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?"
Crossing a line? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they had the same debate back when the line was between taking down a physical description and taking an imprint of my finger. We all know how that one worked out.
You think that's bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Over here if you are arrested for things like littering, speeding, drunkenness and other minor infractions the police are legally entitled to take a DNA sample (and they DO from just about everyone).
You can refuse the order either... If they want a sample they are getting a sample...
from the article: (Score:5, Interesting)
"He went in there with fingernail clippings and hair, and they refused to accept it, because they will only accept blood,"
Some do. Some don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy didn't do close to anything as bad as Cunningham.
Well (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's a condition of his probation... (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.
On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.
Retention policy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there restrictions for situations like this that only allow the authorities to use such data for only a specific case? Or does my data get permanently entered in a general database, to be automatically scanned for any and every crime in the future?
I'm not against cooperating with the police, but if it's the later, I'd be extremely wary of volunteering for such things.
Felons don't have privacy rights. (Score:3, Interesting)
So personally, I have no problem with it. Don't want to give up your DNA? Don't commit crimes.
Look, more and more, DNA is being used in investigations and that's a good thing. It's getting innocent people out of prison and it's putting guilty people away. As much as I have issues with the government and invasion of privacy, I don't have issues with the police enforcing the law and using the tools available to them to solve crimes.
Once you're convicted, the law makes the assumption that you have a tendency towards crime, so they collect data that will help them catch you if you do it in the future. That makes sense. That's why they've been taking fingerprints and mug shots since those two pieces of information have become part of fighting crime. They're tools that are, for the most part, used for very good things.
The guy broke the law, got convicted, and if the police feel they need a DNA sample as part of their ability to enforce the law in the future, then I'm totally okay with that.
Now, that said, once his sentence is completed and he's no longer on probation, then no, they shouldn't be able to come collect this data from him. Once you've served your time, unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise (such as being a suspect in a new crime), you should have your right to privacy back. But as long as you're serving, whether in prison, or at home, you don't. It's that simple.
Re:Crossing a line? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not "big brother" government, but have you ever heard of the "CHIPS" program?
Basically, the local PD come into a school (usually at the request of the PTA or some other group of well-intentioned but grossly misinformed parents) and fingerprint everybody.
They do this on the pretext of helping track down kidnapping victims.
Anyone care to guess how many (still-living) kidnapping victims this has recovered, out of the thousands that vanish yearly? If you raised your hand, you've come pretty damned close.
But such programs happen on a strictly voluntary basis, right? Now who wants to guess how many kids have experienced some form of punishment, up to and including suspension, for refusing to cooperate - If you only raised one hand, you've missed by a few orders of magnitude. Good luck finding hard numbers on this one, though - I myself count as an undocumented statistic, having refused to give my fingerprints in... third grade, I believe. As punishment, I didn't get to go on the field-trip to tour the police station (hey, sounds minor, but to an 8YO, suspension merely means a day off from school, while social exclusion and missing a field trip means the end of the world).
Simcurity (Score:3, Interesting)
Fourth Amendment [findlaw.com]
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Re:No! Hold the line! (Score:3, Interesting)
Probation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The logic escapes me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If CSI has taught me anything... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You think that's bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
To claim that there is now an empire that has freedoms is a enormous claim, and one that requires enormous proof. You gave not a shred of evidence.
PS: Don't lie about the US not being an empire - The US has hundreds of bases and scores of puppet governments the world over. Rome at its height was puny compared what we've stolen from the former imperial powers after WWII.
Re:DNA versus Fingerprints (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, however, the government can covertly get your DNA anyway. Ever dispose of a paper cup? Your DNA is on it, and they have the technology to extract it.
In Canada, the police have the authority to search most DNA-containing material that you dispose of. So that paper cup is fair game (at least if disposed of in a public place). However, since the DNA of anyone who recently touched that cup could be on it, the DNA from the cup itself is not enough to prove in a criminal court that the DNA really belongs to you. However, it is enough (when matched to suspicious DNA at a crime scene) to allow the police to get a warrant to require you to give them a sample of your DNA (typically a blood sample).
Not that any of this discounts your points, but in this discussion I think it might be helpful to know that if the government wants your DNA, they have the technology to get it with reasonably high probability.
Re:Frog soup (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent two weeks short of a year in prison boot-camp, and got another 5 years of probation. I had to submit my DNA two months ago. I committed no crime except for using drugs (which, incidentally, they never charged me with any public intox, and no report of me being pretty much lit up out of my mind was ever made on the arrest report, either. This kind of thing is bullshit, plain and simple. Flakes of your skin could float on the wind and end up somewhere else, and you can easily get a DNA sample off of it. DNA's floating around in the DUST (99% shedded skin cells in household dust, pollen, mold, etc, including human DNA for outside dust) and can put any person at any place at practically any time. DNA is everywhere. I think people convicted of RAPE, MURDER, ASSAULT, yes, take their DNA after conviction and put it in a database. Things like computer fraud or hacking, it's kinda useless, as no real physical presence is required at the crimescene, generally. Conspiracy to Witness? I don't think so either, and I think that particular crime is a bullshit charge in and of itself. Anyone could "conspire to watch someone flee the scene of the crime" and find themselves in a jail cell, under interrogation, then find themselves charged with something else soon after.
Regardless, people are put in prison wrongfully, and are given no recourse to have their grieveances with the government addressed. It's absolute bullshit on the grandest scale, and you're relying upon the assumption that everyone was tried and convicted under the correct procedures. That's going to be a fatal mistake upon your part, perhaps you should learn from my personal experience.
Re:If it's a condition of his probation... (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.
Generally I agree with the sentiment that contracts should be binding. If you get a loan and don't pay it back, the bank has the right to seize the collateral. If you get paid to do a job and don't, you should have to give the money back (plus damages). I'm a believer in civil suits for breach of contract. I believe that there should be few (if any) restrictions on the agreements that can be made between free persons.
But there is a difference when the agreement is with the government. There is a difference when the government is the only entity with which you can make the agreement. Given the massive power imbalance between one person and the government, given the fact that the government can use force to accomplish its means, there is a special quality to agreements with the government. It is the proper place of the courts to restrict the forms and types of agreements the government can enter.
There is an easy way to get a small glimpse into why this is: the rate of people being parolled did not change with the addition of DNA tracking. In the real world, if you have a contract that millions of people agree to and you add a clause expressly to your benefit and not that of the other party, you will see a drop in the number of people willing to sign that contract. It may be small, depending on the change. It may take a little bit for people to figure out and respond to the change. But the number will change.
Parole isn't an agreement between free men. It's not the moral equivalent of a bank loan. There are things you cannot demand.
There are other "agreements" that are this way: driver's license, military enlistment, passport application, entry to and exit from the country by citizens, raising livestock, interstate commerce, and the list goes on and on. The courts have been lax in enforcing restrictions, but the opportunity is still there.
Re:Lies (Score:3, Interesting)
They are not me. I did not elect them. There is no one in federal office that I have ever cast a vote for, nor anyone I perceive would represent even a fraction of my views should I vote for them. Those in office, and even those who run for office from the two parties and fail to obtain that lofty goal, do not represent my views. They do not do, or assert they will do, as I would have them do, nor do they show any signs of understanding my views.
I am ready to consider, however, that those in office may "be you", as you so artfully put it.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
It's really quite simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here, if you are arrested (i.e. commit an arrestable offence and are caught) they can take your fingerprints and DNA and photo: permanetly. It is *not* deleted if they don't charge you or you are found not guilty.
When I worked in a forensics lab in England in 2003, the DNA was destroyed and the DNA fingerprint deleted from files if they didn't charge you or you weren't guilty. Admittedly, this was 3 years ago and the laws may have changed since then, but just thought I would throw that into the discussion.Re:In the UK we've gone way beyond this. (Score:4, Interesting)
The police get a DNA match on a sample at a crime scene, and you are the only match in the database. What's the chance that they have the wrong person?
Most people will look at the 1 in 1,000,000 figure and think it's almost certainly your DNA. In fact with 60,000,000 people in the UK the chances they have the right suspect based on DNA evidence alone is only one in 60.
If other evidence leads them to suspect you, then they do the test and it matches, then there's a very high chance you were at the scene. But if the only reason you ever because a suspect was because your DNA was in the database already, possibly from an earlier investigation where you were cleared of any suspicion, and the other 59 matches weren't, the situation is very different. Once the police are convinced you are guilty, the chances of them "finding" supporting evidence goes up and the amount of looking for the real culprit goes down.