Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings [Cur. Same Sex Marriage]

[AndyDufresne]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

Truth. I've left my DNA over amany aplace.


--Andy

[patches70]

Those who think collecting DNA is the same a collecting fingerprints, answer this-

What information is gleaned from a fingerprint?
What information is gleaned from DNA?

[BigBallinStalin]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

They get the DNA from whoever they arrest via cotton swab.

[Woodruff]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

They get the DNA from whoever they arrest via cotton swab.

While that is true, that's the DNA that goes into the database...not the DNA they're looking for at the scene of the crime, which is what Night Strike is pointing at, which can be left at the site in any number of ways.

[AndyDufresne]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

They get the DNA from whoever they arrest via cotton swab.

While that is true, that's the DNA that goes into the database...not the DNA they're looking for at the scene of the crime, which is what Night Strike is pointing at, which can be left at the site in any number of ways.

That's more tangentially related to this case I think (though it is a valid tangent).


--Andy

[Lootifer]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

You are implying that DNA can be more readily used to frame/plant evidence?

I agree completely; however it doesn't mean I support DNA collection and less. It's just a known weakness (which we have to take steps to address when using DNA as evidence).

[Lootifer]

Those who think collecting DNA is the same a collecting fingerprints, answer this-

What information is gleaned from a fingerprint?
What information is gleaned from DNA?

Its not the same.

Yes DNA can be used in far more applications than a simple fingerprint. I quite openly state that my support of DNA collection is specific to crime scene comparisons. Again its not the collection that you seem to be taking issue with; but the use post collection.

What are the proposed uses of DNA kicking around? Does it extend any further than simple crime scene comparison stuff?

[patches70]

Those who think collecting DNA is the same a collecting fingerprints, answer this-

What information is gleaned from a fingerprint?
What information is gleaned from DNA?

Its not the same.

Yes DNA can be used in far more applications than a simple fingerprint. I quite openly state that my support of DNA collection is specific to crime scene comparisons. Again its not the collection that you seem to be taking issue with; but the use post collection.

I didn't claim it was the same nor did I ask what was similar between the two.
I'm not taking any issue, I merely asked two questions. Does answering those questions speak to " .... the precedent has been set by fingerprints" and if that's really a true presumption?

What are the proposed uses of DNA kicking around? Does it extend any further than simple crime scene comparison stuff?

I don't know, what are the proposed uses of DNA being kicked around?
Does it extend any further than simple crime scene comparison stuff?
If not, will it extend further at some point in the future?
Are there any safeguards against such a thing?
Is it even possible to have safeguards against abuse that such safeguards could actually be trusted of by the US government considering their past actions in making certain promises and then eventually breaking those promises?
What instills any such trust in any word of the government, considering past actions?

I'm just asking questions, if people don't want to answer them or ask any questions themselves, it's all right. There will be people who trust the government and there will be people who won't. People of the former group, if they live long enough, will be disappointed; people of the latter group will never be surprised.

[Woodruff]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

You are implying that DNA can be more readily used to frame/plant evidence?

I agree completely; however it doesn't mean I support DNA collection and less. It's just a known weakness (which we have to take steps to address when using DNA as evidence).

Absolutely. I agree with all of that.

I still think that the DNA collection shouldn't happen until the individual is convicted though. I hold the same to be true for fingerprints, if anyone cares.

[BigBallinStalin]

Those who think collecting DNA is the same a collecting fingerprints, answer this-

What information is gleaned from a fingerprint?
What information is gleaned from DNA?

Its not the same.

Yes DNA can be used in far more applications than a simple fingerprint. I quite openly state that my support of DNA collection is specific to crime scene comparisons. Again its not the collection that you seem to be taking issue with; but the use post collection.

What are the proposed uses of DNA kicking around? Does it extend any further than simple crime scene comparison stuff?

I'm going to collect your DNA, make a bunch of chil'ren, and then you can collect some of that government money.

I want a 50% cut. How 'bout it?

[BigBallinStalin]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

You are implying that DNA can be more readily used to frame/plant evidence?

I agree completely; however it doesn't mean I support DNA collection and less. It's just a known weakness (which we have to take steps to address when using DNA as evidence).

Absolutely. I agree with all of that.

I still think that the DNA collection shouldn't happen until the individual is convicted though. I hold the same to be true for fingerprints, if anyone cares.

I'm hesitant to agree. It's difficult to convict people without having their DNA for the trial... And repeat "offenders" (i.e those who get off without a trial) would be easier to prosecute*.

*which is a problem and a benefit---depending on how one views centrally planned Security.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Those who think collecting DNA is the same a collecting fingerprints, answer this-

What information is gleaned from a fingerprint?
What information is gleaned from DNA?

Its not the same.

Yes DNA can be used in far more applications than a simple fingerprint. I quite openly state that my support of DNA collection is specific to crime scene comparisons. Again its not the collection that you seem to be taking issue with; but the use post collection.

I didn't claim it was the same nor did I ask what was similar between the two.
I'm not taking any issue, I merely asked two questions. Does answering those questions speak to " .... the precedent has been set by fingerprints" and if that's really a true presumption?

What are the proposed uses of DNA kicking around? Does it extend any further than simple crime scene comparison stuff?

I don't know, what are the proposed uses of DNA being kicked around?
Does it extend any further than simple crime scene comparison stuff?
If not, will it extend further at some point in the future?
Are there any safeguards against such a thing?
Is it even possible to have safeguards against abuse that such safeguards could actually be trusted of by the US government considering their past actions in making certain promises and then eventually breaking those promises?
What instills any such trust in any word of the government, considering past actions?

I'm just asking questions, if people don't want to answer them or ask any questions themselves, it's all right. There will be people who trust the government and there will be people who won't. People of the former group, if they live long enough, will be disappointed; people of the latter group will never be surprised.

In computer security there is the concept of a Cryptographic hash function

From wikipedia:

The ideal cryptographic hash function has four main properties:
it is easy to compute the hash value for any given message
it is infeasible to generate a message that has a given hash
it is infeasible to modify a message without changing the hash
it is infeasible to find two different messages with the same hash.

In other words, you can pass some data (DNA in this case) through a hash function and you get a string of characters. This string of characters is such that, if you pass the same DNA through the same protocol you will get the same string, but it's very unlikely that any other DNA sample will get the same string (this probability can be made arbitrarily small). Additionally, you cannot retrieve the original DNA from the string of characters.

Therefore, using such a function, you can make a database of DNA hashes, which can only be used for identifying matching DNA samples and nothing else. So if the government is forced to hash the DNA and then destroy the original DNA info and keep only the hash, it would be impossible for them to use the DNA for any other nefarious purpose down the line.

tl;dr Technology saves the day yet again. ONWARDS!

[patches70]

In computer security there is the concept of a Cryptographic hash function

From wikipedia:

The ideal cryptographic hash function has four main properties:
it is easy to compute the hash value for any given message
it is infeasible to generate a message that has a given hash
it is infeasible to modify a message without changing the hash
it is infeasible to find two different messages with the same hash.

In other words, you can pass some data (DNA in this case) through a hash function and you get a string of characters. This string of characters is such that, if you pass the same DNA through the same protocol you will get the same string, but it's very unlikely that any other DNA sample will get the same string (this probability can be made arbitrarily small). Additionally, you cannot retrieve the original DNA from the string of characters.

Therefore, using such a function, you can make a database of DNA hashes, which can only be used for identifying matching DNA samples and nothing else. So if the government is forced to hash the DNA and then destroy the original DNA info and keep only the hash, it would be impossible for them to use the DNA for any other nefarious purpose down the line.

tl;dr Technology saves the day yet again. ONWARDS!

Now that actually sounds pretty good. Is that how they are doing it now? Is that how they plan on doing it?

[Night Strike]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

You are implying that DNA can be more readily used to frame/plant evidence?

I agree completely; however it doesn't mean I support DNA collection and less. It's just a known weakness (which we have to take steps to address when using DNA as evidence).

It is easier to plant DNA than a fingerprint, but I wasn't specifically referring to just planting false evidence. Someone's DNA could be at a crime scene simply because they were at the location at some time prior. Fingerprints will degrade due to dust and smudges from others; things that leave DNA don't degrade as easily and can last until specifically cleaned up.

[BigBallinStalin]

In computer security there is the concept of a Cryptographic hash function

From wikipedia:

The ideal cryptographic hash function has four main properties:
it is easy to compute the hash value for any given message
it is infeasible to generate a message that has a given hash
it is infeasible to modify a message without changing the hash
it is infeasible to find two different messages with the same hash.

In other words, you can pass some data (DNA in this case) through a hash function and you get a string of characters. This string of characters is such that, if you pass the same DNA through the same protocol you will get the same string, but it's very unlikely that any other DNA sample will get the same string (this probability can be made arbitrarily small). Additionally, you cannot retrieve the original DNA from the string of characters.

Therefore, using such a function, you can make a database of DNA hashes, which can only be used for identifying matching DNA samples and nothing else. So if the government is forced to hash the DNA and then destroy the original DNA info and keep only the hash, it would be impossible for them to use the DNA for any other nefarious purpose down the line.

tl;dr Technology saves the day yet again. ONWARDS!

YAY! Oh, wait... we've got to deal with political incentives and knowledge problems. You think the political process would support the Hash Plan?

[Haggis_McMutton]

@patches
No clue. That was just how I'd like them to do it.

YAY! Oh, wait... we've got to deal with political incentives and knowledge problems. You think the political process would support the Hash Plan?

I just come up with the solutions, for implementation issues you need to speak with the engineers.

More seriously, I have no clue what the public opinion on this issue is. I expect the government to try to get away with as much as they can, so if people don't care they'll probably end up storing everyone's DNA. If sufficient people do care, then the hash solution looks like a pretty good compromise to me.

[Woodruff]

Secondly if you can have your DNA collected fairly easily, its a pretty good deterrant of committing any violent crime where you are very likely to leave DNA lying around.

DNA can be left at a site prior to a crime being committed.

You are implying that DNA can be more readily used to frame/plant evidence?

I agree completely; however it doesn't mean I support DNA collection and less. It's just a known weakness (which we have to take steps to address when using DNA as evidence).

Absolutely. I agree with all of that.

I still think that the DNA collection shouldn't happen until the individual is convicted though. I hold the same to be true for fingerprints, if anyone cares.

I'm hesitant to agree. It's difficult to convict people without having their DNA for the trial... And repeat "offenders" (i.e those who get off without a trial) would be easier to prosecute*.

I understand the argument, and I agree that it is a good and compelling one. I just believe it to be unConstitutional, given the whole Fifth Amendment thing.

[Nordik]

Good point about the fingerprints, in particular. I'd still like it better if it were after conviction, rather than after arrest.

Eh, if anything it should be after they are charged. Otherwise you couldn't use their DNA in the trial. Not when arrested because not all arrests lead to being charged, but certainly after they've got enough evidence that they think you'll get convicted.

I'm not exaggerating there, German police have used exactly such descriptions and called for thousands of people to submit their DNA for analysis. Sure, you're technically free to ignore them or refuse, but relatively few know that and exercising your rights in such cases has been considered a cause for further investigations.

The law here in Norway is pretty clear. You are asked to submit DNA after you're arrested, but are told quite specifically that you do not have to. A bit like your Miranda rights when it comes to actually saying anything. Same with fingerprints I'm pretty sure. It is only when you're charged that you have to give the physical evidence.

I agree that punishments are not very good at deterring crimes, but i speculate that increasing chances of being caught will have some noticable impact (only on crimes where there is a fair proportion of criminals genuinely believing they will face no punishment at all).

I would have to agree. Rehabilitation is something far too few countries use and far too many people see as being "soft on crime", but if it works and a higher proportion of people come out not offending again then surely it is worthwhile?

And I would agree with most of your speculation too, although if they don't get punished, I doubt the police will spend the money on the DNA analysis anyway. I would say that it would be a deterrent for major crimes. Or did I get the wrong end of the stick here and you meant that they would get off without it?

[Woodruff]

Good point about the fingerprints, in particular. I'd still like it better if it were after conviction, rather than after arrest.

Eh, if anything it should be after they are charged. Otherwise you couldn't use their DNA in the trial.

That would be an improvement. But it still wouldn't be Constitutional, in my opinion.

[Nordik]

Good point about the fingerprints, in particular. I'd still like it better if it were after conviction, rather than after arrest.

Eh, if anything it should be after they are charged. Otherwise you couldn't use their DNA in the trial.

That would be an improvement. But it still wouldn't be Constitutional, in my opinion.

Why? Forgetting any potential idiocy that can be done with DNA (e.g copying it to make clones), what is the difference between this and fingerprints?

Oh and when are the police allowed to fingerprint someone in the US? After arrest? After charge? After conviction?

[Woodruff]

Good point about the fingerprints, in particular. I'd still like it better if it were after conviction, rather than after arrest.

Eh, if anything it should be after they are charged. Otherwise you couldn't use their DNA in the trial.

That would be an improvement. But it still wouldn't be Constitutional, in my opinion.

Why? Forgetting any potential idiocy that can be done with DNA (e.g copying it to make clones), what is the difference between this and fingerprints?

There isn't. In fact, it's quite similar to fingerprints, yet even better (as far as identification). From an investigation standpoint (both for the prosecution and the defense, actually), the use of DNA evidence is almost a godsend...seriously. And if the defense brings it into the proceedings, then it's fair game.

That said, I would also consider the use of fingerprints to be unConstitutional due to the Fifth Amendment, for the same reason.

Oh and when are the police allowed to fingerprint someone in the US? After arrest? After charge? After conviction?

After arrest.

[Nordik]

Good point about the fingerprints, in particular. I'd still like it better if it were after conviction, rather than after arrest.

Eh, if anything it should be after they are charged. Otherwise you couldn't use their DNA in the trial.

That would be an improvement. But it still wouldn't be Constitutional, in my opinion.

Why? Forgetting any potential idiocy that can be done with DNA (e.g copying it to make clones), what is the difference between this and fingerprints?

There isn't. In fact, it's quite similar to fingerprints, yet even better (as far as identification). From an investigation standpoint (both for the prosecution and the defense, actually), the use of DNA evidence is almost a godsend...seriously. And if the defense brings it into the proceedings, then it's fair game.

That said, I would also consider the use of fingerprints to be unConstitutional due to the Fifth Amendment, for the same reason.

A little late for that to be changed now though don't you think?

Oh and when are the police allowed to fingerprint someone in the US? After arrest? After charge? After conviction?

After arrest.

I guess then the answer is quite clear. Personally, I think it is wrong, but so be it. When you are charged it is a different matter. Although of course, to get charged you'd probably need fingerprints and/ or DNA for a prosecutor to be willing to take the case.

Thinking about it.... having seen my fair share of cop shows... I should have known.

[Phatscotty]

Those who think collecting DNA is the same a collecting fingerprints, answer this-

What information is gleaned from a fingerprint?
What information is gleaned from DNA?

That's a good question. They are both for identity purposes but DNA contains far more info obviously. Do we know for sure they are taking DNA samples of every single person arrested? And they only fingerprint you when charged with a felony right? I think the same should be for the sample, I hope that's the case but I don't know that to be true. One thing that is necessary for all of this to work is for the people to trust the government, which sadly is NOT the case in recent history and certainly not today.

My first thought is that in the future the samples can be valuable information for things like pharmaceutical companies marketing products all the way to life insurance premiums or even who gets certain surgeries and who doesn't.

[Nordik]

One thing that is necessary for all of this to work is for the people to trust the government, which sadly is NOT the case in recent history and certainly not today.

My first thought is that in the future the samples can be valuable information for things like pharmaceutical companies marketing products all the way to life insurance premiums or even who gets certain surgeries and who doesn't.

To be perfectly honest, at least here, I'd much rather trust the government than a huge multinational. Hence why I find it amusing that people complain about Obamacare. At least I have an option there. What with the huge conglomerations that are the reality today and them most likely (since there is no oversight) sharing info, it is pretty much impossible to say the same about anything private.

[Phatscotty]

One thing that is necessary for all of this to work is for the people to trust the government, which sadly is NOT the case in recent history and certainly not today.

My first thought is that in the future the samples can be valuable information for things like pharmaceutical companies marketing products all the way to life insurance premiums or even who gets certain surgeries and who doesn't.

To be perfectly honest, at least here, I'd much rather trust the government than a huge multinational. Hence why I find it amusing that people complain about Obamacare. At least I have an option there. What with the huge conglomerations that are the reality today and them most likely (since there is no oversight) sharing info, it is pretty much impossible to say the same about anything private.

Are you American? Just curious about the way you use "I have options in Obamacare"

I hear you about multinationals. Private companies are the ones collecting most of the data, the government piggy back on them to get their data for their own reasons. But that's just it, no transactions are private anymore. And when Obamacare kicks in, and you have a heart attack, and the file shows the doctor has told you repeatedly over 5 years not to eat fast food, but they find a transaction at Mcdonalds, it can be used against you. That is the "prevention" part of Obamacare. We are going to be held accountable for the warnings we are given, and there will be consequences for ignoring them even one time while on vacation in another state. Same with smokers who have lung trouble. When you go in to get care, they will say "why did you smoke?" "non-preventable diseases go first, PREVENTABLE!" That's gonna cost ya since it could have been prevented" "Our records show you buy 2 packs a day up until 3 years ago."

At the core, Americans complain about Obamacare because we have an attachment to the principle of limited government (obviously dwindling with every generation, but the principle and the spirit is in our Constitution) for one, amongst many, many other reasons.