Are We Becoming A 'Genetic Surveillance Society'?
Oh, don't worry! I'm sure no one would ever misuse this information:
Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.
Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.
The F.B.I., with a DNA database of 6.7 million profiles, expects to accelerate its growth rate from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 — a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs — which now stand at more than 500,000 cases — to increase.
Law enforcement officials say that expanding the DNA databanks to include legally innocent people will help solve more violent crimes. They point out that DNA has helped convict thousands of criminals and has exonerated more than 200 wrongfully convicted people.
But criminal justice experts cite Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and worry that the nation is becoming a genetic surveillance society.
I'm good with it.
yes, it has to start with the biggist crime demographic in America: The Bush Family, and then yes, I agree, we need all the Wall St exec's and banker's DNA and IP addresses to monitor their internet activity. But I don't believe your average American is prone to crime so I don't see why people like you or I should have to submit to this DNA database, even in Urban America the crime is relativly small when stacked against the crimes of the owners of America.
Could some of you legal scholars please explain how this does not violate both the fourth and fifth amendments.
Come on, I know you're out there.
woodguy
I'm not sure there is much of a difference between DNA collection and fingerprints. When you're booked, you're fingerprinted. That goes into a national DB. Now DNA. Neither are "invasive", both help crime-investigation. Both have as good a chance of exonerating as convicting.
As far as surveillance, just try to go shopping or to the bank without being video recorded. Just not in my house.
The collection is entirely predicated on 'hey, we're going to add your DNA to a database in case you commit a crime.'
So there's a crime. You've got the DNA of a suspect, and you check the database to see if the suspect's DNA matches that of someone in a pool of potential suspects, even if it's just an illegal immigrant - because We All Know illegal immmigrants are predisposed to crime.
The violation of the 4th Amendment protections against 'unreasonable search and seizure' is because of this - that the database presumes guilt, against 'probable cause.' (An arrest for DUI should not put you in the same pool as possible suspects for a serial killing.)
The distinction between your person/your home and a place of business such as a bank or store is that the latter are perceived as 'public' - and, just as you have a right to insist upon the security of your person, the business owner has the right to secure their property against theft/damage. You are giving implied consent by patronizing these businesses; the same cannot be said of your DNA, even though it is available in skin flakes and hair follicles that may be 'shed' in the course of normal activity. (Furthermore, a camera more or less duplicates a human eye; DNA requires analysis beyond the scope of human senses, and therefore may be construed as intrusive.)
The second concern is, when it's found that this massive DNA database isn't doing what they thought it would (cutting down on illegal immigration, stopping certain types of crime), what will it be used for? We're seeing this with the right-wing wackaloons wailing about how dare Homeland Security spy on THEM! They were fine with the intrusiveness and scope of the program until it failed to find Abu ali Jibberjabber hiding under the bed, and now it's looking at 'domestic terrorists.'
Of course, we're seeing that even the Obama Administration is reluctant to dial back the Homeland Security silliness, even expanding upon surveillance powers (and, now, this 'no prosecution' horseshit re: torture). The time to object is before such a database is created, rather than after.
Probably the most intelligent analysis I've heard, here or elsewhere.
Bravo! Well done!
woodguy
All very rational and well thought out. Except, substitute DNA for fingerprints and the same arguments apply. I'm sure the same was said when a fingerprint DB was being consolidated - no one seems concerned when prints are matched today.
Likewise photos at the turn of the last Century. Taking some ones picture in order to search through the photos is akin to the same thing.
Is this concern mostly about the changing technology becoming more accurate?
Though I would object to a mandatory DB of all Americans (as when a newborn gets blood drawn and is entered). I also see the future potential for abuse as our ability to scan DNA for "predisposition" improves (ever see the movie Gattica?).
As it stands now, however, I am not concerned with the trend from photos, to fingerprints, to DNA, to be used for law enforcement.
Under the proper circumstances, a fingerprint IS visible to human scrutiny. A magnifying glass cannot be said to provide an unreasonable enhancement to human senses, and a print can be left through one method: you directly touched the object.
On the other hand, a magnifying glass cannot read one's DNA. Fingerprints, too, fade with time; DNA remains testable for a longer period, so the presence of a skin flake doesn't necessarily mean you were the criminal - it only means you were in the same place within a reasonable span (between the floor being vacuumed, for example).
Again, a camera is akin to the human eye; asking an employee to review photographs to identify a person is NOT the same as saying, "Hey, here's a DNA strand, does it look like someone who came into the bank the day of the robbery?"
And you're still ignoring the 'mission creep' factor. When it doesn't work the way you envision, what will you use the technology for?
Ah, I understand your argument better now. You contend that since DNA requires special equipment (beyond that of the human eye) the search is intrinsically invasive.
But photo scans can be done electronically – so too fingerprints. The ability to scan millions of either in a short period of time requires special equipment. Is this not also invasive? Doesn’t even a photograph require special equipment that can “remember” a face? As for fingerprints, what’s the basic difference between using a magnifying glass as a tool and a DNA scanner?
I’m not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand the concern.
A magnifying glass does not provide an unreasonable level of amplification/enhancement of human senses. Given a fingerprint taken from a crime scene and one from a suspect in custody, it is possible for the unaided eye to make a comparison. Use of an electronic scanner does not change the fact that a fingerprint is visible to the human eye.
DNA cannot - I cannot look at a flake of your skin and necessarily discern it from that of anyone else in your household, because there is nothing in the arsenal of human senses that allows us to discern DNA strands or compare them.
Given the limited duration of fingerprints, a fingerprint at a crime scene is a much stronger indicator of one's presence - there's no mistaking that a fingerprint places you at the scene, if not handling key items. On the other hand, a stray hair can ride on a sweater and end up deposited somewhere a person has never been.
So when it comes to the standard of probable cause, you don't have the same result when you put a fingerprint up against DNA; thus, one runs afoul of 'unreasonable search and seizure.'
Whether or not the evidence is visible or invisible to the human eye has absolutely nothing to do with unreasonable search and seizure. (And by the way, the statement that "it is possible for the unaided eye to make a comparison" when discussing fingerprints is a bit misleading. That sort of comparison would be tossed out of court in a heartbeat.)
You're correct when you say that trace evidence can be transferred, without the original donor ever having been where the material turns up. But that's a defense argument, and has nothing to do with the legality of the search and seizure.
The database being described, in the end, IS no different from a fingerprint database. People are arrested and their fingerprints taken daily. Only a percentage of those people are eventually convicted. And those fingerprints go in the same database with the burglars, rapists, and serial killers. The database does not care. And to be honest, neither should anyone else, unless you truly believe that it's impossible for someone arrested for a minor offense to also be guilty of serious crimes.
If you want to restrict the use of DNA, the place to restrict is NOT on what to do after the DNA is collected. Restrict when, where, or how it is collected. THAT is where the possible unreasonable search could occur. Storage of the material that's already collected is not constitutionally out of bounds.
Katherine Albrecht has co-authored the book "Spychips" and has a regular radio program on the GCN Network. Dr. Albrecht received her doctorate from Harvard University and is seen as an expert in the high-tech field, in relation to surveillance and privacy issues. She has expressed dedep concern over the government's gathering of information and is a known opponent of shopping cards, as well. And Dr. Albrecht has talked about the collection of people's DNA as well. She opposes the toll booth strips as well because they can track with you even that as well. Albrecht talks about this stuff all the time. If you want to know more about this issue, I suggest the book "Spychips" or going to her website and looking at some of her fine articles on this very important issue. Thanks.
Good night!
Totally. You can't stop "progress." It's coming everywhere, in every nation. Slowly we'll reach the point where we all have chips embedded. Count on it.
Maybe they'll even be the kind airlines are toying with, where you can be delivered an electric shock from a remote location, if you're "naughty."
This kinda stuff is creeping in in Asia, quickly.
(PS I already have plans to dig mine out with the business end of a potato peeler.)
far left loon >.<
you got nuthin to worry 'bout, right?
This is the most lame statement I hear. It is typical. It has nothing to do with "hiding anything," but one's right to privacy. No, the government has no right looking into people's bedroom when they are having sex. And the government does have that equipment right now.
You are "innocent till proven guilty," so I take great offense to your lame ass argumwnt here.
Ever hear of privacy away from government intrusion?
I think he's joking. woody?
far left loon >.<
I'm going to guess that was unbridled sarcasm. Lighten up.
If you don't have anything to hide, then just turn your life over to the authorities and I'm sure everything will turn out just fine! based on? uh, um...wait I'm sure there's one example!
Damn, my house of cards has collapsed!
I do not commit crimes and I live within my means however if some other entity had all my data and access to everything I ever do and they want to silence me for any reason (not saying they would but you never know) they can root around and root around for anything they can twist into some kind of evidence. and if this is true for all Americans that means it's true for Congress, the Senate...pretty much all of the federal and state gov't employees and elected officials.
But don't worry, says the blind man, I'm sure nobody would abuse this power! What would they have to gain?
I knew a girl who said she had never farted; so pure. I'm sure she has nothing to worry about.
far left loon >.<
is snarking on a wingnut meme having to do with FISA.
Take it away, Woody.
woodguy
... mocking the standard right-wing argument when liberals put up a fuss about the NSA wiretaps.
Now that the might of DHS/NSA/AT&T is focused on their sorry asses, they're suddenly concerned about their privacy and rights.
At least one person has been arrested because of his daughter's DNA from the Bone Marrow Donor Database.
This is why Government Sources want all our Medical Records available on the Internet! It's not just for better Medical treatment anymore; if it EVER was?
Donaldd
Hey I don`t have anything to hide, but I don’t want the government snooping around my house, my phone convos, my internet records, or anything else. Once they have access to those things, I have no privacy, and checks and balances go out the window. They made the constitution the way they did for a reason. As we know very well, we have been wrong many times when it came to claiming someone was guilty. So since our system is flawed, lets first prove someone is a threat before we go after them and open their records. It is a matter of ethics, right and wrong, that’s why we follow the 4th amendment.
LuLu
If scientists can clone animals, expect technology to become available soon enough for well-connected crooks to make and plant cloned DNA evidence.
Any well-connected crook worth his salt, only has to have his thugs sneak into your house and steal your toothbrush and comb.
... and, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, it's perfectly legal for the FBI to go in, rummage through your house - no warrant or notification required.
Ahhh, the change we can believe in is finally here.
Obama got all 6.7 million DNA samples in just a few months?
The guy's amazing, amazing I tell ya.
Got nothin', huh Garytown?
woodguy
but he's working on it. Whats next? DNA to get a drivers lic.? And of course at birth, entering school etc.
getting a job, getting insurance, at your next medical check up, at the dentist, from restaurant untensils, um ...drag you into a back alley.
far left loon >.<
Clearly, discerning the genetic roots of conservatism and liberalism, so we can police thought crime.
Of course if the government ever does use DNA for some secret, illegal surveillance, if they are ever caught, and want to get away with criminal acts, they can just utter these useful words:
"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. . . . But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."
The rich and powerful get access to a different set of rules than the rest of us.
The rich and powerful get access to a different set of rules than the rest of us.
Let's change that. We don't have to put up with traditions that say wealth gets privileges that people don't. We can demand economic democracy! Equality before the law in economics too!
Why should stockholders be treated like business owners when they contribute almost nothing to business? Let the workers, who contribute most to a business, be in charge.
We need to first change this in our minds, and then change it in commerce. We need worker owned and run businesses, including big "corporations" that are run to maximize worker income instead of stockholder income, and to benefit the community instead of the management. We can demand it!
Shrub made sure of that all right.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Can you say Scooter Libby?
Can you say Laura Bush?
Can you say Harkin Oil?
Can you say Prescott Bush?
Can you say Google?
woodguy
all they have to say in Holders words are "Sovereign immunity"
they will use genetic tests to exclude us from health care and who knows what else. They'll give it a happy name too. Like patriot-genes or freedom cells. In order to get your food acquisition cards, you'll have to sign up.
:p
I'd be willing to bet good money, assuming it was still worth something, that this, if allowed to pass, will keep on rolling toward that nefarious end point: the "secure" "cashless society", where no person may buy or sell goods or services in the global marketplace save those who have 'the mark' - ie. the chip that will contain your biometric information.
It is being suggested initially for reasons that appear to be for security and law enforcement reasons. But then people will discover that it just happens to tie in nicely with the monetary reforms that are coming, where the G20 (new world order, as Gordon Brown put it - unfortunate, or accurate choice of words?) are trying to introduce a central currency and eventually regulate and track all transactions globally and transparently.
I have no doubt that our leaders have good intentions for these measures. However, I'm always suspicious of so much power being concentrated into so few hands.
Now, whether it gets to that point will depend mostly on whether people raise enough of a stink to prevent it from happening.
Personally, I'm with you - dig the sucker out with a peeler.
"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you" - Kurt Cobain
:)
Oops..
My comment was meant to be a reply to this one by Edwin:
http://crooksandliars.com/comment/permalink/1...
But certainly not the only one, is to arrange your daily affairs so
such a tracking device is irrelevant to what you do, what you buy, where you travel, etc. There are ways to circumvent such a system if you are willing to change your lifestyle. HORRORS. We might have to rethink how we live our daily lives.
This change of lifestyle, in my view, is desirable even if not forced upon us. Why not anticipate and circumvent it before it envelopes us. It's going to happen anyway; why not deal with on your own terms rather than feel powerless and victimized?
woodguy
We are in the "information age" where we expect everything that can be "fixed" with more information to BE fixed by more information.
We salivate at the prospect of "personalized medicines" for cancers and other diseases that will be custom-prescribed for us -- not at all a bad thing as it can help weed out a lot of meds that, while fine, may not be good for every individual. And we look with great hope at the promise of someday perhaps being able to use genetics to defeat the diseases by gene therapies in addition to medicines.
We laud the ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty by the ability to identify the specific individual with the offending DNA. We are disgusted by judges who won't permit the reopening of adjudicated cases based on DNA evidence that wasn't admitted or available during the trial.
There are myriad ways in which we "hope" -- because much of it comes down to hopes for solutions many or most of us may not live to see or benefit from ourselves -- for genetic science to improve our lives.
And with such scientific wonder comes the downside, and we're looking at it here. Most people don't even think they can understand this stuff, and don't feel comfortable advocating strongly as they don't want to sound like fools. But it's going to take a scientific community that is knowledgeable and empowered to do much of the advocating, and civil libertarians who feel strongly about it and are willing to speak forcefully and intelligently.
Fundamentalist loons, somewhat amusingly (in a black comedy sort of way), don't really like the genetics thing (and even science), as it makes mincemeat of their nonsensical rantings on creation, sexual preference, and, for many, race. Oh, they like the idea that they can use science to beat Terry Schiavo's husband over the head with the "modern medical marvels" that could bring that poor woman back to a real life. (Audible wretching here.) And they don't like DNA if it can be used to convict the town's white football hero, but it's quite okay if it can be used to convict the black guy they think raped the prom queen. Thankfully their influence seems to be waning, at least here, though not everywhere around the world.
But the demand for genetic evidence and "proof" is only going to grow, and it's going to be a huge challenge to keep it in its place. Even where it can be introduced as evidence in court, as we saw in the Simpson trial, its significance can be manipulated, distorted. This is going to be a tough battle, and your average Joe Citizen isn't going to be willing or able to argue very far in any direction and sound convincing. Who's going to do it?
Oh wait. We got change. My mistake.
Been making alot of those lately, huh?
woodguy
The rally where a guy took it upon himself to throw a Molotov cocktail that hit a cop and made you an accomplice to a crime after the fact?
BBC science show did a demo. Stood a woman in the center of a room, surrounded her with conference tables that had blank pieces of paper on it and then had her read a paragraph while rotating 360. Enough DNA on the spit expelled from just talking collected on that paper to run a convincing match for any court.
I'm not following your point.
I understand the last paragragh--i.e. we shed our DNA everywhere, but the opening of your post has me bewildered.
woodguy
... he's trying to express the 'non-crime' implications of the DNA-tracking police state. Attending a 'peace rally' is not a crime, but the BBC study shows that you could, possibly, gather enough DNA from a room to register a fair amount of people.
I thought we already were:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzR5b6HoIA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I don't understand why the anti-government radical right hasn't been all over these sorts of things. Isn't there some way we could encourage the lunatic fringe to start protesting domestic surveillance and genetic databases and all of that? Maybe have some Dem make some cryptic comment which implies that the government is listening in on right-wingers' phone calls or collecting their DNA? Wingnuttery is a resource to be exploited! :)
But it fits in this thread. I recently went to get my DL renewed, when it was time for the picture, the lady asked me to take my glasses off. Afterwards I asked her why the change, because the had always wanted my glasses on. She told me it was for the facial recognition software and it was going into a national database.
Says something about our 'security measures,' right? All it takes to fuck with a facial recognition program is wearing glasses? How's that going to help us outside of any environment where we can't say, "Sir, would you please take off your glasses as you walk through the checkpoint?"
is so they can get a clean shot of your facial characteristics. That way you can't mess it up by just taking them off, from what I've heard they can get a pretty good lock if you wearing glasses if they have a shot of you without.
Comments are closed on this entry