current political climate (another point I've already made with Whembly). The current climate is incompatible.
I wish I could believe you, but I don't. We have had personal liberty and freedoms eroded in the name of security. That is a trend that shows no signs of abatement as PRISM has shown.
LordofHats wrote: Because if you ask for DNA and then don't test the DNA you gather assuming that no one would give it up if they committed a crime, criminals would just give it up because you're not testing it. You have to test it or collecting it in the first place loses its investigative purpose.
This was probably not a point that was well made by me (multi-tasking fail)
"We have 500 people with opportunity. We need to cut that number down or this will take forever."
"How about we collect some DNA to rule people out?"
"We'd need a warrant for that."
"Lets ask for volunteers. They do it on TV all the time. We can do that too right?"
"Judge says its okay. Let's do it."
*Internet outrage* "You can't collect DNA without a warrant?!"
"We're asking for volunteers so we have fewer people to investigate."
"So if I don't give DNA you'll investigate me? NAZIS!"
"..."
Nonsense on stilts. There is absolutely no double standard in requiring that the police provide probable cause when investigating a crime. Again, you are confusing asking for volunteers with the approach actually taken which is closer to;
"A crime was committed and we have no idea who did it"
"That's terrible"
"Yes it is. And so we want DNA from everyone in the building at the time"
"Ok... How many is that?"
"500 people, including minors"
"Isn't that excessive?"
"DNA, or you are a suspect in a child rape case"
LordofHats wrote: If you are so butt hurt over the police investigating you, give DNA and they won't have to. That's the point. If you don't want to give DNA they'll go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway. Which is investigate. The standard by which you expect the police to work under is impossible.
The bold part is the important part. The reason this doesn't violate any civil rights is because all 500 of those people would be investigated anyway. All of them. The purpose of asking for people to step forward is to save the police the time of checking up on all 500 of them. All not giving DNA does is lead to the police doing what they were going to do anyway.
People make a bigger deal out of this than there is.
No.
There is a difference between being investigated and being a suspect. Being investigated means that the police are examining your story to rule you out or confirm your involvement. Being a suspect means that there is sufficient evidence for the police to dig deeper.
And to most lay people in a child rape case that screams guilt
LordofHats wrote: I don't pretend otherwise. That's really my entire point. People get really stupid about that word. That's why the police have started to use other words (again, blame the media for continued use of suspect in reporting).
Then if the police are aware of the huge social stigma attached to the word then it shows that they were never interested in volunteers, they wanted to compel people to give samples because they were too inept to whittle down the pool of 500 people in the building at the same time as the crime occurred.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: On what are you basing the assumption that they won't destroy it as they have said they will?
I have already covered this on multiple occasions above
insaniak wrote: They did that. It didn't turn up the perpetrator. So now they are asking those 500 people to help them out.
You left out the second part of that, which changes the meaning of the request - provide your DNA, or you are a suspect. The discussion over volunteering v compunction has already been had by myself many others in this thread.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You left out the second part of that, which changes the meaning of the request - provide your DNA, or you are a suspect.
Likewise, this has already been covered elsewhere.
Yes, if the police ask you to assist with an investigation and you refuse, you may be treated as a suspect. That's not particularly unreasonable, since the most likely reason from their point of view for someone to refuse is that they have something to hide.
insaniak wrote: Yes, if the police ask you to assist with an investigation and you refuse, you may be treated as a suspect. That's not particularly unreasonable, since the most likely reason from their point of view for someone to refuse is that they have something to hide.
If the police have reasonable cause to ask you to assist with an investigation, and you were in the vicinity of the location the attack occured, I might have some sympathy for your argument that the police want to investigate you (not treat you as a suspect). However when you are threatened with being a suspect in a child rape case unless you provide DNA for the sole reason of being one of 500 people unlucky enough to have XY chromosomes and be in the same building as the crime.
Asking for your rights is not a sign of guilt. It is no different to not allowing the police into your property without a warrant, or not speaking without legal counsel present.
So either;
1) Give your DNA to the government who will keep it and be reluctant to dispose of it, with no regard for your rights
2) Be a suspect in a child rape case
See I prefer;
3) The police to exercise the duty they are responsible for, investigate, form a reasonable suspicion, obtain a warrant, and not take disproportionate action against 500 people who just so happened to be in the building at the same time as a crime was committed.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It is no different to not allowing the police into your property without a warrant, or not speaking without legal counsel present.
On that, at least, we agree... It's no different. And both of those things will also cause police to automatically assume that you're trying to hide something...
insaniak wrote: On that, at least, we agree... It's no different. And both of those things will also cause police to automatically assume that you're trying to hide something...
Even when not under caution anything you say can and will be used against you. Insisting on your lawful rights is not suspicious.
insaniak wrote: If you haven't done anything wrong, there's nothing to be 'used'.
Back to that old chestnut from the start of the thread? If I haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to provide by DNA, allow the police access to my abode, or answer their questions.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If I haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to provide by DNA, allow the police access to my abode, or answer their questions.
Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.
To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If I haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to provide by DNA, allow the police access to my abode, or answer their questions.
Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.
To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?
If the cops rely on the perp to speak to them to get enough evidence make an arrest, I'm doing my best to get the cops fired for incompetency.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If I haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to provide by DNA, allow the police access to my abode, or answer their questions.
Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.
To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?
Let's let the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook write all our gun laws and see how unbiased the produced laws are.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If I haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to provide by DNA, allow the police access to my abode, or answer their questions.
Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.
To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?
Let's let the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook write all our gun laws and see how unbiased the produced laws are.
Except Insaniak isn't saying the victims' parents shoudl write the law, nice strawman
CptJake wrote: If the cops rely on the perp to speak to them to get enough evidence make an arrest, I'm doing my best to get the cops fired for incompetency.
Alternatively, you could read what I actually wrote.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If I haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to provide by DNA, allow the police access to my abode, or answer their questions.
Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.
To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?
Let's let the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook write all our gun laws and see how unbiased the produced laws are.
Except Insaniak isn't saying the victims' parents shoudl write the law, nice strawman
No, just that we should put ourselves in the victims parents shoes in regards to who we think should get their rights or not.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: No, just that we should put ourselves in the victims parents shoes in regards to who we think should get their rights or not.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is that hiding behind 'It's my right to not talk to police' when given the opportunity to help with an investigation that has a fairly significant effect on someone's life is a bit of a rotten thing to do.
Asking people to think "if it had been their daughter raped" is pretty ridiculous. Somebodies rights are theirs regardless of how you feel. Obviously you'd be angry, but your anger can never trump somebodies rights.
Helping people is fine but DNA and other evidence has been mishandled and claimed to have been destroyed before. The thing i'd be worried about the most would be the samples getting mixed up, or some other clerical feth up.
Threatening people into helping isn't the way to go about it.
It's hard to believe the police have no leads. I'm sure there's some criminal/psychological profiling for this kind of attack. Surely somebody that knows the building or knows that students would be around there that late?
Which is why they asked for volunteers. Suspect is an extremely broad thing.
Volunteer or be a suspect in a child rape case.
They're already suspects. She was raped on campus. The campus is closed to the public. Unless someone broke in, there only a set number of people who could have committed the crime which is how they got permission from the magistrate to go ahead with this plan.
That no one matched presents a serious problem for the investigation. Someone got onto the campus from outside, or there's someone on the campus who avoided anyone knowing they were present (everyone the police expected to be present volunteered apparently).
Given the nature of the crime it is hard to overstate why some would be concerned about being branded a suspect because they don't want to sign away their rights
Its hard to overstate how ridiculous people are about that word.
And PRISM shows you exactly how hard the government is prepared to fight for useless data.
The NSA doesn't define the whole of the government because most of the government doesn't have a free pass to keep anything secret.
I wish I could believe you, but I don't. We have had personal liberty and freedoms eroded in the name of security. That is a trend that shows no signs of abatement as PRISM has shown.
The defining debate of American politics in the 21st century is going to be liberty vs security (not that it hasn't always been there, but we've been big on equality the last century). We could be cheeky and point out that PRISM shows progress on that front. Everyone's rights were equally violated
Nonsense on stilts. There is absolutely no double standard in requiring that the police provide probable cause when investigating a crime.
In France they don't seem to have probable cause (well they have something like it, but the standard for exercising police power seems lower, but the standard of evidence to go to trial is much higher than here.
As for the US, the police are free to use your refusal against you. They can be biased as they want (makes for a bad cop but they can do it). We have warrants for that and a police bias isn't enough to get one. The law gives you the right to say no, it doesn't protect you from being asked questions or from other people being asked questions about you. You have every right to refuse and the police are completely within their powers to follow up on that. Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd.
All the suspicion in the world means jack without evidence. Hence why being suspect doesn't mean what you think it means.
Again, you are confusing asking for volunteers with the approach actually taken which is closer to;
The approach is that the police have to investigate the school. Even if the perpetrator isn't there they still have to rule everyone because at trial they can't have the accused saying they didn't do it, so and so did it, and the police not knowing what so and so was doing or where they were. If the police are going to investigate you anyway (and they will) its not coercive to tell you that they are going to investigate you and 499 other people but if you want you can skip the whole thing by volunteering DNA. That's 100% legal here. It happens two or three times a year.
Being a suspect means that there is sufficient evidence for the police to dig deeper
No it doesn't. The police practically need no evidence to suspect someone. You're protected from potential bias by warrants and probable cause. The police can suspect you all day long. They can tell everyone you're suspected (though that's libel to be grounds for a civil suit these days, so they'd be foolish to say it) and it's legal.
Aside: France seems much much broader legal definition from what I can tell, basically so broad that if you were on the same block you can be called a suspect (the term also seems to lack the heavy negative connotation we attach to it).
And to most lay people in a child rape case that screams guilt
Police aren't accountable for the idiocy of the masses.
Then if the police are aware of the huge social stigma attached to the word then it shows that they were never interested in volunteers, they wanted to compel people to give samples because they were too inept to whittle down the pool of 500 people in the building at the same time as the crime occurred.
France apparently isn't as heavy on it. And as I said before US jurisdictions don't even like the word anymore for this exact reason. But because people are idiots (so says the great Gregory House), I doubt changing what we call it will really help.
Nobody is saying it should. What they are saying is that people are holding up their 'rights' as a reason to not do the human thing in this case. Which, while certainly a 'legal' thing to do, isn't necessarily the 'right' thing to do.
The thing i'd be worried about the most would be the samples getting mixed up, or some other clerical feth up.
It's standard procedure across the US when that a DNA test involves a retest if the first comes up positive. The retest is part of the DNA reported submitted into evidence. No retest and the first test is not usable. I.E. No one goes to jail because one test came up positive and has to wait for a second.
Sometimes the police get tired of dealing with everyone questioning their competence and plan ahead (sometimes). Double checking your work is just good science.
Your name also goes to gak. All the papers that called you a child rapist publicise an apology 12 pages in on a small paragraph in the corner.
I'm all for helping people, but this is one of those situations where helping could really feth your life up. As small that chance may be, the past cases of administrative error and the police lying leading to miscarriages of justice are too common for me to want to willingly participate. Call me paranoid, but yeah...
I wouldn't mind giving my DNA, If you are Innocent you have nothing to hide, and considering if you are a suspect, everyone is until the real culprit is found!
(i hope, i don't have to pay lots of child maintenance suddenly after giving my DNA )
Out of interest, how serious does a crime have to be before you're happy giving up your rights and legal protections, and are happy branding anyone who doesn't do so as either a suspect or a crime-enabler?
Mass murder/terrorism? Garden-variety murders? Racial or other discriminatory attacks? Non-penetrative sexual assault? Assault? Theft? Verbal abuse? Minor vandalism?
And in what radius around the scene of a crime would you consider it "fair" to decide that people should have to give up their rights to due process and submit to one of these "voluntary" DNA dragnets?
A street? A neighbourhood? A district? A city? A county? Or should we just give up the pretense and take people's DNA at birth, then give the police unlimited access to the resulting database?
These laws exist to protect the ing innocent from incompetence or malice on the part of the authorities, do you honestly not grasp how making those rights contingent on your willingness to comply with any request the authorities make mean the rights essentially do not exist? And that not having those rights is a bad thing?
Out of interest, how serious does a crime have to be before you're happy giving up your rights and legal protections, and are happy branding anyone who doesn't do so as either a suspect or a crime-enabler?
Out of interest, how serious does a crime have to be before you're happy giving up your rights and legal protections, and are happy branding anyone who doesn't do so as either a suspect or a crime-enabler?
Mass murder/terrorism? Garden-variety murders? Racial or other discriminatory attacks? Non-penetrative sexual assault? Assault? Theft? Verbal abuse? Minor vandalism?
And in what radius around the scene of a crime would you consider it "fair" to decide that people should have to give up their rights to due process and submit to one of these "voluntary" DNA dragnets?
A street? A neighbourhood? A district? A city? A county? Or should we just give up the pretense and take people's DNA at birth, then give the police unlimited access to the resulting database?
These laws exist to protect the ing innocent from incompetence or malice on the part of the authorities, do you honestly not grasp how making those rights contingent on your willingness to comply with any request the authorities make mean the rights essentially do not exist? And that not having those rights is a bad thing?
It is a mistake to argue from the particular to the general. "Not all red-haired waiters are French."
What I urge you to do in this case in not necessarily what I would advocate in different circumstances.
Please refer to LordofHats's excellent exposition of the situation, which I think will convince you that the DNA testing is being used legitimately in the search for the guilty party, and presents no long term danger to the social fabric of the nation.
Out of interest, how serious does a crime have to be before you're happy giving up your rights and legal protections, and are happy branding anyone who doesn't do so as either a suspect or a crime-enabler?
Mass murder/terrorism? Garden-variety murders? Racial or other discriminatory attacks? Non-penetrative sexual assault? Assault? Theft? Verbal abuse? Minor vandalism?
And in what radius around the scene of a crime would you consider it "fair" to decide that people should have to give up their rights to due process and submit to one of these "voluntary" DNA dragnets?
A street? A neighbourhood? A district? A city? A county? Or should we just give up the pretense and take people's DNA at birth, then give the police unlimited access to the resulting database?
These laws exist to protect the ing innocent from incompetence or malice on the part of the authorities, do you honestly not grasp how making those rights contingent on your willingness to comply with any request the authorities make mean the rights essentially do not exist? And that not having those rights is a bad thing?
It is a mistake to argue from the particular to the general. "Not all red-haired waiters are French."
What I urge you to do in this case in not necessarily what I would advocate in different circumstances.
Please refer to LordofHats's excellent exposition of the situation, which I think will convince you that the DNA testing is being used legitimately in the search for the guilty party, and presents no long term danger to the social fabric of the nation.
Yup Check out LoH posts.
It is still my belief that this is the right thing to ask of the pupils and the staff of this school/college at this time and in these circumstances.
In similar circumstances if I was amongst a group that needed to be tested I would be encouraging people to come forwards.
My data IS held in a database and as yet the black helicopter flying, corruption seeking, incompetency valuing dark forces of law enforcement have yet to accidentally on purpose match my details to unsolved or ongoing criminal investigations.
The "evil gene" would also be a profiling goldmine too.
There's a whole series of genes that approx 96% of convicted criminals have and a really high proportion of rapists in particular. Unfortunatly to suspect everyone with those genes we'd be looking at half the worlds population..
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS I don't know if it's come up in this 9 page thread, but in the UK if you remain silent the court may 'infer from silence' that you're guilty of stuff. If arrested they say 'it may harm your defence if you do no say anything which you later rely on in court' now that's just BS but the whole 'I ain't saying nothin' ' doesn't fly too well in the UK.
The "evil gene" would also be a profiling goldmine too.
There's a whole series of genes that approx 96% of convicted criminals have and a really high proportion of rapists in particular. Unfortunatly to suspect everyone with those genes we'd be looking at half the worlds population..
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS I don't know if it's come up in this 9 page thread, but in the UK if you remain silent the court may 'infer from silence' that you're guilty of stuff. If arrested they say 'it may harm your defence if you do no say anything which you later rely on in court' now that's just BS but the whole 'I ain't saying nothin' ' doesn't fly too well in the UK.
I thought when you got arrested it was "It may harm your defence if you say something you later rely on in court"
So... DNA tests have eliminated her family and friends from the list of suspects...
But what about eliminating suspects through, I don't know, actual bloody police work? Compare schedules/times on campus/canvas potential witnesses... you know.. do things to solve the crime the way they did before DNA tests and peoples' willingness to surrender their privacy became the default "easy button" in police investigations.
There is a very real posibility that this was a crime of opportunity committed by someone who wasn't even a student or teacher at the school. If that is the case, what do the police do when the DNA tests come up with no hits? Swab every male in the city? Then what?
Cops used to be able to solve crimes through actual investigations and effort. DNA used to be just the evidence you used to back up the results of your investigation, not the whole investigation itself.
squidhills wrote: But what about eliminating suspects through, I don't know, actual bloody police work? Compare schedules/times on campus/canvas potential witnesses... you know.. do things to solve the crime the way they did before DNA tests and peoples' willingness to surrender their privacy became the default "easy button" in police investigations.
You have any idea how long it would take to completely vette 500 people? That's thousands of man hours.
There is a very real posibility that this was a crime of opportunity committed by someone who wasn't even a student or teacher at the school.
Apparently this is the case which makes all the time they saved vetting 500 people even more important, because now instead of investigating 500 people who definitely didn't do it for thousands of hours (this would take weeks to do) they can start looking for points of entry, witnesses outside the school, etc. The worst case scenario is that it was a random passer by who doesn't even live or frequent the area, at which point the police will likely never find him.
In the reports it is clearly stated that the rape took place six months ago and the police have been driven to the DNA testing because they have exhausted other means.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the reports it is clearly stated that the rape took place six months ago and the police have been driven to the DNA testing because they have exhausted other means.
After six months of work, they haven't managed to eliminate anyone in the student body at all? Every one of those nearly 600 men were in proximity to the place where the rape was committed at the time it was committed?
After six months of work, they haven't managed to eliminate anyone in the student body at all?
Wisdom, from House (and cynics everywhere). I guess they did this because they were out of options rather than trying to save time.
Every one of those nearly 600 men were in proximity to the place where the rape was committed at the time it was committed?
The rape was committed at her school. The campus is closed to the public, so under normal circumstances only faculty and students would have access to the grounds.
The rape was committed at her school. The campus is closed to the public, so under normal circumstances only faculty and students would have access to the grounds.
And they haven't bothered checking to see who was in class during that time? Who was involved in extracurricular activities (sports, drama club, etc). The attendance rolls for that day would be a huge source of information that would help the police narrow their search from 500+ to something much lower. I can understand that after 6 months, they want to get some results, but 500+ people is too wide of a net to cast. If they narrowed it down to 20-ish people who couldn't account for their whereabouts at the time of the rape, I'd have a lot less problem, because it would show that they were at least aware of basic investigative procedures. Also, if they didtched that "anyone who refuses is automatically a suspect" line of fearmongering I'd think more highly of them. It's not a "voluntary" action when the alternative to giving your DNA is for the police to scrutinize you for the crime of not surrendering your privacy rights.
And they haven't bothered checking to see who was in class during that time?
If they started the investigation 6 months go they probably did it ages ago.
The attendance rolls for that day would be a huge source of information that would help the police narrow their search from 500+ to something much lower.
Really? When you go to school how many people are absent on a given day? Maybe two, three? According to articles the 527 being tested are only those confirmed on campus at time of the rape. It would be stupid to even bother asking people confirmed not to be present on the day of the attack (though at this point, maybe followups on that are warranted)
I can understand that after 6 months, they want to get some results, but 500+ people is too wide of a net to cast.
If it were a public space I'd agree, but its not.
If they narrowed it down to 20-ish people who couldn't account for their whereabouts at the time of the rape, I'd have a lot less problem, because it would show that they were at least aware of basic investigative procedures.
Effectively impossible apparently. Police investigation isn't a prime time drama (except when it is, but then its fictional).
It's not a "voluntary" action when the alternative to giving your DNA is for the police to scrutinize you for the crime of not surrendering your privacy rights.
They're already being scrutinized for the crime, so... It's hard to threaten someone with something you're already doing.
The rape was committed at her school. The campus is closed to the public, so under normal circumstances only faculty and students would have access to the grounds.
And they haven't bothered checking to see who was in class during that time? Who was involved in extracurricular activities (sports, drama club, etc). The attendance rolls for that day would be a huge source of information that would help the police narrow their search from 500+ to something much lower. I can understand that after 6 months, they want to get some results, but 500+ people is too wide of a net to cast. If they narrowed it down to 20-ish people who couldn't account for their whereabouts at the time of the rape, I'd have a lot less problem, because it would show that they were at least aware of basic investigative procedures. Also, if they didtched that "anyone who refuses is automatically a suspect" line of fearmongering I'd think more highly of them. It's not a "voluntary" action when the alternative to giving your DNA is for the police to scrutinize you for the crime of not surrendering your privacy rights.
By checking the registers you see who was in school at the time: these are the people who you would get the DNA samples off of.
School registers (In my experience at least) don't account for people going to the toilets or people on free periods etc and friends will quite often cover for absent friends as well
By checking the registers you see who was in school at the time: these are the people who you would get the DNA samples off of.
School registers (In my experience at least) don't account for people going to the toilets or people on free periods etc and friends will quite often cover for absent friends as well
No, but interviewing teachers and staff sure as heck helps cut down numbers for both teachers and kids.
But hey, I guess a mass DNA test is easier, right?
insaniak wrote: Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.
I am under no obligation to help in any of the above cases. Furthermore none of the above cases relate to a government storing my DNA, or other personal data. As such they are inappropriate comparisons.
insaniak wrote: To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?
LordofHats wrote: They're already suspects. She was raped on campus. The campus is closed to the public. Unless someone broke in, there only a set number of people who could have committed the crime which is how they got permission from the magistrate to go ahead with this plan.
You appear to be confusing under investigation, and being a suspect. Two different things as was previously outlined.
LordofHats wrote: That no one matched presents a serious problem for the investigation. Someone got onto the campus from outside, or there's someone on the campus who avoided anyone knowing they were present (everyone the police expected to be present volunteered apparently).
So the rights of 500 people, including hundreds of minors, were violated and the police have nothing to show for it. What a fantastic use of public funds and police time.
LordofHats wrote: Its hard to overstate how ridiculous people are about that word.
You mean being a suspect? Here is a little experiment, next gathering were you are with people you don't know drop into casual conversation that you are a suspect in an active child rape investigation. Let us know what the reaction is.
LordofHats wrote: The NSA doesn't define the whole of the government because most of the government doesn't have a free pass to keep anything secret.
How about the IRS then? Another government body that holds confidential material, but provided it to political opponents of certain groups. Starting to see a pattern? Or how about a whistleblower that decides to leak information (like medical details) from the DNA database? Because we all know that could never happen
LordofHats wrote: The defining debate of American politics in the 21st century is going to be liberty vs security (not that it hasn't always been there, but we've been big on equality the last century). We could be cheeky and point out that PRISM shows progress on that front. Everyone's rights were equally violated
PRISM showed that once the government gets power and "useless" information, as you described it, they are staunch in their refusal to relinquish it
LordofHats wrote: In France they don't seem to have probable cause (well they have something like it, but the standard for exercising police power seems lower, but the standard of evidence to go to trial is much higher than here.
Cool. Remember how the OP asked us to relate this case to beyond France? And we've been discussing the UK's approach to DNA retention, and the US's predilection for violating its citizen's rights?
LordofHats wrote: As for the US, the police are free to use your refusal against you. They can be biased as they want (makes for a bad cop but they can do it). We have warrants for that and a police bias isn't enough to get one. The law gives you the right to say no, it doesn't protect you from being asked questions or from other people being asked questions about you. You have every right to refuse and the police are completely within their powers to follow up on that. Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd.
Another fine strawman you're building there
LordofHats wrote: All the suspicion in the world means jack without evidence. Hence why being suspect doesn't mean what you think it means.
You might remember my constant references to the social stigma of being branded a suspect in a child rape cases. If you have not read them already you may wish to do so
LordofHats wrote: The approach is that the police have to investigate the school. Even if the perpetrator isn't there they still have to rule everyone because at trial they can't have the accused saying they didn't do it, so and so did it, and the police not knowing what so and so was doing or where they were. If the police are going to investigate you anyway (and they will) its not coercive to tell you that they are going to investigate you and 499 other people but if you want you can skip the whole thing by volunteering DNA. That's 100% legal here. It happens two or three times a year.
So you do understand the differences between investigating a crime and labeling someone a suspect. Good, I'd hate to have to repeat the conversation yet again. Shame it seems that we might have to repeat the distinction between volunteering and being coerced
LordofHats wrote: No it doesn't. The police practically need no evidence to suspect someone. You're protected from potential bias by warrants and probable cause. The police can suspect you all day long. They can tell everyone you're suspected (though that's libel to be grounds for a civil suit these days, so they'd be foolish to say it) and it's legal.
No. The police need reasonable grounds for suspicion.
LordofHats wrote: Police aren't accountable for the idiocy of the masses.
So you are aware of the social stigma, glad we cleared that up
I don't recall saying that they were. What I did say thought was that there was a serious social stigma attached to being a suspect in a child rape case, something that I am sure the police are more than well aware of.
LordofHats wrote: France apparently isn't as heavy on it. And as I said before US jurisdictions don't even like the word anymore for this exact reason. But because people are idiots (so says the great Gregory House), I doubt changing what we call it will really help.
You remember when the discussion went beyond the limits of just discussing the matter in relation to France? The horse is long bolted from that stable
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Police interviews can take hours. Collecting DNA takes all of fifteen seconds.
How long does it take to analyze? What is the cost to the public? How much time was wasted on this DNA collection, and what leads have gone cold because of it?
You appear to be confusing under investigation, and being a suspect. Two different things as was previously outlined.
Except they aren't (not in France anyway, in the US the difference is marginal). Being a suspect just means the police have reason to suspect you. Since there's no court oversight on what that means (suspect has no specific legal meaning in investigations) it means just about everything under the sun or whatever a department has decided they want it to mean.
You mean being a suspect? Here is a little experiment, next gathering were you are with people you don't know drop into casual conversation that you are a suspect in an active child rape investigation. Let us know what the reaction is.
Yeah. I expect them to irrationally jump to conclusions, but everyone else is already doing that here so...
How about the IRS then? Another government body that holds confidential material, but provided it to political opponents of certain groups.
It's almost like my theory of the inevitability of corruption has mountains of useable examples
Cool. Remember how the OP asked us to relate this case to beyond France? And we've been discussing the UK's approach to DNA retention, and the US's predilection for violating its citizen's rights?
We are. Seaward asked about France specifically so I got curious and started looking it up. Might as well share
Another fine strawman you're building there
You're the one talking about how its coercive to tell people that refusal will make them suspect. Describing how that doesn't matter is as far from a straw man as one can get.
You might remember my constant references to the social stigma of being branded a suspect in a child rape cases. If you have not read them already you may wish to do so
Yeah. That's why policing are moving away from the word. Because people are stupid about it. You probably still see it a lot in reporting, and that's because reporters still use it (it's less wordy than person of interest). So feel free to blame the media.
So you do understand the differences between investigating a crime
I understand the difference between criminal investigations and people jumping to conclusions about what that entails.
Good, I'd hate to have to repeat the conversation yet again.
Hey, if that were an Olympic event, we'd both have the gold by now
No. The police need reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Only when they show up at court... Where suspect doesn't mean anything.
What I did say thought was that there was a serious social stigma attached to being a suspect in a child rape case, something that I am sure the police are more than well aware of.
And as I keep repeating over and over, police in the US are moving away from the word.
How long does it take to analyze?
If there were only 20 people (as suggested by another above), I'd consider blanket testing a waste of time. The testing becomes more useful the more people are involved. If there's too few people, the time saved isn't worth it. You'd probably need to go up to about 100 till I started considering that blanket testing was cost/time worthwhile.
cincydooley wrote: Ohhhhh....so long as there are TONS of people to blanket DNA test we're good.
In that case I'm not talking about legality/morality/ethics or whatever just practicality. Less than 'tons' of people and its just wasting money (like carpet bombing to hit 1 shake in the middle of a suburb. Waste of resources issue).
Thanks for proving my point about irrational jumping to conclusions though
Kilkrazy wrote: In the reports it is clearly stated that the rape took place six months ago and the police have been driven to the DNA testing because they have exhausted other means.
After six months of work, they haven't managed to eliminate anyone in the student body at all? Every one of those nearly 600 men were in proximity to the place where the rape was committed at the time it was committed?
I suggest you ask the prosecutor who is investigating the case.
Do you require 10%, or 15% perhaps of the total group of possible suspects to have been exonerated by some type of solid alibi, to make it all right to test the rest of them?
LordofHats wrote: Except they aren't (not in France anyway, in the US the difference is marginal). Being a suspect just means the police have reason to suspect you. Since there's no court oversight on what that means (suspect has no specific legal meaning in investigations) it means just about everything under the sun or whatever a department has decided they want it to mean.
1) We're talking in relation to the US, and have been for quite some time
2) We have already covered the difference between being a suspect and being under investigation
LordofHats wrote: Yeah. I expect them to irrationally jump to conclusions, but everyone else is already doing that here so...
Oh good. So you are aware of the social stigma, and the consequences that may occur if labeled a suspect in a child rape case. Then it is fair to say that the police also know of this, and how persuasive it may be in getting people to provide DNA.
BTW, basing a healthy suspicion on government on plenty of past examples is not "irrationally jump to conclusions". This was already covered when you made accusations of paranoia.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like my theory of the inevitability of corruption has mountains of useable examples
In that case you should have no problem understanding why people would be skeptical of giving the government even more power
LordofHats wrote: We are. Seaward asked about France specifically so I got curious and started looking it up. Might as well share
Cool. I'm not Seaward though. He is an aviator and probably more handsome than I (although I get points with the ladies for the accent )
LordofHats wrote: You're the one talking about how its coercive to tell people that refusal will make them suspect. Describing how that doesn't matter is as far from a straw man as one can get.
The line "Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd." is what I was most strenuously objecting to as it was as far removed from what I was saying.
Yes, the police may make inferrences from your silence or refusal to submit to DNA testing. But that in itself does not establish probable cause. Other factors would need to be present also e.g. eyewitnesses placing you at the scene, circumstantial evidence linking you to the crime scene. Merely being in the same building is a stretch too far
LordofHats wrote: Yeah. That's why policing are moving away from the word. Because people are stupid about it. You probably still see it a lot in reporting, and that's because reporters still use it (it's less wordy than person of interest). So feel free to blame the media.
So you understand the stigma then, and why it can be a coercive tool in such an investigation
LordofHats wrote: I understand the difference between criminal investigations and people jumping to conclusions about what that entails.
If you're going to reply at least have the courtesy to respond to the entire thing and not take a sentence out of context.
LordofHats wrote: Only when they show up at court... Where suspect doesn't mean anything.
No. The police need reasonable grounds for suspicion. For a criminal charge in court they must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. The second sentence in that quote is redundant as if a person has been charged they have gone from being the suspect to being the accused
LordofHats wrote: And as I keep repeating over and over, police in the US are moving away from the word.
Cool. Repeat the social experiment I mentioned prior and substitute person of interest for suspect
LordofHats wrote: If there were only 20 people (as suggested by another above), I'd consider blanket testing a waste of time. The testing becomes more useful the more people are involved. If there's too few people, the time saved isn't worth it. You'd probably need to go up to about 100 till I started considering that blanket testing was cost/time worthwhile.
That's funny, I consider blanket testing a serious breach of individual liberties as by its very nature it is taking place without establishing probable cause.
Where did you pull the number 20 from? What if you do not have 100 people who were in the vicinity? Do you widen the search net to benefit from the supposed economies of scale? If so how far? Building? Block? County? State? Country?
Oh, and you may have missed the questions from the rest for that quote you cut short; "What is the cost to the public? How much time was wasted on this DNA collection, and what leads have gone cold because of it?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you require 10%, or 15% perhaps of the total group of possible suspects to have been exonerated by some type of solid alibi, to make it all right to test the rest of them?
No. I require the police to show probable cause
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: In that case I'm not talking about legality/morality/ethics or whatever just practicality. Less than 'tons' of people and its just wasting money (like carpet bombing to hit 1 shake in the middle of a suburb. Waste of resources issue).
Thanks for proving my point about irrational jumping to conclusions though
Except for the fact that cincydooley's post was not irrational. Your post as it stood was extolling the virtues of as wide a blanket as possible for DNA (which, out of 500 people still produced no results BTW)
2) We have already covered the difference between being a suspect and being under investigation
No you've insinuated a difference where one doesn't really exist.
BTW, basing a healthy suspicion on government on plenty of past examples is not "irrationally jump to conclusions".
People taking a drone that wakes a wide area picture and then zooms in on a crime and making wild rants about how the government is going to start scanning everyone's faces and putting them in a facial recognition database, is a pretty irrational jump in logic. Likewise, people make the irrational logical jump that if the government has your DNA, they'll do something with it. Like what? CODIS has been around for over a decade and thus far there's never been a major scandal with its use and it contains murders, rapists, and other people no one gives a damn about.
What happens to often in the US is that the government does something and people lose their minds talking about all the things that might happen instead of what is happening. Sometimes its mild and understandable, other times is completely flying rodent gak insane.
The line "Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd."
You base your concerns on government abuse of power. What abuse? What do you think is going happen? They'll keep your DNA and never let it go? To what end? That's not a question about whether its moral or legal for them to keep it, merely a question of what you think they'll do with it?
Yes, the police may make inferrences from your silence or refusal to submit to DNA testing. But that in itself does not establish probable cause. Other factors would need to be present also
Yeah I just said that. They can suspect you all day long and with no evidence to put grounds on that suspicion, they can't go to court and get anything (unless the Judge is crazy, which is a legitimate concern cause we have a lot of crazy judges and getting rid of them is a complete pain in the ass).
So you understand the stigma then, and why it can be a coercive tool in such an investigation
It's only coercive (again) if they weren't already looking at you. All it is is getting upset at the word used, not what the police are actually doing, and in the US when I look up these things the police don't use the word. They simply say they'll check up on people who refuse, which sounds a little nicer, but is frankly the exact same thing.
So again. People get butt hurt over that word.
For a criminal charge in court they must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime.
Being suspect != accused in court in any US jurisdictions. This logic is completely circular. The police need a suspect before they can go to court and argue probable cause. If they can't have a suspect without probable cause they'd never solve any crime anywhere.
Your post as it stood was extolling the virtues
It was extolling cost effectiveness, which has no connection to legality, morality, or any other ity about the valid use of government power. Lots of things that are cost effective are illegal and should be (killing all our convicts for example, would be far more cost effective than housing them for 30 year runs on their private stash, but that seems like a overreaction... Like 30 year sentences for private stashes).
My typical assumption in politics is that the side with the least irrational argument wins (cause there are no rational arguments in politics ). You want to know why security has been winning the last 14 years? Exposing noble ideals about rights and liberty make for good sound bites, but they don't make anyone feel safer. When you move away from lofty ideals and go to Irrationally jumping to conclusions, well, those people who want to feel safer just see crazy.
If people want liberty to win, they need more perspective than I'm seeing in this thread.
By checking the registers you see who was in school at the time: these are the people who you would get the DNA samples off of.
School registers (In my experience at least) don't account for people going to the toilets or people on free periods etc and friends will quite often cover for absent friends as well
In every high school I have been to, attendance was taken before every class; if someone was late arriving, it would be noted. While you couldn't account for people going to the bathroom, you could at least see who was late going from one class to the next (assuming the rape occurred between classes) and maybe find a few more likely suspects that way. Or you could see who had a hole in their schedule. I've seen high schools where some students had a study period in the middle of the day, and often were permitted to take that period in the library, rather than a classroom... if something like that is present in this case, maybe someone in a mid-day study period could have opportunity and would be worth looking at. What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.
squidhills wrote: . What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.
Which begs the question: are the police in this case actually as incompetent as some people seem to wasn't to believe, or was there a reason that narrowing things down in this fashion wasn't possible...?
squidhills wrote: . What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.
Which begs the question: are the police in this case actually as incompetent as some people seem to wasn't to believe, or was there a reason that narrowing things down in this fashion wasn't possible...?
Narrowing it down as far as 527 people(according to the article in the OP) is kind of impressive to begin with--especially considering it is a school of 1300 students.
From the numbers given in the article that was 475 male pupils, 31 staff members, and 21 "other employees"(most likely janitorial/upkeep staff) who were all known/supposed to be on the premises at the time of the attack.
In regards to how the actual investigation is being handled, it seems like this is kind of a last ditch thing to try to smoke out anyone they were not originally looking at. When they're trying to match "trace amounts of genetic material", there is going to be serious issues since the samples could be degraded or just not useful at all...but the magic words "genetic material" can make otherwise careful assailants slip up royally trying to cover their traces.
squidhills wrote: . What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.
Which begs the question: are the police in this case actually as incompetent as some people seem to wasn't to believe, or was there a reason that narrowing things down in this fashion wasn't possible...?
Narrowing it down as far as 527 people(according to the article in the OP) is kind of impressive to begin with--especially considering it is a school of 1300 students.
From the numbers given in the article that was 475 male pupils, 31 staff members, and 21 "other employees"(most likely janitorial/upkeep staff) who were all known/supposed to be on the premises at the time of the attack.
The only narrowing down they did was take out the females. EVERY male student or staff member was tested.
5,000 local men were voluntarily screened. The rapist/murderer paid a colleague £200 to give a sample for him, but that guy was overheard boasting about it and a woman reported it to the police.
It seems to me that rather than being considered a suspect, the people who are screened are merely being eliminated from the enquiry, similar to if you took a statement from them, to establish their alibi, and then checked all the alibis.
By screening everyone, no-one is singled out as a specific suspect. To refuse to be screened is obviously suspicious because the DNA is such a direct piece of physical evidence in the case.
But your singling out males as suspects, change male to white, black, arabs or chinese instead.
Which is probably the only point where PRISM would even be relevant to a discussion about national DNA database.
:
