Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Perhaps some of the nuance there was lost in translation or is not as clearly defined in French law?

nkelsch wrote:

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.

 Da Boss wrote:
Perhaps some of the nuance there was lost in translation or is not as clearly defined in French law?

Only if the French deal in absolutes

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Perhaps some of the nuance there was lost in translation or is not as clearly defined in French law?

Only if the French deal in absolutes

I always suspected the French were patsies of the Dark Side. *Marks the chart* It's all coming together.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

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.

Holy crap. That is one hardcore HOA.

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

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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?

 Palindrome wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 daedalus wrote:

 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.

 streamdragon wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 streamdragon wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

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.

Holy crap. That is one hardcore HOA.

http://www.pooprints.com/dog-poop-management/testimonials
http://www.propertymanagementinsider.com/property-maintenance-dog-poop-dna-testing.html

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.

 LordofHats 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.

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.

Gattica anyone?

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).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

What if all 500 or so tests are made and none offer a positive match?

 Palindrome wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
What if all 500 or so tests are made and none offer a positive match?

At the risk of being cynical, then it comes down to how public the case is in the eyes of the media.

 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.