• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OK, this threat to the 4A is getting dangerous.

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The first time that DNA databases had been used to identify a criminal, they had a suspect in mind, and verified his having left DNA at the scene by looking at the DNA of close relatives in private DNA databases.

Now, they have the DNA of the unknown perpetrator and are doing wide sweeps of all the DNA in private databases.

1. Private DNA databases should start from a default position that no DNA may be examined without a warrant.

2. The warrant should name a suspect and call for only the examination of DNA of immediate blood relatives.

3. The warrant should name the specific blood relatives whose DNA would be examined.

4. To obtain the warrant, the government should have to show that they have probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime and that the people whose DNA they wish to examine are immediate blood relatives (mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister)

5. Customers of private DNA databases should have the authority under the law to demand that, after the DNA results have been received by the customer, for the DNA database to permanently and irretrievably delete all of their DNA information.

Bear in mind that, even if YOU do not put your DNA into a private database, YOU can be identified from information in that database belonging to your close relatives.

It is great that rapists and murderers are being identified. But what stops the government from finding you because you left your DNA on a soda can at a protest for which the government wants to punish you simply for your exercise of your 1A Rights?

 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
Easy, do not provide bio metric data to anyone voluntarily. Condition of employment requirements are an exception to my "voluntarily" position.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Easy, do not provide bio metric data to anyone voluntarily. Condition of employment requirements are an exception to my "voluntarily" position.
...
Bear in mind that, even if YOU do not put your DNA into a private database, YOU can be identified from information in that database belonging to your close relatives.
...
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
Your proposed requirements are essentially the requirements that a cop must use to this day to get my DNA from the few databases that do contain my DNA. Even then the cop must know that such a database exists before he can petition for a warrant.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Exactly. Apparently no such requirements currently exist as applied to DNA companies, especially considering the latest case, where they did a wide sweep of the data from the DNA company.

The new problem seems to be the idea that the DNA database company is believed to own the DNA information, not the individuals who submit it, thereby allowing these DNA database companies to take a no-skin-off-my-nose attitude when granting requests from governmental entities for whatever DNA information they want.

Maybe we need a court ruling or a law that states that the DNA information belongs to its donor, and only they can disclose it without a warrant.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
591
Location
FreedomVA
A good examples would be.....Cops used to do real life good police detective work to solve a real felony crimes, now with advancement in technologies, they don't have to do squat but let the sheep incriminate themselves on social medias....and anything they can't find there, they snoop behind our backs to use against us at a later date.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Copyright your DNA...it is unique to you.
Copyrighting your DNA does not stop others from reading it. It just keeps them from reproducing it for their own gain.

The key is a law or ruling that the DNA information is private to the person, not to professionals with whom he or she shares it, and is protected by the 4A, requiring a warrant to disclose it. It is not just the government that needs to be reigned in, but also the DNA companies, who are playing fast and lose with the private, personal information of their clients.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
591
Location
FreedomVA
"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

there is no "probable cause" for wide sweep collections of citizens information if citizens are not committing a crime in which is visible to the LEO at that moment.

"Scalia noted, Maryland’s DNA-collection statute could help solve crimes—but that doesn’t justify violating an arrestee’s Fourth Amendment rights. “No matter the degree of invasiveness, suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crimesolving,” he declared. He also nodded to the law’s more sinister implications in the aggregate. “Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise,” Scalia concluded. “But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,777
Location
here nc
The first time that DNA databases had been used to identify a criminal, they had a suspect in mind, and verified his having left DNA at the scene by looking at the DNA of close relatives in private DNA databases.

Now, they have the DNA of the unknown perpetrator and are doing wide sweeps of all the DNA in private databases.

1. Private DNA databases should start from a default position that no DNA may be examined without a warrant.

2. The warrant should name a suspect and call for only the examination of DNA of immediate blood relatives.

3. The warrant should name the specific blood relatives whose DNA would be examined.

4. To obtain the warrant, the government should have to show that they have probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime and that the people whose DNA they wish to examine are immediate blood relatives (mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister)

5. Customers of private DNA databases should have the authority under the law to demand that, after the DNA results have been received by the customer, for the DNA database to permanently and irretrievably delete all of their DNA information.

Bear in mind that, even if YOU do not put your DNA into a private database, YOU can be identified from information in that database belonging to your close relatives.

It is great that rapists and murderers are being identified. But what stops the government from finding you because you left your DNA on a soda can at a protest for which the government wants to punish you simply for your exercise of your 1A Rights?

Should’ve/would’ve/could’ve ya life is like that eye95... too late if your offspring get tested cuz its the latest fad...

Well considering this type of LE activity has been publicly going on for only about the last five years once the $$$ side rolled out into the cottage private sector.

Before this i know LDS [only party on the block] did not share DNA with outsiders and hesitated sharing inside the church.

2003 60 minutes Quote: Four years ago, a Houston teenager named Josiah Sutton was convicted of rape and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
He was convicted primarily on the basis of DNA tests performed by the Houston police department's crime lab.

But is he a rapist? The DNA said so, and that was enough for the jury. It probably would be enough proof for most of us, who have come to believe DNA is foolproof.

Police were looking for a 5-foot-7-inch man who weighed 135 pounds.

"Josiah's never been thin since birth, so at the time, I had proof and identification, his ID, that stated he was 6 feet tall, and 200 pounds,"

Sutton's blood sample was taken to the Houston police department's crime lab, where analysts compared it to semen samples taken from the victim and from the backseat of the car where the rape occurred.

For two months, Sutton waited in jail. He says he was confident that the tests would free him. They cleared his friend, but his lawyer had different news for him.

"He said, 'I just got your tests back. They came up with a positive ID on you, as far as the testing.' And I told him, I said, 'No, that's impossible.' My exact words were 'There's no way on God's green earth.' And he said, 'Well, I'm sorry, man, but that's what they came up with.'"

The lab's report was definitive. It said that DNA consistent with Sutton "was detected on the vaginal swab taken from the victim and on semen 'Sample Number 1' found on the backseat of the car." It also said Sutton was a one-in-694,000 match.

It was a slam dunk for the prosecution. The jury took less than two hours to find Sutton guilty. He was sentenced to 25 years.

Two reporters at KHOU-TV in Houston received a tip from defense attorneys that there were problems in the police department's crime lab.

Anna Werner and David Raziq decided to investigate. They dug up transcripts and lab reports from several cases and sent them to a group of experts, including University of California criminology professor William Thompson, who has reviewed DNA evidence from labs all over the country.

How did the Houston police crime lab stack up?

"It's the worst I've seen," says Thompson. "This doesn't meet the standard of a good junior high school science project."

Bottom line ~ “Amid all the accusations about the crime lab, the Houston Police Department ordered an independent audit of the lab's technical operations. That investigation resulted in a scathing 50-page report that chronicled a litany of problems - everything from inadequately trained staff, to possible contamination of evidence, to unnecessarily using up all the evidence from a crime - making any future retesting impossible. The lab was shut down immediately.” Unquote https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-testing-foolproof/

This story was from 16 years ago...

Here is 2018 version
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,777
Location
here nc
IANAL, but I believe that thinking you possibly might be wronged sometime does not give you standing to sue.
Eye95 you truly have audacity to challenge this member’s veracity ~ really?

You are truly unbelievable eye95, you don’t know jack squat about this new member’s personal history/background and yet you just basically called them a liar, of course you prefaced your liar statement with the caveat your not a lawyer!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,382
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Copyright your DNA...it is unique to you.
Here is your answer.
On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing.

The Supreme Court's ruling did allow that DNA manipulated in a lab is eligible to be patented because DNA sequences altered by humans are not found in nature. The Court specifically mentioned the ability to patent a type of DNA known as complementary DNA (cDNA). This synthetic DNA is produced from the molecule that serves as the instructions for making proteins (called messenger RNA).
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,382
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"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

there is no "probable cause" for wide sweep collections of citizens information if citizens are not committing a crime in which is visible to the LEO at that moment.

"Scalia noted, Maryland’s DNA-collection statute could help solve crimes—but that doesn’t justify violating an arrestee’s Fourth Amendment rights. “No matter the degree of invasiveness, suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crimesolving,” he declared. He also nodded to the law’s more sinister implications in the aggregate. “Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise,” Scalia concluded. “But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”
The Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that cell phone location information was subject to Fourth Amendment protections rather than the third party doctrine, which allows law enforcement to obtain such information with only a subpoena. That is no longer the case, a warrant is now required. However, Genetic information such as genomic mapping should easily fall in the category of “reasonable expectation of privacy,” but the courts will have to address that issue. I would suggest you read all the dissenting opinions in Carpenter.

It just amazes me how people wish to give their legal opinion in regards to a particular subject matter, and yet, not even read court cases to see if their position is a viable argument based on sound legal principles.

FreedomVA, you may be on to something.
 
Top