Proposition to take DNA at arrest stirs privacy fears

[Township75]

A man who lost his brother to an unknown serial killer has bankrolled a November ballot measure that would force everyone arrested for a felony in California to provide a DNA sample.

Although backers of the measure say such a greatly expanded DNA database could clear up thousands of unsolved crimes, civil rights activists argue it would give the government access to too much information about too many people.

"DNA is not like a fingerprint, since getting it is more invasive and it holds information beyond mere identification,'' said Tania Simoncelli, a science and technology fellow for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Storing it permanently for future criminal investigations doesn't comply with the Constitution.''

That's not the way Bruce Harrington, a Newport Beach attorney and developer, sees it. Harrington spent more than $1.3 million to qualify the initiative for the ballot and is confident he'll win the support of California voters in November.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/12/MNGOB7598T1.DTL&type=printable

[bluestateguy]

1. Well

We could probably stop a lot of crime if we decided to live in a police state. We could. But we would have to live in a police state, and that's not the kind of nation I want to live in.

[Trillo]

2. If this passes California,

I'd like to also see the granting of DNA ownership to the individuals whose cells contain the DNA. Otherwise, I'd be worried that my DNA was being used as intellectual property for corporate benefit that I never gave my permission for.

I have severe reservations about mandatory DNA collection upon arrest. Whatever happened until 'innocent until proven guilty'?

If we as a society aren't careful, police detective work will become a thing of the past, and the 'suspect' with the highest DNA 'chances' of having done the crime will be convicted. Stockpiling DNA in huge databases and then mining them will become something police agencies do to find prosecutions 'more likely' to succeed.

So what if you were on the other side of the state and have a witness--the DNA doesn't lie--it says you were most likely to have done the crime.

[LibLabUK]

3. Okay...

People need to learn what the difference between the DNA samples collected and processed as evidence and DNA samples collected for research.

DNA fingerprints, the things admissable in court, are of little to no use in research (of the genetic engineering kind).. they don't reveal information such as sequencing which would be of use to a pharmaceutical company researcher or molecular biologist.

A DNA fingerprint consists of bands on a gel. The bands correspond to fragments of DNA cleaved using enzymes. Individuals have differing patterns of banding based on the proportions of different fragments within their total DNA.

You cannot tell anything about an individual from looking at the bands on a gel, and so the information stored within these police databases are useless for genetic research. You can however see familial links (you'd be able to tell parents, siblings etc... due to the high number of corresponding bands).

The effort that goes into sequencing DNA, that is working out in what order the four components of DNA (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine) are in a complete gene (let alone an entire genome) is quite staggering and would not be practicable to perform on the numbers of samples that would be collected by the police.

[Liberal Classic]

5. I am not a biologist but

Just because the results of fingerprinting or profiling is of little use to research scientists is no reason not to be concerned about the manner in which they are used by law enforcement.

DNA fingerprinting or profiling is when a small number of areas on the genome that are known to vary widely among the human population are sequenced. These areas contain seemingly random sequences of basepairs that are inherited from the parents, though it is not fully understood what the areas are for. In profiling or fingerprinting, these areas are analyzed to count the number of times a given sequence of basepairs repeats itself. Because these areas are passed down identically from the parents they are also useful in determining paternity. So, a child will not have all of the same repeating sequences a parent has, but the child will have some of the same repeating sequences as a parent has. Among people who are not related, the probablility that two people will have the same sequence repeating the same number of times is very small, but not zero.

[LibLabUK]

6. Maybe you can explain...

"Just because the results of fingerprinting or profiling is of little use to research scientists is no reason not to be concerned about the manner in which they are used by law enforcement."

Maybe you can explain your concerns a little....

I was addressing a previous responder's concerns over their DNA being used for research...

I'm all up for a reasoned debate. :)

[Liberal Classic]

12. Here in the U.S. we have had in recent years

Several high-profile cases that hinged on the testimony of experts who performed DNA testing. In my local area, my municipal police department's crime laboratory just went through a scandal not unlike that of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations, in which the department's own procedures were not followed casting questions and doubt on the verdicts of many, many cases. The single most widely known example of this would be high profile murder trial of a former professional athelete which raised not only issues of standards and practices of handing DNA evidence, but questions of departmental malfeasance to boot.

I would think that reasons for concern would be clear. Setting aside the thorny issue of corrupt law enforcement officials, sloppy work in police department laboratories can erode public trust in both law enforcement in general and DNA testamony in particular. DNA testing, when done right, has not only sent the guilty to jail but has also liberated the wrongfully imprisoned. However, as with any scientific or forensic evidence DNA testing is not 100% fool proof. Proper procedures must be established and followed so that samples are not tainted accidentially or on purpose. Due to DNA being invisible to the naked eye, I believe it has more potential for abuse than, say traditional fingerprints and fiber strand evidence. At least a microscopic bit of cotton or fingerprint left on an item from the evidence room can be seen and handled, neither of which can be done with DNA itself. How can a technician tell if the sample is not the same sample as yesterday? In truth, he can't. He relies on the filing system to tell him which is which. This is also true to more traditional forms of forensic evidence, but all the more reason for crime laboratories to be under scrutiny at all times.

I do not oppose the government warehousing of DNA samples of *convicted* felons, and I do not oppose the government taking a DNA sample of someone who is currently under investigation of a crime just as I do not oppose the fingerprinting of someone who is under investigation, or the taking of a strand of hair for analysis. Our courts have both upheld these practices for identification purposes as not violating a suspect's rights. However, I do not support the government warehousing of all DNA samples taken from all *suspected* felons. If a suspect of a felony is cleared of the crime the sample should be destroyed. One of the foundations of our legal system here in the U.S. is the presumption of innocence before guilt. DNA is just another form of evidence, and though it poses some special problems it should be treated as such. If someone has been eliminated from suspicion for one reason or another, or if someone is exonerated in court, there is no compelling reason for the state to keep a DNA record of that person.

All, in my humble opinion, of course. Additional disclaimer, as I said I am not a biologist, nor am I involved in law enforcement. I'm just some loud-mouthed crank on a message board.

[Trillo]

7. But why target just those arrested, and not the populace at large?

How would a person suspected of a crime but not convicted verify that a lab hired to analyze cells and create the abstract disposed of the original cell specimens?

Cancer likelihood isn't determinable from a DNA fingerprint? Why is it okay for a researcher somewhere to have access to familial heredity? What about privacy?

This is essentially about the state forcing citizens to crack open their individual cells upon demand.

My most basic objection centers around ownership of DNA, and the fact that individuals do not own their own DNA. This opens a whole new arena for discrimination. DNA databases, if they exist, will be exploited economically (as a profit center) to reduce associated costs, and perhaps even hacked and used in ways deemed 'illegal' by legislators.

Just because this particular proposal is about an abstract of the DNA instead of the cell contents itself, doesn't mean there is no value to researchers.

[LibLabUK]

8. Good questions

"Cancer likelihood isn't determinable from a DNA fingerprint?"

Nope. The tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (altered versions of these two genes increases the risk for breast cancer) and other genetic anomolies are completely different from the DNA fingerprint technique... the DNA fingerprint technique uses specific restriction enzymes, not applicable to cancer or other tests.

"Why is it okay for a researcher somewhere to have access to familial heredity?"

Only applicable if you have fingerprints from the whole family. I couldn't look at your print and tell that your great-grandfather was Archduke Franz Ferdinand, without the corresponding print from the Archduke's DNA.

" What about privacy? "

Well in Europe we have extremely strong laws regarding privacy, data protection and human rights... I don't know what the case is in the US or elsewhere.




"How would a person suspected of a crime but not convicted verify that a lab hired to analyze cells and create the abstract disposed of the original cell specimens?"

Well that would be a legal/procedural question, maybe Iverglas can explain whether evidence is returned to those not convicted of crimes.

[Trillo]

9. Thanks for the answers...

I still don't want the state have legal mandate to use a metaphorical knife and cut open my cells to quantify their contents. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to give control over one's body to someone else and to take personal consent away from the individual.

That you suggest there is no privacy violation, such as heredity, because you don't have the whole group of DNA abstracts, misconstrues how vast such a database could become over time.

Why are those arrested being targeted (in the ballot proposal), instead of everyone? That alone is discrimination before any legal judgements are rendered regarding guilt or innocence.

How much longer (months, years, decades?) before the state decides to use a literal knife instead of a metaphorical one to get, say, a heart or other organ a leader may need?

We'll find out what Californians think when they vote on it.

On edit: added a sentence and reordered paragraphs for clarity.

[LibLabUK]

10. Okay...

"I still don't want the state have legal mandate to use a metaphorical knife and cut open my cells to quantify their contents."

THey already do this. If you're arrested they'll take a DNA sample and compare it to trace found at the scene of crime. What they're suggesting now is that instead of disposing of this fingerprint, they'll store it for future reference.. against trace from future scenes of crime.


"I think it's a very dangerous precedent to give control over one's body to someone else and to take personal consent away from the individual."

I don't see any mention of giving up personal consent. However, I don't know what the law is regarding withholding a sample for DNA comparison.

"That you suggest there is no privacy violation, such as heredity, because you don't have the whole group of DNA abstracts, misconstrues how vast such a database could become over time."

Sure. If your family has a habit of getting arrested then you will find that your familial links would be able to be found out this way. Currently, it's much easier to do this through the register of births... in the UK you can trace your family tree back quite a way through the official registrations of births.

"Why are those arrested being targeted (in the ballot proposal), instead of everyone? "

Generally, people who have been arrested have either done something or given cause to believe that they've done something wrong. I personally don't see a problem with building a database of everyone, if it can help with the detection of crime and is tightly regulated as to who has access to it.

"That alone is discrimination before any legal judgements are rendered regarding guilt or innocence."

See above.

"How much longer (months, years, decades?) before the state decides to use a literal knife instead of a metaphorical one to get, say, a heart or other organ a leader may need?"

I don't see the link. Could you explain the link between DNA fingerprinting and forced donation of organs a little more.

[Trillo]

11. The "link"

Getting to DNA requires destruction of a cell. So, the state has a right to collect this "one" cell from a person. It could be a first step toward gathering a cluster of cells, in fact, a cheek swab probably takes more than one cell.

This can be a step towards "confiscating" a larger group of specialized cells ... such as a kidney.


There are plenty of instances where American police have arrested the wrong people. Just recently, a lawyer was arrested, I believe in Seattle for something to do with the Madrid bombings. It was all apparently bunk, but, the connection in your mind, "a judgement" about being arrested meaning you're a criminal type or like to hang with criminal types doesn't work that well in practice. The police arrest a lot of people in America, including non-violent student protestors, victimless crimes such as drug users for possession, and most importantly, innocent people who've done nothing wrong except "be noticed" by police.

That's a mighty subjective police judgment to give to the state in abandon of 4th amendment protections.

[LibLabUK]

4. The potential of DNA libraries...

New Scientist 20/04/04
Killer convicted thanks to relative's DNA

The first criminal conviction based on a new DNA technique which uses relatives' DNA to track a suspect was made in the UK on Monday.

Craig Harman of Frimley, Surrey was convicted of manslaughter and jailed for six years on the basis of "familial DNA searching", which linked him to the crime scene via a close relative's DNA profile.

The FSS and police used familial searching to uncover a close relative of Harman's, who had a criminal conviction and was on the DNA database. The relative's profile matched the DNA on the brick by 16 out of 20 points. This lead police to Harman, whose DNA gave a perfect match, and he eventually confessed to the drunken act of violence.

Familial searching comprises of two tests, Whitaker, told New Scientist. The first matches parents to children. Standard DNA profiles examine 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father. The database can be trawled to match potential parents which gives the police "a manageable list" to investigate.

Potential siblings can also be matched via the database by comparing markers. "On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance," explains Whitaker, but "with over 12 bands in common, you very, very rarely see unrelated people with that degree of similarity".

The system was only launched for police investigations in September 2003, so data on the probability of a correct match is not yet available.

*snip*

[TexasMexican]

13. Anyone ever see that movie GATTACA...

yep thats where we are going to end up.