DNA Privacy Rights

[eits]

i was listening to npr this morning on the way back to my apartment after taking a final and they posed a question: is it ok for law enforcement to capture and use your dna without your consent?

they stated that there was a convicted rapist in jail who was set free recently because he was found innocent of raping an elderly woman based on new dna evidence from that case.

the correspondent explained that if finished off his coffee, then took off his headphones and left the room, law enforce would be able to come in and take his discarded dna and test it.

the question of ethics was the fear that people's genetic make-up would be able to be stored in a database and they'd be able to see a person's familial background, potential illnesses, psychological issues, skin color, temperament, etc. without your consent. what rights do you have to your discarded dna, if any?

they talked about how there was a crime committed in arizona and in order to link a suspect to the crime, they needed a dna sample. so, they sent a bullshit letter to the suspect and asked for a signed letter in return or something. once they got the letter back from the suspect, they got the dna sample from the envelope glue he licked and arrested him upon confirmation that he committed the crime.

do you think that this is fair? is it a breech of privacy?

personally, i think it's absolutely fair. dna testing is becoming a make or break case for being able to convict murderers, rapists, etc., whether it be to clear one's name as a suspect or for conviction. however, i don't feel a database of genetic composition (if we ever get to that point, which i'm sure we will) is ethical whatsoever unless it was a voluntary submission. however, once you voluntarily give up your dna (i.e. throw away a napkin or coffee cup, etc.), it's fair game for law enforcement (with a warrant, obviously), just like trash is fair game.

what do you think?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think you listen to NPR too much

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: eits


they talked about how there was a crime committed in arizona and in order to link a suspect to the crime, they needed a dna sample. so, they sent a bullshit letter to the suspect and asked for a signed letter in return or something. once they got the letter back from the suspect, they got the dna sample from the envelope glue he licked and arrested him upon confirmation that he committed the crime.

Pretty nifty if true

Kind of ambivalent on it though. I would be concerned about health insurance agencies using it.

But on the other side if you leave it, it's fair game. No different than a photo being taken of you in public or someone going through your garbage at the dump.

Then again if I'm committing a crime I'll just go around picking up toe nails, hair, etc. and throw them around the crime scene

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I think you listen to NPR too much

definitely some good discussions and educational topics on there. my favorite show = radiolab, but they don't play it in st. louis

hosts don't make claims or assertions or anything on npr... they just have discussions with guests on both sides of an issue and let the listener make up their own mind about the topic. listeners call and chime in on both sides of issues as well, which makes it more stimulating.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: eits


they talked about how there was a crime committed in arizona and in order to link a suspect to the crime, they needed a dna sample. so, they sent a bullshit letter to the suspect and asked for a signed letter in return or something. once they got the letter back from the suspect, they got the dna sample from the envelope glue he licked and arrested him upon confirmation that he committed the crime.

Pretty nifty if true

Kind of ambivalent on it though. I would be concerned about health insurance agencies using it.

But on the other side if you leave it, it's fair game. No different than a photo being taken of you in public or someone going through your garbage at the dump.

Then again if I'm committing a crime I'll just go around picking up toe nails, hair, etc. and throw them around the crime scene

most definitely.

also, i don't feel like it should be society's or the aclu's job to try and convince a court that guilty people are innocent. the correspondent was saying that the aclu was trying to make it illegal for law enforcement to take discarded dna for cases in court. i can't understand why. it's as if they WANT the guilty party to be found innocent ... that doesn't mean that the aclu doesn't fight good fights or that they're horrible by any means, but this seems to be one more list mark on their list of ridiculous fights that just doesn't make sense.

 

[palehorse]

I'd say that it's just as reasonable as the collection of discarded trash or fingerprints. Now, I do agree that the database is a bit of a concern; but I'm not sure we have any way, short of a SCOTUS decision or amendment, to avoid the creation of one. The cat is pretty much out of the bag with DNA... hell, mine is on file with the DoD, so I'm screwed either way! LOL!

Lesson of the day? Don't commit a crime.

 

[conehead433]

I think at some point a DNA sample will be taken at birth and put into a massive database. It would definitely help expedite justice in many cases as well as limit the number of people wrongly convicted. Notice I said limit. There will probably still be clever criminals who plant DNA evidence. It would be an extreme bummer to have your DNA planted at a crime scene and not have any sort of alibi or someone vouching for your whereabouts being elsewhere at the time of the crime.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: eits
personally, i think it's absolutely fair. dna testing is becoming a make or break case for being able to convict murderers, rapists, etc., whether it be to clear one's name as a suspect or for conviction.

Effective, and fair, are unrelated concepts.

If you can't stop thinking about 'criminals who might get away' every time you consider privacy rights, you might as well stop bothering to consider.

I'm not sure how I feel about the topic at hand, but I am sure that you are framing it poorly.

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
I would be concerned about health insurance agencies using it.

There are two sides to that.

If the insurance company is shielded from the sequence, can they survive? Their whole system is based around the idea that nobody knows what might happen. If people know they are predisposed to conditions they would be likely to buy more insurance, while people who aren't would buy less. This violates the spread the risk model that they use, and likely cause rates to rise for everyone.

On the other hand, is it fair for an insurance company to charge you more or less based on your genetic makeup? Or deny you completely?

Interesting debate.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm of the opinion that if the cops need a DNA sample, they can get a warrant to collect one. I should not inhibit my personal behavior simply so I don't have to worry about the cops stealing the most personal information I have. It's a gross invasion of privacy to the extent that there needs to be some level of oversight. For those of you who are of the opinion that if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide, please read this thread (or the OP there, at least) for my take on that position.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Of course law enforcement can and will take DNA samples at will. Don't you know we are property of the US government?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: eits
personally, i think it's absolutely fair. dna testing is becoming a make or break case for being able to convict murderers, rapists, etc., whether it be to clear one's name as a suspect or for conviction.

Effective, and fair, are unrelated concepts.

If you can't stop thinking about 'criminals who might get away' every time you consider privacy rights, you might as well stop bothering to consider.

I'm not sure how I feel about the topic at hand, but I am sure that you are framing it poorly.

by "fair," i meant "fair game".

 

[eits]

really? virtually no interest in discussing this?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eits
really? virtually no interest in discussing this?

My opinion conflicts with yours, but you neglected to address it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
really? virtually no interest in discussing this?

My opinion conflicts with yours, but you neglected to address it.

it doesn't really conflict with mine too much, to be honest.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: eits
personally, i think it's absolutely fair. dna testing is becoming a make or break case for being able to convict murderers, rapists, etc., whether it be to clear one's name as a suspect or for conviction.

Effective, and fair, are unrelated concepts.

If you can't stop thinking about 'criminals who might get away' every time you consider privacy rights, you might as well stop bothering to consider.

I'm not sure how I feel about the topic at hand, but I am sure that you are framing it poorly.

by "fair," i meant "fair game".

I could get enough information to open a credit card account in your name with no more sneaking than it takes to get your dna. Is that fair game?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eits
it doesn't really conflict with mine too much, to be honest.

It's the complete opposite of what you said in the OP, which was

they talked about how there was a crime committed in arizona and in order to link a suspect to the crime, they needed a dna sample. so, they sent a bullshit letter to the suspect and asked for a signed letter in return or something. once they got the letter back from the suspect, they got the dna sample from the envelope glue he licked and arrested him upon confirmation that he committed the crime.

do you think that this is fair? is it a breech of privacy?

personally, i think it's absolutely fair. dna testing is becoming a make or break case for being able to convict murderers, rapists, etc., whether it be to clear one's name as a suspect or for conviction. however, i don't feel a database of genetic composition (if we ever get to that point, which i'm sure we will) is ethical whatsoever unless it was a voluntary submission. however, once you voluntarily give up your dna (i.e. throw away a napkin or coffee cup, etc.), it's fair game for law enforcement (with a warrant, obviously), just like trash is fair game.

You're saying that the police should be able to essentially coerce or dupe you into giving up DNA evidence without a warrant. I said the opposite because it's a huge violation of privacy and will inevitably lead to inhibition of the action of citizens as a result (as explained in the thread I linked to in my previous post).

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
it doesn't really conflict with mine too much, to be honest.

It's the complete opposite of what you said in the OP, which was

they talked about how there was a crime committed in arizona and in order to link a suspect to the crime, they needed a dna sample. so, they sent a bullshit letter to the suspect and asked for a signed letter in return or something. once they got the letter back from the suspect, they got the dna sample from the envelope glue he licked and arrested him upon confirmation that he committed the crime.

do you think that this is fair? is it a breech of privacy?

personally, i think it's absolutely fair. dna testing is becoming a make or break case for being able to convict murderers, rapists, etc., whether it be to clear one's name as a suspect or for conviction. however, i don't feel a database of genetic composition (if we ever get to that point, which i'm sure we will) is ethical whatsoever unless it was a voluntary submission. however, once you voluntarily give up your dna (i.e. throw away a napkin or coffee cup, etc.), it's fair game for law enforcement (with a warrant, obviously), just like trash is fair game.

You're saying that the police should be able to essentially coerce or dupe you into giving up DNA evidence without a warrant. I said the opposite because it's a huge violation of privacy and will inevitably lead to inhibition of the action of citizens as a result (as explained in the thread I linked to in my previous post).

i said it would be fair with a warrant.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eits
i said it would be fair with a warrant.

Um, not in the part I quoted. You said that gathering a man's DNA using clandestine tactics which amount to coercion is "absolutely fair." That is hardly the same thing as a warrant.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
i said it would be fair with a warrant.

Um, not in the part I quoted. You said that gathering a man's DNA using clandestine tactics which amount to coercion is "absolutely fair." That is hardly the same thing as a warrant.

you misunderstood what i was saying. i wasn't saying that it was fair for the cops to trick the guy into giving them his dna. the paragraph about that suspect was just me telling you what they talked about on the show.

i was saying that i think it's fair for law enforcement to be able to take your dna from something that you left behind as trash or something. to me, it's no different than lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene to try and find a suspect. however, just like dusting for finger prints, you need a search warrant first. there's nothing wrong with taking evidence in order to solve a crime when you have a warrant... dna is evidence.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
i said it would be fair with a warrant.

Um, not in the part I quoted. You said that gathering a man's DNA using clandestine tactics which amount to coercion is "absolutely fair." That is hardly the same thing as a warrant.

you misunderstood what i was saying. i wasn't saying that it was fair for the cops to trick the guy into giving them his dna. the paragraph about that suspect was just me telling you what they talked about on the show.

i was saying that i think it's fair for law enforcement to be able to take your dna from something that you left behind as trash or something. to me, it's no different than lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene to try and find a suspect. however, just like dusting for finger prints, you need a search warrant first. there's nothing wrong with taking evidence in order to solve a crime when you have a warrant... dna is evidence.

Someone in law enforcement, please correct me if I'm wrong, but... AFAIK:

a) Police do not need a warrant to lift prints at an established crimescene.
b) Police do not need a warrant to lift prints from any object left lying around in public (ie. a crumpled piece of paper, or cup, in a public trashcan, etc).

can anyone confirm this?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
i said it would be fair with a warrant.

Um, not in the part I quoted. You said that gathering a man's DNA using clandestine tactics which amount to coercion is "absolutely fair." That is hardly the same thing as a warrant.

you misunderstood what i was saying. i wasn't saying that it was fair for the cops to trick the guy into giving them his dna. the paragraph about that suspect was just me telling you what they talked about on the show.

i was saying that i think it's fair for law enforcement to be able to take your dna from something that you left behind as trash or something. to me, it's no different than lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene to try and find a suspect. however, just like dusting for finger prints, you need a search warrant first. there's nothing wrong with taking evidence in order to solve a crime when you have a warrant... dna is evidence.

Someone in law enforcement, please correct me if I'm wrong, but... AFAIK:

a) Police do not need a warrant to lift prints at an established crimescene.
b) Police do not need a warrant to lift prints from any object left lying around in public (ie. a crumpled piece of paper, or cup, in a public trashcan, etc).

can anyone confirm this?

i am pretty sure that a search warrant is needed before taking any evidence, whether it's fingerprints or garbage or not. i think the only place it doesn't matter might be the actual scene of the crime, but when you're taking evidence from a suspect's home or car or something, you need a warrant for that... otherwise, whatever you get can't be used in court.

in the paragraph i wrote that you quoted, i said "it's no different than lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene"... i misspoke. i was saying "crime scene" as in a place of interest by law enforcement to search in order to solve the crime... not the ACTUAL crime scene itself (for example, not the alley where a murder took place, but the apartment in which the suspect lives).

either way, i'd like it confirmed as well. i don't know for sure... i'm just assuming, based on all the cop dramas and movies i've seen and whatnot definitely doesn't make me an expert.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eits
i am pretty sure that a search warrant is needed before taking any evidence, whether it's fingerprints or garbage or not. i think the only place it doesn't matter might be the actual scene of the crime, but when you're taking evidence from a suspect's home or car or something, you need a warrant for that... otherwise, whatever you get can't be used in court.

in the paragraph i wrote that you quoted, i said "it's no different than lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene"... i misspoke. i was saying "crime scene" as in a place of interest by law enforcement to search in order to solve the crime... not the ACTUAL crime scene itself (for example, not the alley where a murder took place, but the apartment in which the suspect lives).

either way, i'd like it confirmed as well. i don't know for sure... i'm just assuming, based on all the cop dramas and movies i've seen and whatnot definitely doesn't make me an expert.

Ah, now I see why I was confused. I was under the impression that discarded junk was searchable without a warrant and you thought the opposite. I'm not sure which is right, but yes, we're apparently on the same page.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Of course law enforcement can and will take DNA samples at will.

Don't you know we are property of the US government?

That is precisely the issue.

Since they took away private property rights that should also pertain to your person itself.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
i am pretty sure that a search warrant is needed before taking any evidence, whether it's fingerprints or garbage or not. i think the only place it doesn't matter might be the actual scene of the crime, but when you're taking evidence from a suspect's home or car or something, you need a warrant for that... otherwise, whatever you get can't be used in court.

in the paragraph i wrote that you quoted, i said "it's no different than lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene"... i misspoke. i was saying "crime scene" as in a place of interest by law enforcement to search in order to solve the crime... not the ACTUAL crime scene itself (for example, not the alley where a murder took place, but the apartment in which the suspect lives).

either way, i'd like it confirmed as well. i don't know for sure... i'm just assuming, based on all the cop dramas and movies i've seen and whatnot definitely doesn't make me an expert.

Ah, now I see why I was confused. I was under the impression that discarded junk was searchable without a warrant and you thought the opposite. I'm not sure which is right, but yes, we're apparently on the same page.

I'm pretty sure if it's 'in public' it's fair game. The whole point is that you don't need a warrant to trick someone into giving a sample - if you had a warrant, you wouldn't need to trick them!

As to whether this is 'fair' or an invasion of privacy, that's a different question. The police, I imagine, think it is perfectly fair.