Jack Webb never dreamed of this...

[alexpgp]

Interesting segment on tonight's 60 MInutes on "DNA dragnets." The idea is to ask people to "voluntarily" give up DNA samples so that they may be compared against DNA collected at a crime scene.

The "pro" argument: innocent people have nothing to fear.

The "con" argument: it violates civil liberties and has the potential for massive abuse.

The argument against the "con" position: there are mechanisms in place to prevent massive abuse (laws preventing DNA collected in a criminal investigation to be used for other purposes), and innocent people have nothing to fear.

Laws can be changed. At one time, states laughed off the idea that they might ever sell data from their driver license databases, telling critics they described as "paranoid" that the idea was ludicrous and citing regulations that prevented such misuses from occurring.

Of course, today, now that everyone but a "lunatic fringe" is cool with the idea that driver license databases must contain not only name and address, but also a photograph, SSN, and often a fingerprint, several states routinely make their driver license databases available for a variety of governmental purposes not directly related to making sure that people are qualified to drive on the road. Too, if I am not mistaken, some states also sell such data to private-sector marketing firms (South Carolina comes to mind here as either a current offender, or one that had to give up this source of revenue as a result of public outcry).

Personally, I think Morley Safer did a very lukewarm job of presenting the civil libertarian position on this issue. The talking head they got to attack DNA dragnets sounded like he had little more to stand on than some fuddy-duddy legal tradition.

If citizens must give up their DNA "voluntarily" or else become suspects in criminal investigations (or victims of intimidation), then the Fourth Amendment - the one that goes, roughly, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." - means nothing.

If innocents have nothing to fear by allowing the State to take samples their bodily fluids on demand, then certainly they must have nothing to fear by allowing the State to search their persons, their premises, or effects on the same basis.

Don't expect people like Bush or Gore to help protect your privacy... their track records show a consistent and accelerating animosity toward the concept of privacy.

Cheers...

Comments

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

The fact is that, as a practical matter, the Constitution is little protection. Police routinely lie about the circumstances when applying for warrants.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Kinda hard to argue against a 'fact' like that; I wonder, who keeps the stats?

If cops really have to routinely lie about having probable cause, why isn't more known about it?

Cheers...

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Why don't you hear more about it? Probably because you're not around the people who talk about it.

How do I know?

First of all its a personal observation connected with having defended several hundred criminal cases over a twenty year career as an attorney including two dozen capital murder cases. Its a constant complaint of defense lawyers and constantly denied by prosecutors and police publically and admitted privately.

Second it comes from growing up around cops. Dad liked to play cop and was an police auxillary in New York City. He wound of a Captain in the auxillary and he had a huge circle of regular cop friends. I've heard the stories again and again.

Long before I went to law school I had heard the old adage "The cop on the beat is the poor man's Supreme Court." My law professor's quoted it too.
Its the way it is.

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

While I have mixed feelings about the reasonableness of assisting the police in helping ot solve a crime, I have no reservations about the fact that once that information becomes available that it would become public quickly. If for no other reason than someone hacks the database.

What bothers me is the lack of a true idea of justice and the all-to-urgent need to rush to jsutice for the first person suspect that many in law enforcement and prosecution display. In fact, there seems to be very little concern for the concept of justice much less the practice of it among prosecutorial types. They are much more concerned about conviction rates.

Actually, giving up DNA, while a part of the search and seizure laws, is more in-line with the defendants right not to self-incriminate (the infamous 5th Amendment). On the other hand, looking at victim rights, I do sometimes want those arrested to HAVE to give up that evidence. If it convicts, then they should not have done the deed anyway. Serves them right for getting caught to begin with. But to give it up to a registry, that smacks of witch hunting.

This is a very complicated issue. There is no easy answer that will ever satisfy all parties.

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

It's like fingerprints. Those of us who've had clearances or have been in the military have their prints on file and nobody thinks twice about it. I suspect that DNA files will be routine, too, at some point.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

I fear you're right.

But there's not much you can do with a fingerprint, as compared with DNA. Someday, I shall post an appropriate rant on the subject.

Cheers...