Book 'Em, DNA-o

The Washington Post reports on legislation that would add DNA samples from anyone arrested by feds—whether later convicted or not—to a centralized database. The bill's defenders are comparing it to routine fingerprinting, but unless the FBI is employing palm-readers, there's a lot less information about someone contained in the lines in their hands than in a DNA sample. (HT)

Comments

[mediageek]

Yeah, but we aren't a police state.

[MP]

I don't really have a problem with this. However, the larger problem is the general perception that DNA evidence = guilty. I thought this problem was highlighted nicely in last season's CSI Vegas finale.

[jf]

Shocking that it's one of Reason's favorite Senators, Jon Kyl, behind this. That pic of him on the story website looks like he's trying to belch the alphabet, which would be a better use of his time than anything he's every accomplished in the Senate.

[Pig Mannix]

The bill's defenders are comparing it to routine fingerprinting, but unless the FBI is employing palm-readers, there's a lot less information about someone contained in the lines in their hands than in a DNA sample.

I'd have to agree with that. The only information a fingerprint can convey is whether you were in possession of a physical object or present in a specific location. Your DNA contains a whole helluva lot more information about you than that. For the most part, information collected during the arrest process, such as fingerprints, pertains to establishing identity or whether the suspect is wanted for additional crimes in other jurisdictions. There is nothing else a fingerprint can be used for. DNA may likewise provide that information, but it also provides plenty of other information which is not necessary for routine police work. The point here isn't merely the process of collecting the information, but the quantity of information collected. A cop running your license plate during a routine traffic stop is reasonable. Running an IRS audit on you is not. The point here is that the demand for information is out of proportion to the citizen's obligation to reasonably cooperate with the authorities.

[Jeff P.]

Generalized DNA IDing is going to become a lot more widespread, but there's a big difference (in both practice and price) between keeping a person's lengthy genetic sequence on file and actually profiling it for the info it holds. The former will be vital to a great deal of biotech. The latter is where the scary stuff lies. But all you need is a few folks profiled for violent behaviour to turn out fine and that practice will join breaking left-handed-ism on the pile of bad ideas.
I think a more realistic danger are the people trying to "pad" thier DNA profile to seem like something they aren't, like guys who pretend they were in special forces.

[Jeff P.]

Generalized DNA IDing is going to become a lot more widespread, but there's a big difference (in both practice and price) between keeping a person's lengthy genetic sequence on file and actually profiling it for the info it holds. The former will be vital to a great deal of biotech. The latter is where the scary stuff lies. But all you need is a few folks profiled for violent behaviour to turn out fine and that practice will join breaking left-handed-ism on the pile of bad ideas.
I think a more realistic danger are the people trying to "pad" thier DNA profile to seem like something they aren't, like guys who pretend they were in special forces.

[Larry A]

I don't see what the big deal is. Record everyone's DNA at birth, database it, then restrict the purposes the information can be used for. Pass a law saying you can't use DNA to predict behavior, for instance.

Just like (as it says on the card) it's illegal to use your social security number for identification purposes.

[jf]

Jeff P.

That is one concern I hadn't thought of. Ethan Hawke pretending to be Jude Law, on a massive scale.

[mediageek]

Yes, but can someone please tell me how this isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment's guarantee that one is secure in their person?

How is this not a violation of due process?

And how long will it be before they're asking for a cheek swab when you get pulled over for having a busted tail light?

This is some seriously bad juju.

[mediageek]

To say nothing of the fact that it certainly shows government's contempt for its citizens when they feel free to treat them like chattel to be sampled and recorded.

[Brian]

Chill out. They're just going to use the DNA to create an unstoppable clone army of supercriminals.

[mike]

I really do not have a problem with this, however there needs to be tight restrictions on when they can take your DNA, and the use of it to convict suspects in court.

[Number 6]

Yes, but can someone please tell me how this isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment's guarantee that one is secure in their person?

Because there's no such thing anymore.

[Jeff P.]

Mediageek: I assume you know your entire genome by heart, then.
I, personally, don't see DNA info as any more sacrosanct than my retinal paterns or fingerprints. They are indeed proprietary, insomuch as it would be a crime for someone to falsify or steal them, but not a right-to-privacy issue. Most of your DNA info is already plain to see: height, skintone, shoe size, although an arguement could be made for a right to conceal your original hair color or the ability to curl your tongue.
The accuracy of DNA to predict behavior is never going to be high, at least no more so than horoscopes. Using DNA to detect and treat diseases is another story.
Also, since finger printing is mandatory for all federal workers. Somehow I don't think DNA sampling and archiving will go over that big in Washington.

[Shelby]

The only way this would not be troubling, would be with a massive re-thinking of the relationship between DNA and society. I don't remember the title of the Heinlein book ("Door Into Summer"?), but there was one where he postulated the principle that the phenotype is personal, but the genotype belongs to us all. People could "gengineer" their children, but only to the extent of selecting among the genes that the parents already possessed.

Such a rethinking would have immense implications, many of them positive. One would be that, of course we're entitled to a copy of everyone's genotype. I don't know that I would actually endorse such a shift, but absent it I oppose the idea of genetic profiling and making it easy for the government to get everyone's genotype. It's simply too open to abuse, and every time in history that a government has been able to abuse information about its citizens, it has eventually done so.

[Jennifer]

The accuracy of DNA to predict behavior is never going to be high, at least no more so than horoscopes. Using DNA to detect and treat diseases is another story.

Polygraph tests are inaccurate too, but that hasn't stopped the government from using them as a National Security Tool.

I don't buy the argument "let the government do what it wants so long as there's no provable harm;" I prefer "don't let the government do ANYTHING unless there's some provable good." And there is NONE for this proposed DNA database. If it were a matter of keeping the DNA of actual convicted criminals, I might reconsider. But anyone who's even arrested?

[Jennifer]

The accuracy of DNA to predict behavior is never going to be high, at least no more so than horoscopes. Using DNA to detect and treat diseases is another story.

Polygraph tests are inaccurate too, but that hasn't stopped the government from using them as a National Security Tool.

I don't buy the argument "let the government do what it wants so long as there's no provable harm;" I prefer "don't let the government do ANYTHING unless there's some provable good." And there is NONE for this proposed DNA database. If it were a matter of keeping the DNA of actual convicted criminals, I might reconsider. But anyone who's even arrested?

[Jeff P.]

By the time DNA coding is robust enough to be a viable therapy or predictive device, we're going to have so much metal and plastic latched on and embedded in us that our meat just won't matter.

The only "relationship between DNA and society" that I see is when traditionalists declare that family bonds are paramount. This has never been true and needs to be put to bed soon.

We live in a world where people are making personality judgments based on others' Ipod playlists, which aren't private. Making DNA info a fighting point in the war on privacy is a mistake.

[smacky]

This is a threadjack!

Put your hands up!
Ok, now turn around in a circle two times.
Put your right leg in.....

No, really. Anyone who is interested in meeting up for alcohol-related socializations (alcohol not required, but preferred) on the weekend of October 15th in Washington DC, email me! My email address is real if you take out the "nospam." part. I have two evenings in mind for a get-together. Email me for details, even if you're only non-committedly interested at this point. We can decide between the two or so dates I have in mind, and then decide on a time/place.

[Jeff P.]

Polygraphs are not admissible in court, they are for investigative purposes only. And thier usefulness is dictated on a case by case basis.
DNA info is no more or less telling than fingerprints, and anyone who's ever been arrested has been fingerprinted.
To be clear here: A DNA database is simply a series of letters recording your specific chromosome sequence. It is NOT genetic material. It provides no power or insight to anyone who possesses it. As useless Gov't programs go, a DNA database would probably be the cheapest in two generations.
Once again, this info is no different from your blood type, and there is no reason (aside from extreme paranoia or membership in the local Christian Science congregation) for it to be concealed.

[Jennifer]

Once again, this info is no different from your blood type, and there is no reason (aside from extreme paranoia or membership in the local Christian Science congregation) for it to be concealed.

And there's no reason for the government to have it, either. Once you say "there's no harm (though no purpose) in our being required to give X to the government," things just go downhill from there.

[JK]

The most worrying part here is keeping permanent records on anyone arrested. I think it's misguided to get upset about DNA as against fingerprinting, photographing etc.

If you want to use it as an opportunity to shout about due process, the presumption of innocence, openness of record keeping and accountability for abuse of police power, then go for it.

The article has an ACLU soundbite, "DNA is not like fingerprinting". But more worrying than the extra info in DNA is the following:

"Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly."

If we lose the argument that other factors are more important, we will have no liberties. Appealing to the way that some people attach a peculiarly exagerated sense of importance to their DNA only obscures this basic point.

[The Owner's Manual]

Of course there's a reason to have it. How many rapes could be solved immediately from DNA matches if the perp's ID was already on hand?

I don't see what the fuss is.

[Stevo Darkly]

D-N-A-O!

D...N...A...O...

Daylight come, and me wanna go home...

[JK]

Owner's Manual,

How many crimes could be solved straight away if the perp could be located by a microchip implanted at birth that recorded our every movement?

[Jennifer]

Of course there's a reason to have it. How many rapes could be solved immediately from DNA matches if the perp's ID was already on hand?

If most rapists had previously been arrested (but not convicted) by the Feds, that argument would hold a lot more water.

[Jennifer]

Of course there's a reason to have it. How many rapes could be solved immediately from DNA matches if the perp's ID was already on hand?

If most rapists had previously been arrested (but not convicted) by the Feds, that argument would hold a lot more water.

[smacky]

Daylight come, and me wanna go home...

I want you to go home too, Stevo! :p

...Kidding!

[alan]

As Jeff P. suggested, in the vast majority of cases, determining actual behavioral or even some physical characteristics from a series of genes is simply not possible -- nurture (read: environment) it seems is quite entangled with nature.

But more to the point, I recall reading somewhere (Genome by Matt Ridley, perhaps?) that criminal DNA samples were taken from non-coding regions of our genome. The only corroborating information I could find in my 15 second search, was this:

"Unlike genetic testing in the health and research contexts, forensic testing is performed on nine agreed sites ('loci') on the non-coding (or so-called 'junk') portion of human DNA"

from: http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2003/bn290503-6.htm

So there is no reason (in theory) why such a database could be built without implicitly including any extra personal geneticaly derived information.

[MP]

If most rapists had previously been arrested (but not convicted) by the Feds, that argument would hold a lot more water.

Jennifer,

This database is likely to be shared with local authorities.

Also, although the slippery slope argument is always something to be aware of, I think the upside in this case far outweighs the potential for abuse.

[Hakluyt]

Pig Mannix,

The only information a fingerprint can convey is whether you were in possession of a physical object or present in a specific location.

Well, you'd have to view fingerprint evidence as something worthy of merit before you got to that conclusion. Fingerprint analysis is full of a lot subjectivity, uncertainty, etc. (e.g., see the Oregon lawyer indentified as being part of the Madrid bombing incident based on erroneous fingerprint analysis).

MP,

CSI probably needs to do a show on the problems associated with fingerprint analysis (like whether people really do have unique fingerprints).

[Shelby]

The day CSI does a show focused on the problems of any form of scientific analysis, I just might watch an episode. Maybe you're thinking of Law & Order. 😉

[Stevo Darkly]

smackster --

Before the server broke down (it keeps timing out on me), I was going to immediately respond with a taunting request that you "tally me banana."

(Will this comment ever be posted? Who knows? That's part of the fun.)

[Shelby]

The servers were eaten in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. On the plus side, Reason can now get a $300 million grant to replace them!

[Stevo Darkly]

Lift six-foot, seven-foot, eight-foot bunch!

[J]

It's true that the DNA profiles used by law enforcement wouldn't give them any info about a person's genetic predisposition to anything - the DNA markers they use are in hypervariable, highly repetitive non-coding regions of the genome. In fact, it's very unlikely that they even do any sequencing, so the data isn't even a series of letters, as someone said above; they just measure the lengths of a number of different DNA fragments, and differentiate people by number of bases in their various DNA fragments, not the bases themselves.

But one thing the article isn't clear on (unless I missed it) - are they keeping a database of the DNA profiles, or are they keeping a database of the DNA itself (in addition to the profiles)? If they keep the DNA itself, which they easily could, there's nothing stopping them from going back to it and gathering a lot more information than is contained in the DNA profiles. The way DNA sequencing technology is advancing, it's easily within the realm of possibility that within 20-30 years sequencing most of a person's genome will be a fairly trivial matter.

[Stevo Darkly]

Stack banana till the morning come!