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.

 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.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 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:


The police are gathering evidence. The DNA sample is voluntary.

They have stated that refusal to 'volunteer' DNA will be considered suspicious. Sounds like a crude form of blackmail to me.

Are people forgetting this is being done under FRENCH law, not US law, not UK law, not Aussie law.

Not all countries uphold a presumption of innocence in their legal systems.

To catch a rapist, I'll do the test. I have done nothing wrong, and I am not afraid of being punished for something I have not done.

I don't live in France, though. So i really have no opinion on this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 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.

 chromedog wrote:
I have done nothing wrong, and I am not afraid of being punished for something I have not done.

You should be.

It's all very well and good until somebody mishandles the testing and an innocent person goes to jail.

I find it perplexing that so many of you are OK about this.

 Ouze wrote:

 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:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/aug/08/genetics.research

 insaniak wrote:

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.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
What I am hearing is "No I don't want to help catch a rapist".

No, what you are hearing is someone who is not a suspect objecting to being treated like one.

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.

He was expressing that he thinks its inevitable that background checks will eventually include DNA samples being recorded.

 LordofHats wrote:
He was expressing that he thinks its inevitable that background checks will eventually include DNA samples being recorded.

If that ever happens, Northern Siberia suddenly starts to look like a very attractive place to live...

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.

 Ouze wrote:

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

Your trust in government is...touching.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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.

And with good reason.

 Frazzled wrote:
Your trust in government is...touching.

Trust? Nah. I just lack crippling paranoia about everything under the sun going worst case scenario

Also, my basic premise is that the government doesn't need DNA to screw you if it decides to screw you, so being worried about off case that comes up every now and then where some gets screwed is kind of pointless when weighed against all te cases that will be solved at the same time. gak happens. My purpose in life is not to live in unending fear of gak happening.

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.

Prediction for this thread:

Most of the Europeans and Australians would be completely OK with supplying DNA, and most of the Americans would refuse.

Pretty much.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Prediction for this thread:

Most of the Europeans and Australians would be completely OK with supplying DNA, and most of the Americans would refuse.

Looks like I've joined the American camp