Convicted Hacker Adrian Lamo Refuses to Give Blood 673
CaliforniaCCW writes "Hopefully everyone here remembers the case of Adrian Lamo, a so-called 'gray hat' hacker who plead guilty to one count of computer crimes against Microsoft, Nexis-Lexis and the New York Times in 2004. He got a felony conviction, six months detention in his parents' home, and two years of probation. Today, as a condition of his probation, he must provide a sample of his DNA in the form of a blood sample, something which he has refused to do. Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:2, Informative)
Something everyone should provide to government?! (Score:5, Informative)
Here are two particular movies the submitter urgently ought to get for the weekend:
Hopefully he'll be able to do so while neither a blood sample nor a fingerprint are considered "something that everyone should provide at video rental" just yet.
Re:Retention policy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek (Score:5, Informative)
That is how California does DNA collection. Not only is it just as effective, it doesn't require someone with special training in needle handling.
As a side note, California voters passed DNA collection into law 62-38 with Prop 69 in 2004. It specified that DNA be collected from any adult or juvenile convicted of a felony offense; any adult or juvenile convicted of any sex or arson offense, felony or not; and any adult arrested for any murder, voluntary manslaughter, or felony sex offense, or attempt to commit any of those. Those on parole or probation, or who are arrested for any offense and have a prior criminal history, are required to provide samples as well, if they have past offenses that are on that list. In 2009, this expands to any adult arrested for or charged with any felony offense at all. The costs are offset by a 10% addition to criminal fines imposed by the courts. Any person who has been released without being arraigned within the lawfully allowed time, or who has been found factually innocent or not guilty, or who has had their case dismissed, may make a written request to have the samples destroyed and the database expunged of searchable DNA information.
As of the end of last year, 631,913 DNA profiles have been collected, 368,307 of which have been analyzed and uploaded into the database. More than 2000 investigations have been assisted by this, including many cold cases that have been solved through DNA matching. I have read numerous stories about rapes being tied to existing prisoners, and several murderers have been caught based on the evidence. Several times it has been after their release from prison on other, lesser charges, because there's a backlog in the DNA work that is expected to be largely caught up sometime in the next few years.
Re:Retention policy? (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly I'm not joking.
Re:If CSI has taught me anything... (Score:4, Informative)
There's a lot more in blood than just red blood cells though. The white blood cells have DNA for example, so you can get DNA from blood very easily.
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:5, Informative)
Puting that aside for the moment, I am very much against the manditory collection of DNA except in the event you are the suspect of a crime and DNA would prove your innocence/guilt. Pre-emptive DNA harvesting for the purpose of establishing a database should not be legal.
"DNA dragnet" on the cape, cops watched declinees (Score:5, Informative)
A woman was raped and killed in a small town on Cape Cod. So what did the police do? Set up DNA collection stations around town and asked men to submit DNA samples. [google.com] "Well, nobody said 'if you don't submit a sample you must be guilty'"m you say? WRONG.
"A few people have declined to give samples, according to news reports. Police said investigators will closely watch individuals who fail to "volunteer" their genetic code."
"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us taking your DNA."
"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your car."
"Well, if you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your house."
Doesn't work that way. NEVER has, NEVER will. If I'm innocent I don't HAVE to give you my DNA, or let you search anything- I'm INNOCENT. If the police or prosecutors of a crime wish to collect evidence from you or your personal property, they need search warrants- and they don't just hand those out for shits and giggles over at the local court. What is frightening is that 5-10% of the population of Truro apparently felt it was OK for the police to just ask for their DNA- and gave it!
Re:DNA versus Fingerprints (Score:5, Informative)
This is not true. The DMV asks for it, it's on government medical forms, etc. It is used today as a way to uniquely identify each American completely outside the context of social security.
They said that there were weapons of mass destruction.
It was not the government who said that, but croporate oligarchs who wanted to get Iraki oil.
This is also obviously false. Colin Powell was acting on behalf of the government when he gave a speech to the UN detailing the reasons we know Iraq to have WMDs, and implying there was much more evidence that was too secret to share (which has also, now, been found to be a lie.)
And it is the courts who said that, not the government.
Courts are part of the government. The US government is comprised of three separate (ha!) but equal (ha!) branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, at least, Constitutionally-recognized rights aren't all lost upon a felony conviction, though you're limited in some of them. That's why it's illegal to experiment on prisoners, or torture or kill them.
Nor do you give up the rights administered by states. You can still vote, in most states. See the list at http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp [righttovote.org]
In the UK we've gone way beyond this. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the really neat bit. Since January this year every criminal offence is arrestable. This is includes littering and speeding...
So there is at least one area in which the UK with it's New Labour government leads the US with it's rabid Reuplican one: destroying it's citizen;s civil liberties.
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:3, Informative)
Organic extraction of aged human nail material yielded a sufficient quantity of DNA for successful mtDNA sequencing; however, STR analysis was unsuccessful.
Translation: we could find traces of DNA, but not enough to identify the person. To use something for identification in a criminal case requires that it be very reliable and very unique. In a test group of 15 they could not identify the owner in all cases. How are you going to pull that off when you are searching a 10,000 person database?
DNA is most reliably harvested from living cells. (try your google on that) There are no living cells in fingernails or hair strands. Only hair follicles and maybe some toejam.
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:3, Informative)
The only members of our goverment who are immune from arrest are members of Congress on the way to Congress. This is not blanket immunity though, this is really there to prevent people of a certain political persuasion from stopping those members of Congress with the opposite persuasion on their way to an important vote. It has rarely been used for anything other than to get out of traffic tickets though, and that is the modern interpretation of what it is designed to prevent. It doesn't mean that a Senator can kill three people and then get off without charges because he is always "on his way to vote."
All of the special powers our administration has other than this one are in practical use, not technical powers. It is cumbersome to arrest a sitting president, to say the least. Technically, a DC beat cop could legally arrest the president, but it would never happen. Hell, even just ordinary powerful people are given the opportunity to turn themselves in most situations.
Re:All large organizations attempt to control us (Score:4, Informative)
For example Shell in Nigeria:
"Oil Spills
Although Shell drills oil in 28 countries, 40% of its oil spills worldwide have occurred in the Niger Delta10. In the Niger Delta, there were 2,976 oil spills between 1976 and 199111. In the 1970s spillage totaled more that four times that of the 1989 Exxon Valdez tragedy12. Ogoniland has had severe problems stemming from oil spillage, including water contamination and loss of many valuable animals and plants. A short-lived World Bank investigation found levels of hydrocarbon pollution in water in Ogoniland more than sixty times US limits13 and a 1997 Project Underground survey found petroleum hydrocarbons one Ogoni village's watersource to be 360 times the levels allowed in the European Community, where Shell originates14.
Pipelines and construction
The 12 by 14 mile area that comprises Ogoniland is some of the most densely occupied land in Africa. The extraction of oil has lead to construction of pipelines and facilities on precious farmland and through villages. Shell and its subcontractors compensate landowners with meager amounts unequal to the value of the scarce land, when they pay at all. The military defends Shell's actions with firearms and death: see the Shell Police section below.
Health impacts
The Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team observed increased "discomfort and misery" due to fumes, heat and combustion gases, as well as increased illnesses15. This destruction has not been alleviated by Shell or the government. Owens Wiwa, a physician, has observed higher rates of certain diseases like bronchial asthma, other respiratory diseases, gastro-enteritis and cancer among the people in the area as a result of the oil industry16.
The Shell Police and the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force
Both Shell and the government admit that Shell contributes to the funding of the military in the Delta region. Under the auspices of "protecting" Shell from peaceful demonstrators in the village of Umeuchem (10 miles from Ogoni), the police killed 80 people, destroyed houses and vital crops in 199017. Shell conceded it twice paid the military for going to specific villages. Although it disputes that the purpose of these excursions was to quiet dissent, each of the military missions paid for by Shell resulted in Ogoni fatalities18. The two incidents are a 1993 peaceful demonstration against the destruction of farmland to build pipelines and, later that year, a demonstration in the village of Korokoro19. Shell has also admitted purchasing weapons for the police force who guard its facilities, and there is growing suspicion that Shell funds a much greater portion of the military than previously admitted. In 1994, the military sent permanent security forces into Ogoniland, occupying the once peaceful land. This Rivers State Internal Security Task Force is suspected in the murders of 2000 people20. In a classified memo, its leader described his plans for "psychological tactics of displacement/wasting" and stated that "Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken."21 Since the Task Force occupied Ogoniland in 1994, the Ogoni have lived under constant surveillance and threats of violence. The Nigerian military stepped up its presence in Ogoniland in January of 1997 and again in 1998 before the annual Ogoni Day celebrations."
http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html [essentialaction.org]
YOU don't killed and exploited by private corporations, others not so much.
Or Nike in Indonesia:
"JAKARTA, Indonesia -- Workers at nine Indonesian factories under contract by U.S. sportswear giant Nike say they have either suffered or have witnessed sexual and verbal abuse.
Laborers also say they were asked to work
Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this. (Score:5, Informative)
Things have changed.
Actually, the law was changed in 2001, but the law lords only ruled it legal [theregister.co.uk] to permanently keep DNA records of cleared suspects in 2004.
The register has followed this story [theregister.co.uk] in some detail. (See the links at the bottom of that page.) There has also been some coverage in mainstream newspapers. [timesonline.co.uk]