Walk-By DNA Testing
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Jul 10, 2000 07:20 AM
from the scary-stuff dept.
from the scary-stuff dept.
Scott_Marks writes "The New York Times today has an article on a newly-patented device which may make it practical to perform DNA testing (or drug testing, or explosives testing) on anyone walking underneath. This "portal" sucks up some of the millions of skin flakes each of us sheds each day and whips them into your choice of privacy-invading analysis equipment "for detecting the presence of molecules of interest"."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Walk-by DNA Testing
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 153 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hmmmm. . . (Score:3)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
well that's it (Score:3)
Something you can do (in U.S.) to protect liberty (Score:5)
Not that these are actually in use yet, but I can see it someday if we keep going down this path. It seems like we in the U.S. keep giving up more and more of our personal liberties to have a sense of "safety." Americans are whipped into frenzy by the focus of local TV news on sensationalistic crime reporting. Americans believe they are under seige from gun-toting, crack-smoking gangbangers.
There is a real, everyday, easy to do, practical thing you can do: Remind everyone you know that violent crime is at a twenty-year low in this country. Most of you have probably heard this, but you'd be surprised at how often it shocks people you meet. Here's a CNN.com article [cnn.com] to link to. (I'm sure there are better ones, but I can't find 'em right now. Or point 'em to the FBI's Universal Crime Reports [fbi.gov]. Really. Do it.---
Re:Easy solution - ban DNA cross referencing (Score:4)
Re:Guilty before proven innocent? (Score:3)
They have, because while you might not like passing through a roadblock that stops everyone on New Years Eve, it beats the alternative: Police stopping 1)Only every black person that comes through or 2)Every person that looks suspicious (see above, add "poor people", "people with facial hair", "foreigners", and "people under 30")
Random stops on everyone that comes through are a pain. But it sure beats being targeted by security forces because of the color of your skin or the bad rap your belief system gets. I would much rather see every single person that goes through an airport get a DNA or chemical scan than have them target "profiles". The volume of data and the scrutiny involved in tagging that many people is in itself a gaurantee of some privacy (ways to protect privacy: 1) be alone 2) be in a whacking big crowd), whereas only targeting "profiled" and marginalized groups risks everyone's rights (the hangman's story phenomena: eventually, your group is next.)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
..that and refuse drug tests (Score:3)
Something else you can do is to absolutely, 100%, without exception, refuse any employment drug testing on moral grounds. Did you know that the Canadian counterparts of many US corporations DO NOT require pre-employment drug testing because people are much less likely to accept it here?
No job is worth my liberty. Mind you, I'm skilled enough so that finding employment isn't hard, even if I'm picky, and I've told people no before. You'd be suprised how many people haven't even thought about the implications of such testing. Ask WHY! It's like when a cop asks you if he can look in your trunk. Ask him if you can look in his. This usually gets a most suprised look - although, mind you, cops up here don't draw weapons as part of standard operating procedure, either - there's forms to fill out if the RCMP even unholster their weapon.
The reason to do this is that if you don't refuse HORRIBLY intrusive testing (Would you ask a stranger off the street to piss in a cup for you?) then the wonderful DNA test happens next. The tools to give the state supreme power over a ignorant populace are happening, and when everybody wakes up, you won't have any way to fight back.
An old history professor of mine used to have a quote in BIG letters above the blackboard: "Power: It's ain't for the givin', it's for the takin'" (unknown). Words to live by.
It's not the DNA you need to worry about (Score:3)
Honestly, scanning your identity this way is about the last thing you should be worried about. The main goal of testers like these is to be able to scan people rapidly, like the metal detectors at airports. They want to be able to tell if someone is trying to smuggle bombs or drugs onto an airplane. That means that you need to know the answer from your test now, not in an hour or two when the guy's already had a chance to pass his stuff to some third party.
At the present, and for the forseeable future, it's just not possible to make a DNA-based individual ID in anything like real time. Even in the lab with nearly ideal samples doing that kind of thing takes time, and a lot of that is not something that can be easily reduced; certain chemical and physical reactions take time and can't be sped up. That puts a pretty strong damper on using this as a DNA vacum to violate people's rights.
OTOH, you can bet that the war against drugs and the war against terrorism will be used as excuses. Pretty soon you won't be able to get on a plane without being subjected to a battery of tests to make sure that you're not trying to put anything illegal onto the plane. Oops, you're a mining engineer who uses explosives at work? Prepare to be hassled every time you try to fly. Your pot smoking brother came over to visit? Prepare to be stopped and have your luggage examined. In the long term those kinds of minor erosions of personal protection are a much more dangerous threat to privacy than some hypothetical DNA screening.
Aaaaah! (Score:4)
As with all scientific advances, this throws up a whole load of interesting situations...
Depending on how sensitive and correct this device is, I can see some being installed in London, UK. Mention "terrorist" in England and you get some pretty draconian legal powers (such as extended questioning periods etc) to use and abuse.
So these are set up at airports... "To trap the terrorists"
Then set up at train stations... "To trap the terrorists"
Then set up at tube stations... "To trap the terrorists"
Before you know it, the terrorist threat has disappeared. Do they remove these machines? Hell, no lets have them sniff for drugs/homosexuality/Linux!
Think I'm paranoid? Then on my way to work, how come I drive through 3 manned police CCTV cameras left over from the "anti terrorist" Ring of Steel?
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Guilty before proven innocent? (Score:4)
This is precisely what is described by "Illegal search" (and maybe even seizure, as they are effectively taking pieces of you as you walk by). In a perfect world, I doubt this would stand up in court, as the "due process" required has to be done on an individual basis, not on a broad scope of mostly innocent people.
What kind of people use their engineering talent to make such things? I would refuse. People do not see the long term cyclical nature of government. Everyone should take an Ancient Western Civilization class. Watch how the ancient civilizations grew, became strong, then became oppresive, then were overthrown for the greater good of humanity. This stuff will only prolong the suffering of humanity when the current civilization's time has come, making it difficult for the cycle to advance to the next level. Instead we end up in a totalitarian, invasive sitiuation.
Don't forget the children who have to live in this world we create...
Jamming The System (Score:4)
/.
Re:..that and refuse drug tests (Score:3)
Companies have the right to not allow people using drugs into their workplace. Rightly, they realize that it can be disruptive. If everyone would be honest and upfront about using drugs, they wouldn't have to bother -- but this isn't an ideal world.
BULLSHIT. Thinking like this is WRONG. If I show up drunk, stoned, or high, you have every right to fire me ON THE SPOT. Why should it matter to you what the hell I do on my own time, in my own house? What's next? Testing to see if I have multiple sex partners? How about a AIDS test? I mean, that's something YOU did, right? If everyone was up front about having AIDS, then there wouldn't be a problem?
If you really don't like it, you can go somewhere else, of course. But don't go yelling about your 'rights' just because a company wants to keep its workplace safe.
So, we'll test everyone for AIDS, because what if someone gets cut, right? THIS IS STUPID. If you want to pay me for 24/7 availability, then sure, you can drug test me. But when I'm off company time - what I do is none of the company's business, period.
If you're concerned enough about soft drugs, then you should test for alcohol too, and fire anyone who does not comply - because we can't have people drinking, either, even if it's off company time. It might affect their preformance! And cigarette smokers. Those things are deadly! The workplace is much safer if there isn't anyone who craves a smoke at an inappropriate time. Never mind all those smoke breaks you can get rid of!
How about police agencies! They don't have scheduled drug testing - it in fact, is done at the time of hire and RARELY after. Why? Because the police unions are dead-set against it. Let's test all those FBI, DEA and BATF agents _monthly_. I wonder what would happen then.. sure it might cost a little, but they have to do something with all the money they gather from drug dealers! Why not "purify" their ranks?
This arguement pisses me off. If I'm not preforming, or am presenting a danger to others, FIRE ME FOR THAT. If I'm a happy little worker, it's none of your business what, or who, I do on my own time.
And yes, I take my skills elsewhere. Drug laws scare me not because I'm a user (I'm not) but because I see my freedom going down the toilet - because I look at what happened south of the border. I just get a kick out of companies that test in their US offices and not in Canadian ones. What, are Canadian offices more dangerous? YEESH.
Spam DNA! (Score:3)
It does. Remember, it can't tell what it's gathering or where it came from. It would be trivial to walk underneath one of those things and shake a vial of someone else's dandruff over its sensor. Voila! You have an effect similar to the cypherpunk/cypherpunk registrations on annoying news sites. Suddenly, this Evil Corporation has one John Smith on 31337 Haxor Lane, New York, NY walking into its store several times per second. It's "Hack life" on a whole new level.
Easy solution - ban DNA cross referencing (Score:5)
You americans have an opportunity to make a real stand here, and it will solve the problem of people spying on your DNA - simply BAN the cross referencing of a DNA database with public info, like for instance, your social security number. If your DNA cannot be used to identify you, this won't be a problem from the standpoint of raw information collection for marketting purposes (although might be valid statistically, for instance, all the caffiene molecules being secreted through the pores of coders in the development building.. heh heh)
As for explosives testing.. the american people need to vote on what they want more: Freedom or safety. You can be perfectly safe, more or less, but you'll be living in a police state. But, this is something the country will decide, personally, I'd rather live in a rural setting where the man doesn't have as many rights to get on my land.
The drug issue is worse though, and it's why I'll never move to the US. What if I toss a couple grams of an illicit substance in your car and then call the cops? What if I sprinkle you with coke in an elevator? The shit will hit the fan, and with the way the US drug laws work currently, your life is over and you very well might lose your car, if I phrase my "anonymous tip" correctly.
Something to think about..
Re:Guilty before proven innocent? (Score:4)
On your point about engineer integrity, this is a really tough question for a lot of people who work on such things. Personal beliefs and convictions are a hard thing to overcome; perhaps these engineers sincerely believe that they are working in the best interests of their fellow man. The too-happy and annoying church people that knock on my door from time to time do something that I could not do within my ethical outlook, but from their perspective the privacy violation is justifiable by the chance to save my soul or something along those lines.