Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Privacy

Military DNA Registry Used in Criminal Case 418

Posted by michael from the blood-will-tell dept.
bubblegoose writes "The Reading Eagle has a story about a man sought in a Reading, PA. murder who was arrested Thursday in Puerto Rico. This is the first time anyone has been apprehended in a criminal case based on DNA collected by the military. Apparently the DNA registry has a stringent set of rules that must be met for a blood sample to be released and those were satisfied." The DNA registry catalogs DNA samples from all US armed forces, ostensibly for identifying remains (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Military DNA Registry Used in Criminal Case More

Military DNA Registry Used in Criminal Case

Comments Filter:

  • picking up the pieces (Score:3, Funny)

    by punkrider ( 176796 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:28PM (#6471604) Homepage
    In the event your buddy gets blown to bits in front of you, forget the dog tags and grab his toe.

    let's role!

  • Shocking abuse of rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lewiz ( 33370 ) <purple@le w i z .net> on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:29PM (#6471608) Homepage
    I get the impression that people will be entirely up in arms about this. I am all for protecting personal rights but, it is really hard to condemn a case like this, where a man has been brought to justice as a result.
    Of course, there is always the issue of information (in this case DNA) being misabused: for many people this is why this is worrying. I'm sure it might be possible to implicate someone based on the data, but it would surely be very hard?

    However, overall I am for these technologies. They enforce a justice system and have little negative effect (that I am aware of -- if anybody can provide examples, I would be very interested to hear, and possibly change my argument).

    What does look worrying is the suggestion that the Military should destroy the data once the serviceperson has been discharged. If it is not being done (assuming, of course, the serviceperson were told it would be) this is simply wrong.

    Sorry for a rather convoluted argument.

    • Re:Shocking abuse of rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silas@@@dsminc-corp...com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:40PM (#6471729) Homepage
      I dont think it's a question of a man being braught to justice as a result of the DNA sample it's about collecting databases of these things. Fingerprints take time to gather and proccess I'm not persoanly a big fan of them in there current form people that are arrested and fingerprinted and go into the system. They have not nessicarily commited a crime just been accused of one. Even if they are release with a sorry it was a mistake sorry to inconvience you they now have a record in the system. If at a later date they happen to commit a crime or have just been a random person at a crime scene they will get pulled in and questioned as a suspect. Thorw this into a system were people confess to things just to stop the harrassment of poliece officers during questioning. And it become the frighning reality that we have now it dossent affect surburbia much so it's allowed.

      Now comes DNA if it becomes easy to process and there are large databases avalible just begging for a court order to get at them say from every paternity test to genetic screening sfor illness that may start becomming more commonplace to simple collecting it from a trash bag on the curb. From this you can extrapalate a different society that crime may be down but if your DNA happens to be found your automaticaly suspect and DNA is not something you can avoid leaving around in public like fingerprints.
      • Now comes DNA if it becomes easy to process and there are large databases avalible

        I think there is a vast misunderstaning of how difficult it is to process DNA evidince (especially compared to fingerprints) and what these so-called "databases" are.

        Starting with the database. Its a collection of blood samples (two drops of blood on a card). Just to process one sample to where it could be compared with another takes several days in a lab. Also, in order for these tests to have the necessary level of validi

    • Re:Shocking abuse of rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:41PM (#6471741)
      it is really hard to condemn a case like this, where a man has been brought to justice as a result

      The ends should never be used to justify the means in a question of law. This would make it acceptable to do random searches for no reason, imprison people based on shaky information, bomb countries based on falsified evidence, etc.

      Wait, what country was this in again? Oh, never mind.

      • Re:Shocking abuse of rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Swanktastic ( 109747 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:11PM (#6472038)
        The ends should never be used to justify the means in a question of law.

        Never say never... Of course the ends justify the means sometimes... The Law isn't some magical code of conduct that was handed to us by super-intelligent aliens. It's a system of rules made by mankind to govern mankind. The people who wrote those rules did their best to put in a place a sytem that kept us behaving without making it so burdensome as to piss us off on the enforcement side of the equation... We have a history of changing our enforcement of the law when the situation dictates it. IE suspending writ of habeus corpus during the Civil War. Why? Not because the law must always be rigid, but because sometimes it makes sense to have stricter rules when the very system we hold dear is in jeopardy.

        Every single person on this board would be clamoring for this kind of DNA enforcement if someone close to them was the victim of a severe crime and the evidence was available. Don't get all high and mighty because someday 20 years from now, people will have the theoretical ability to adjust your insurance premiums through DNA testing. Let your kids fight that battle.

      • Except if he was in the military [before vietnam] he must have **voluntarily** given his DNA to the military.

        In which case how is this an abuse of his rights to privacy?

        I don't think the grand-parent poster was suggesting its a good idea to randomly poke people and steal a sample of their dna. But if you willingly give it out [e.g. use a public restaurant or give it as part of a job] why not use it if you can provably connect the dots?

        We've been collecting fingerprints for eons now and you still cannot

      • how is this different from a finger print. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:20PM (#6472144)


        I see no difference between this and your fingerprint. It's your personal identity based on your unique physiological characteristics. When I received a passport/drivers license it went on record. Also to my knowledge when has the military ever respected service men/women?s rights. My friend has been out of the navy for over a year and they still have the right to recall his ass.

        • Re:how is this different from a finger print. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @02:19PM (#6472668) Journal
          I see no difference between this and your fingerprint.

          Its difficult for me to plant your fingerprint. I would have to somehow convince you to touch either a soft moulding material, or collect a fingerprint which I could then somehow etch into a moulding material. (There was a CSI episode about this...)

          Its trivial for me to plant your DNA. I could just go anywhere you've been and pick up saliva from dinnerware or cigarette butts, or if you have readily visible hair, lost strands of hair. Granted, this wouldn't be much material, but I could gather more in a casual meeting. I could be walking down the street with an armload of wood or something and just accidentially bump into you and manage to draw blood. Sure, you would quickly remember that I cut you, but it wouldn't help you before the cops came to arrest you.

          In the end, I feel that can trust DNA when its being used as a "final nail in the coffin" type of evidence in a case. When its the only evidence though, thats when I start to wonder.
      • The ends should never be used to justify the means in a question of law.

        The ends do justify the means, once you recognise that those means have become part of the ends you get.

      • The ends should never be used to justify the means in a question of law. This would make it acceptable to do random searches for no reason, imprison people based on shaky information, bomb countries based on falsified evidence, etc.

        While I agree that DNA databases are ripe for abuse, this example does not seem particularly abusive. From the article, it sounds like they had probably cause to suspect this individual in this crime, and the DNA match only confirmed their suspicions. That's very different fr

    • Re:Shocking abuse of rights? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      For you fucking ex-jugheads out there. Here's the info:

      http://www.afip.org/Departments/oafme/dna/afrss i r/ faq.html

      afrssir => ARMED FORCES REPOSITORY
      of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains

      From the FAQ

      When I separate from the service, can I have my specimen returned to me or destroyed?
      DoD Directive 5154.24, dated 28 Oct 96, specifically states that a donor may request destruction of their specimen upon conclusion of their complete military service obligation. Complete military service is

    • misabused (Score:3, Funny)

      by delphi125 ( 544730 )
      Your use of the word 'misabused' is the most misabused abusive misuse I've ever seen here on /.
    • it is really hard to condemn a case like this, where a man has been brought to justice as a result.

      Unfortunately law enforcement agencies are under increasing pressure to close cases, rather than prevent future crimes and enforce justice by bringing criminals to court.

      This is why we have seen massive abuse of illegal wiretaps, to the point that there were likely as many illegal wiretaps in the USA as legal ones in some years.

      Have you not seen the abuse and tampering of evidence to help "prove" cases whe

  • Never (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:30PM (#6471617)
    I would never, ever give a sample for a DNA analysis to anyone but a doctor. And even then, with specific knowledge about the rules and where it was going and for how long. Even then, I make sure that an insurance company never knows anything about it. Never give your SSN to a doctor or insurance company.

    I have and never will submit to drug/alcohol screening for a job or insurance.

    Yes, we got a "good" result in this particular case. But the end does not justify the means.

    • Re:Never (Score:4, Insightful)

      by luugi ( 150586 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:31PM (#6471632)

      I have and never will submit to drug/alcohol screening for a job or insurance.
      I'm guessing you have a job already.
      • No, he's still living at his parent's house. But hey, when you're 16....

        • Re:Never (Score:3, Interesting)

          by moehoward ( 668736 )
          No. I'm self employed. But thanks for asking. I have had my many years of experience in the corporate and small business world.

          But, I have turned down 2 jobs that required the screening. It's not like I think about it. In the first situation, we went through the whole thing, I accepted the job, got a start date, and then they threw the blood test at me. The donation of bodily fluids for a job just seemed pretty important to me. To them, it was beyond routine. This is the mindset that disturbs me the most.
          • Yeah, I was just kidding. Luckily I haven't been asked for a screening. I'm sure I'd say no though.

            I've been pulled over by cops and have been asked if they can look through the car for drugs. Even though I never have drugs, I say no. Which means they call for back-up and search anyway with drug sniffing dogs. By saying "no" that means they have probable cause, they think. At least in Louisiana and Illinois. Sure, "no" doesn't mean probable cause, but try telling that to cops.

            Oh yeah, in Louisiana,
    • Tin Foil hat a little too tight sonny?

    • Re:Never (Score:5, Interesting)

      by banana fiend ( 611664 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:34PM (#6471670)
      You may not have the choice. What if you wanted to join the army? What if you needed it to get a job (in the scary world that many predict).

      What indeed, if you needed to submit to DNA testing to get a government ID card so that you could get basic services?

      I have no idea if we're going that way - but that case is completely different to the case under discussion... they did not use the DNA except as a fingerprint substitute

    • I'd like to know how you get away with not giving your SSN to a doctor's office or your insurance company.

      • You just don't. Period. I never have had to, even when pressed.

        Doctors, hospitals, big insurance companies, big teaching hospitals. I've dealt with them all. I'm self employed, so I get my own insurance (which is a real bitch, mind you). I've never had a problem with the SSN thing. All you have to do is ask.

    • Re:Never (Score:3, Offtopic)

      by cK-Gunslinger ( 443452 )
      How can you get away with this? My insurance member number *is* my SSN. Both medical and car insurance. Do you pay for everything in cash? I'd much rather *cave in* and simply pay my $15 copay, letting my company's insurance provider pick up the rest than pay full price everytime I needed medical assistance - just for the benefit of "keeping your SSN secure (*chuckle*)"

    • Re:Never (Score:5, Funny)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:43PM (#6471760) Journal

      I would never, ever give a sample for a DNA analysis to anyone but a doctor.

      You mean willingly and consciously never give a sample. All it would take is for some unscrupulous insurance company to hire a Pamela Anderson lookalike to come over to your house (or mother's basement) and in fifteen minutes (or maybe two minutes, if you're like most of us) they'd have a healthy sized sample for their database.

      Face it man: they 0wn you!

      GMD

    • Um, I don't see how you can get any medical treatment without giving your SSN...

      About DNA, I have no problem with the government keeping DNA records of everyone, as long as ONLY the government is allowed to have it, and it is ONLY used either in criminal cases, like this one, or to identify remains. As I see it, this is no different from keeping fingerprints or photographs on file, which they have done for a long time. It's only a means of identification; they can't listen in on your conversations or (ea

    • Re:Never (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lemmeoutada Collecti ( 588075 ) <obereonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:44PM (#6471763) Homepage Journal
      Those of us who chose (note the choice is willing and uncoerced) were made fully aware that we were being DNA catalogued, that the DNA could be used not only to identify our remains, but also for prosecution under the UCMJ, and for identifying potential genetic diseases. We were also made fully aware that once we undertook the oath of service, our collective buttocks belonged to Uncle Sam.

      I do not see any invasion of privacy here. I see a choice made by someone that perhaps failed to think through the consequences of his actions. Based on the tight security rules involved in acquiring that DNA information, they had to have sufficient evidence and reasonable suspicion, as well as several levels of security clearance. It's not like Joe Doughnut can just walk up and say 'I have a case here, lemme get some DNA'

      I could see this as a problem under other circumstances, but not when someone made a choice.

    • > I would never, ever give a sample for a DNA analysis to anyone but a doctor.

      What if DNA submission becomes required by law? What if it was harvested without your knowing (like cases where investigators can't get a search warrant due to a lack of evidence but offer you a cigarrette during your interrogation - they're not being generous). What if insurance companies start to require a sample or profile just as they require your medical history now? It's the possibilities I fear (GATTACA), not brin

  • DNA used for more than identifying remains (Score:5, Funny)

    by arcanumas ( 646807 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:30PM (#6471618) Homepage
    Ofcourse it's not the only reason. Didn't you learn anything from X-Files?

  • Fingerprints anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by banana fiend ( 611664 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:30PM (#6471619)
    This doesn't seem too bad.

    DNA was used in this case to catalogue, not used to identify traits about the person (ostensibly, let's not go all X-files on it) - and only released when there was a criminal investigation.

    As a matter of fact, this all sounds rather grown-up and useful, some static information which is never used until you're accused of a crime, and then only to match you up. I only get worried when it's used to identify your genetic makeup for making decisions on how you live your life (commercial and government).

    This is just like using DNA instead of fingerprints

    • A fingerprint can only be used to determine identity. Aside from that purpose, there is limited danger in maintaining a registry of fingerprints from military or civilian use.

      DNA is a completely different story.

      DNA can be used to determine almost anything about a person. Race, sex, hair and eye color, genetic medical conditions, etc... Because of this, we have to be very careful about what we allow these databases to be used for. If you think racial profiling is bad, think about the ramifications of genet

  • No big deal... (Score:5, Informative)

    by PSaltyDS ( 467134 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:31PM (#6471633) Journal
    I don't see this as a big deal. I spent 20 years in the US Navy, and would assume my fingerprints and photo were available forever to anyone with the right access. The DNA does not seem like an escalation. I wouldn't want any of it to be public or EASY to get to mind you...

    No pain, no gain: So if I keep automating with NT shell scripts, I should be a bizzlionare in no time!

  • Everyone should have their DNA on file. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:32PM (#6471637)
    I got fingerprinted when I joined the Canadian Militia and it's put a total crimp on my potential career as a felon.

    If everyone's DNA was on file it would be hell on crime. The technology is coming where they just run a vacuum all around a crime scene and the computer will match up everyone who shed a skin flake there.

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Obiwan Kenobi ( 32807 ) * <evan@misterFORTR ... m minus language> on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:32PM (#6471645) Homepage
    (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract)

    Of course not! Hundreds of years into the future, after they figure out how to create humans from simple DNA strands, they can resurrect the greatest generals who ever lived to fight the War for the Futur...

    ...er.

    I'm such a dork.

  • DNA sampling and profiling will be the single most important weapon against physical criminals (as compared to the slimy cyber sort). Scream all you like, but a national registry is inevitable: the promise will be that if you're innocent you have nothing to fear and if you're guilty, you can't escape.
    Step 1: DNA matching to try to find perpetrators of murders, rapes, etc.
    Step 2: DNA profiling to try to identify characteristics of perpetrator: gender, height, hair color...
    Step 3: full-blown facial reconstruction from DNA samples. Expect this around the same time as it becomes possible to _fake_ DNA samples, and smart criminals leave mickey-mouse DNA lying around. Lucky for the honest people, most criminals are stupid.
    Step 4: replacement of 'standard' tools such as fingerprinting and eye-witness identification (which is really, really unreliable).
    This seems inevitable. Joe Public has two options: accept it and try to live with it, or fight it and watch it happen anyhow.

    • Re:This is the future of law enforcement (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:46PM (#6471786) Homepage Journal
      not only that, but DNA has also exonerated many over the years. this week I saw something on Discovery Channel where a guy was locked up for 16 years for raping and nearly killing his wife. (the crime happened in the late 70's, long before DNA testing) He got jailed on his wife's testimony that he was the one who attacked him.

      He got offered parole many times, but refused their requirement of confessing the crime. (That's another major problem for another discussion - a real crook can confess and get paroled while an innocent who remains adamant stays locked up)

      He eventually found a lawyer who got the DNA tested, and the match was indeed negative. The state ran the DNA through their DB of previously convicted sex offenders, and found their man. He was already serving time for a whole series of rapes/murders in the same jail.

      The wife got confused because the room was dark when it happened, and the two men bore similar appearances under that kind of lighting.

      • Re:This is the future of law enforcement (Score:4, Funny)

        by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:59PM (#6471920)
        The wife got confused because the room was dark when it happened, and the two men bore similar appearances under that kind of lighting.

        Note to self: When choosing a wife, make sure she is not easily confused in strange lighting conditions so that she could misidentify me as a rapist/murderer and send me to prison for long periods of time.
    • One thing they always seem to omit is that DNA testing is not 100% reliable. Not counting the possibility of errors in the testing lab, or decay or contamination of the sample, the results still narrow things down to one in x-million people (the value of x currently escapes me) under ideal conditions. While this may be sufficient for a paternity test, I'm not sure it's equally effective as stand-alone evidence for any arbitrary crime.
      • identical twins have identical DNA. But they're rare and if something were to happen, one may be able to come up with an alibi, or convince the other into confessing. Plus there may be other evidence at the scene linking one and not the other.

        DNA tests, however, require multiple tests to validate accuracy and prevent errors. Contamination or decay of the sample may actually cause the DNA test to not be valid to begin with, or make it obvious to the technician that any test would be inconclusive.
    • But for the sake of argument, lets say I get someone ELSE's DNA to leave at the crime scene...

      How you ask? many different ways, I could grab a cigarrete butt from a public ashtray, collect hair from a public toilet (yuck!) or barber shop, etc....

      Now, I simply have to plant that "evidence" and guess what: if you are in the database and I am not you are fubar....

      Of course they may think you had an accomplis (if they find my DNA) but they will not find me, and wont give you a plea deal because to their mind
    • From the movie "Lost In Space" there was a scene where the spider-like creatures body part/DNA was analyzed by the computer where the computer reconstructed the spider-like creater in a hologram where virtual tests could be run, including how it lives in the vaccum of space and how it metabolizes food, neuroprocesses, etc... While I believe that someday humans may possess this computational power, we are a very long way from that. Also, in the distant future, I think that people will be given the option o
      • Also, in the distant future, I think that people will be given the option of preserving their DNA so they can live again.. [snip] Kinda nice if that person turns out to be someone who makes significant changes in the quality of human life, world preservation, etc

        Are you making the argument that everything a person does, says, believes in, etc are stored in their DNA? You think we could just clone Einstein, keep him in a lab for 20 years, then we'd have a physics genius who likes to ride bikes all over

  • Didn't you see 6th Day? (Score:4, Funny)

    by greymond ( 539980 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:35PM (#6471679) Homepage Journal
    The blood samples are taken so they can CLONE them - they are secretly replacing our American Soldiers with Clones that will one day rule the world!!!!!

  • Bond. James Bond. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by janda ( 572221 ) <janda@kali-tai.net> on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:39PM (#6471714) Homepage

    Somebody wrote:

    (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)

    Not particularly. If I learned how to fly planes, and a body that looks like mine suddenly shows up in North Korea, it might be nice to have a positive identification.

    Likewise, if I learned how to blow up buildings, assassinate people, build nukes, or a whole host of other things (including how to use a fully-automatic weapon), it might be nice to get a positive ID before you start throwing people in jail.

  • Well, they can.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Misch ( 158807 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:43PM (#6471756) Homepage
    although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.

    If michael had bothered to read the second link [pentagon.gov], he would have seen this:

    Once you complete your full service obligation, you also can request destruction of your DNA record.

    Complete with where you can get the form and instructions. If he's in the military, then he's farked. If he was out of th emilitary though, it's his own damn problem.
  • If you've been active duty and served out a stint in active duty you might be called up for duty in case of a national emergency, war, mobilization or if your MOS is needed for up to 10 years. It's called the inactive reserves.

    So even if the service is going to delete the records after a person serves it might be a while till they really aren't part of the system.

  • DNA Misuse (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:49PM (#6471816) Homepage Journal
    While many will say 'good, it caught a criminal', what happens when DNA is used to determine 'potential criminal' and they come collect you, just in case.

    Don't laugh, research is being done into this ( even mentioned on here a few times ).

    Now tat you can be arrested for 'potential intent of activity', not much of a stretch to use DNA... Or other such nonsense.

    Soon every baby born will be required to give a sample. ' for their safety of course'.

    Couple that with 24/7 monitoring of the populace.... Lets hear it for lack of privacy. It was nice while it lasted. IM sure our founding fathers are rolling in their graves about now, with what we have allowed to happen to what they created.

  • How is this different from fingerprinting? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anomalous Cowbird ( 539168 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:52PM (#6471838)
    If this story had been the same, except for the substitution of "fingerprints" for "DNA", no one would be giving it a second thought.

    What's the difference?

  • Why I _DO_ have a problem with this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:55PM (#6471878) Journal
    According to the DoD themselves, "This is a very simple program, solely for the identification of remains."

    They modify this somewhat, with this statement: "People also wonder whether the samples can be used in criminal cases. "The only way that they'd be released is if we had a court order," he said."

    Well in a murder case, a court order to confirm evidence isn't that hard to get, as this trial showed. In other words, the DoD is entirely incorrect about the possible uses for this database.

    Furthermore, this means that any US military personel are being held to a more rigorous evidence screening process than the rest of the population, due to their DNA files. Doesn't this violate the spirit (if not the letter) of everyone being 'equal in the eyes of the law?' Sadly, this leads to the "solution" of making a DNA repository mandatory for the entire population. In other words, being forced to give evidence in advance of any potential wrongdoings. This comes close to not having to incriminate yourself, in my mind.

    Of course, what http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/18/uk_guantanamo 030718can one expect from a government that's holding nearly 700 people against their will, US law, the laws of the captives' nations, and international law (the Geneva convention)? Did you know that they're building an execution chamber in Guatanamo bay?

    But I digress. We've had fingerprints for a century or so as legally admissable evidence, and there's no mandatory registry for them. Why then does ANY nation need a registry of DNA samples?
    • Oh Christ give me a break already.

      Are you trying to say that someone who DID THE CRIME (really, he did it) and got caught because the investigation led them to beleive he did it, so they asked for samples since he was in the military, and it turned out the samples proved that he did it; is somehow bad? That's just good police work.

      It's not like they are systematically searching a complete and encompasing database of pre-analysed samples for every Tom, Dick and Joe Six pack that gets stopped for speeding
  • ... although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.

    Even people who have left the military are entitled to a military burial in some cases, or their surviving spouse may be eligible to receive a widow's pension. That could be a reason to keep the DNA samples of ex-servicepeople.

  • I don't see how this is a bad thing...if.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xesdeeni ( 308293 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:03PM (#6471961)
    Using this method, the individual is tracked down in a way similar to finger-print comparisons or even witness/mugshot comparisons. The only difference is how much more information is in a DNA sample than in a picture or fingerprint. But I think if the suspect's sample can be analyzed into a unique code that can be sent to the DoD, which they then compare to their database, then there is no privacy breach for the remainder of the database. Sure, there would be some verification after a match, but I don't see how this would be objectionable.

    Xesdeeni

  • Info never destroyed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mariox19 ( 632969 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:05PM (#6471974)

    Don't expect the government to destroy any information once collected. There is a registry in the US for people purchasing long guns (shotguns and rifles). It's used to perform a background check, and names on it are only supposed to be kept -- by law -- for a limited time (I believe 6 months). However, names are never taken off the list.

    Political conditions change: that's why the wise worry about government lists. It's all warm and fuzzy when we talk about catching crooks, and most people in the US would find the notion of not trusting their goverment a crack-pot idea. What they never dream of happening is political conditions changing drastically within the space of a couple of years because of some "crisis."

    When that happens, it suddenly becomes a very big deal what kind of information the government has been trusted with -- and by then it's too late.

    It's sort of like trusting your neighbor with your house key while you go away on business for six months; only, while away, the neighbor dies and his heroin addict son gets a hold of the key (the black sheep of the family whom they never talk about). What do you think happens then?

    Go ahead, trust the government without reservation! But, Washington, Jefferson, et al, understood why such trust is foolish.

  • Hey, look, NOT a conspiracy theorist... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MmmmAqua ( 613624 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:12PM (#6472056)
    As someone who has his DNA tucked away in the big freezer, I just want to say that I find this comforting. I'll explain, and my explanation can be summed up in two words: unknown soldier.

    I'm in a dangerous occupation (19D, Cavalry Scout), in a dirty, dangerous branch (Army) of the military, and I'll be getting a desert vacation for six to twelve months to go police some big chunk of sand in the middle east next year. I'm sure all the airmen, sailors, radio repairmen, hospital techs, and janitors in the service will be up in arms about the government keeping their precious DNA on file, but as one of the low-brows who stands a bigger chance of not coming home than they do - I'm perfectly happy to let Uncle Sam keep two drops of my blood in a freezer.

    How easy do you think it will be to identify my remains without a DNA sample if I'm in a convoy that gets ambushed and I get hit by an RPG in the face, and the TOWs in the back of my HMMWV blow up? Not very easy - especially if they don't find the remains for a few years. But, oh, no, it's absolutely evil for the DoD to keep some material on file that would help identify me in that case.

    Jesus, grow up, people. Not everyone whose service contract has ended is around to ask for their sample to be destroyed.

  • My Thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:18PM (#6472129)
    for what they're worth:

    This actually comes at a good time for me. I'm finishing up James Watson's book "DNA" which gives some length discussion to the idea of genetic fingerprinting, including it's moral and legal implications. You should pick it up if you're interested.

    That aside, I think I agree with Watson's view that the benefits of DNA fingerprinting, for the most part, in both convicting the bad guy and freeing the innocent guy wrongly accused, greatly outnumbers the possibilities for abuse. And I'm normally someone that values civil rights and privacy pretty highly.

    To make sure privacy and the DNA databases run parallel, there should be some rules. For example, most DNA identification that goes on comparing DNA at the crime site with the DNA in the database or from the suspect himself relies on comparing the "junk DNA" that has come to be from mutuations, which can, for the most part, narrow it down to an individual, or at least to a probability that it's him that would leave the exception negligible. Since we're concentrating on portions of DNA that really serve no purpose (that we can tell, at least), there shouldn't be any reason for a database to keep track of parts of my DNA that actually serve a function and may give details of my life like if I'm prone to getting a disease, if I'm lactose intolerant, etc. Involuntary collections should not include such information. Voluntary collections should give you the choice (the benefit being that if you're unconcious, your DNA database can tell a doctor what he or she should watch out for).

    Furthermore, the use of DNA evidence should be restricted to certain kinds of crimes. Obviously, murder and rape should be good candidates for the technique to be used. However, crimes that, for example, have recently been defined (or redefined) by legislation, should be excluded. Like the fact that the Patriot Act, as it's written, can include something as harmless as protest under the category of "terrorism". Obviously, you should avoid collecting DNA databses here.

    There have also been talks of keeping DNA evidence on people who have been detained but not charged, or who have been charged, but proven not guilty. This is ridiculous. If you're not a criminal, or you're not in the army, the only person who should be getting your DNA is your doctor. That's it.
  • The DNA registry catalogs DNA samples from all US armed forces, ostensibly for identifying remains (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)

    That's because USMC doesn't stand for "United States Marine Corps", it stands for "U Signed the motherfscking contract". Once you sign in, it's like the roach motel - you don't sign out until you're dead. They pretty much own you for the rest of your life. By extension, all br

  • Simple statistics tells us:

    if the test has a false positive rate of 1 in a Million, then, depending on the size of your country, there could be between 30 - 250 ish people who would test false positive.

    Let's assume you're innocent.

    Out of those, say, 30 people, another 28 are going to be innocent like yourself. Therefore the probability that you're innocent is 29/30 - a very high probablity. The probability that you're guilty is 1/30, very low.

    So for innocent people, the 1 in a million false positive DNA
    • Well, you're forgetting the fact that it's a country. Which means you've got location to deal with. Those other 29 people are going to be spread out over the country. If the crime was committed in Alaska, and the other 29 are throughout East Coast, you can bet you're not innocent.

      Furthermore, while it's easy to use DNA to acquit, using it for conviction is harder to do. You can't use a statistic like 1 in 30 million. The prosecutor has to prove that the chances it could be someone else are neglibile, somet
  • The article, and the discussion which follows fails to address the most important question: what are the "standards for release"?

    The are listed as strigent, but no details are given. "No shoes, no shirt, no DNA" might be strigent in someplaces, but not others. What where the conditions they met?
  • Dog implicated by DNA in chicken coop raid spared death penalty
    By The Associated Press

    (7/17/03 - WEST TISBURY, MA) -- A dog linked by DNA to a chicken coop raid has been spared the death penalty.

    Officials in West Tisbury, Massachusetts, instead slapped a permanent restraining order on Sabrina, and ordered the dog's owner to pay $375 in damages to the owner of the dead chickens.

    But Sabrina's owner says she's been told the dog won't be so lucky next time, if it's caught in a neighbor's chicken coo

  • Khhhaaaannnnnn!!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by docbrown42 ( 535974 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @01:57PM (#6472463) Homepage
    The DNA registry catalogs DNA samples from all US armed forces, ostensibly for identifying remains (although if that were the only reason, the samples would be automatically destroyed at the end of the servicemember's contract.)

    But, if they destroy the samples, they wont be able to combine the samples and create Khan in the future. (Wasn't he supposed to have DNA combined from earth's greatest leaders?) That's no fun at all!

    Then again, maybe I'm thinking of that Cobra-la guy from Gi-Joe, Sepentor. [x-entertainment.com]

  • So very close (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ian Peon ( 232360 ) <ian&epperson,com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @02:19PM (#6472666)
    Med Tech: Yeah, I need to swab your mouth for this new DNA thing they're doing on everyone in the Navy.

    Me: ummm... yeah... not too sure about that. Hey, I've only got 3 months left on my enlistment. What's gonna happen if we just "forget" and I miss this appointment.

    Med Tech: Well, they'll be reviewing everyone's records in January - in about 4 months...

    Me: OK, thanks. Bye!

  • Mil DNA Regs (Score:4, Informative)

    by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @02:42PM (#6472864)


    * The purpose of the armed forces DNA sampling program is to replace the dental forensic identification program or the DSO/Panograph, which was unreliable. The program involves collecting a blood sample from each member along with a fingerprint.

    * The blood sample is frozen and stored in a repository in Maryland for 50 years. A DNA test is not conducted unless needed for identifying remains..

    * Testing is very expensive and, since it is not done unless needed for identifying remains, there is no data base of DNA samples maintained. Because there is no sample data base, and contrary to what some members thought, a criminal investigation could not test crime scene blood samples for DNA and then use the blood samples stored in the repository to find a match. For the same reason, insurance companies would find no value in trying to access information and stored blood samples are NOT available to them.

    * The frozen blood sample is only retrieved and DNA type matching done in the event that positive postmortem identification is not possible through alternative means. The sample may only be used for 2 other purposes:

    (1) The express use, for some reason, directed by the sample donor or surviving next-of-kin.

    (2) The use in a criminal felony case with a minimum potential sentence of at least one year. (This leaves out such civil actions as paternity suits). It must be ordered by a federal judge, approved by the Asst. Secretary Defense (Health Affairs) and General Counsel of DOD, and there must be no other available means of sampling the suspect.

    * Members may have their blood sample destroyed upon their discharge from the armed forces.

    * Members that refuse to provide the DNA blood sample will be held accountable under the UCMJ for disobeying a direct order. Although one member of another armed service was granted a waiver on religious grounds (it was not a mainstream religion and specifically prohibited donating anything from the human body), all others have been separated from their respective service.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close