fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2659 ]

[ SECRET POST #2659 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2659 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #380.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's okay to take the DNA of hundreds of men because one of them might be a rapist

I don't entirely disagree. I mean, does giving DNA harm the person? If not, why would anyone really have a problem helping to put away rapists?

Yes.

In large scale systematic ways which if you're unironically asking that question you're not really fit to understand.

Maybe, but I might be more fit to understand than you give me credit for. I may also be capable of changing my mind if suitably persuaded. Try me. I ask: would you not let someone swab your cheek if it would help catch a terrible human being who had hurt an innocent? What are you harmed? Is this harm great enough that you'd rather let a... child molester (for example) carry on?

I would let someone do that, personally, if I was asked to volunteer to do so. The issue is not my willingness. The issue is in providing those powers to the government as a matter of law. There should be a limit to the powers of the government and how much the desire to stop crime can justify.

I do understand, but I think having your DNA on a record is no more harmful to your civil liberties than having your blood taken, or having your fingerprints on record. I'm not talking about micro-chipping, I'm talking about being recognised by your DNA when you commit a crime. It's no more than being "Recorded against your will" by security cameras. as someone who does not live in the nicest of areas, I'd rather have cameras on than not.

Having your blood taken or fingerprints on record - these are things that happen when you're arrested, or at least suspected, for a crime, not just as a matter of course (at least afaik). There's a big difference for me between being arrested or suspected of a crime, and having been in the position to have conceivably been able to have done the crime, in terms of the specificity and how wide the spread of the thing is.

There are benefits to having cameras everywhere and DNA monitoring etc. There are also legitimate concerns about having them everywhere. It's true that this specific instance isn't the worst thing I've ever heard of, but I think it's also OK to be a little bit on guard and skeptical about this sort of thing, even if being DNA tested doesn't harm you personally. And I definitely disagree with the idea that the existence of crime provides a blanket justification of these things (not that you said that it necessarily did, I'm just saying).

Edited 2014-04-15 00:10 (UTC)

(DA)

Eh, in some countries fingerprints are recorded as soon as someone ask their ID after turning 18.
Just a small fact I wanted to point, because overall I agree with you and hate how some governments use crime as an excuse to collect all kind of data from people.

Yeah that's a fair point - I'm definitely speaking from a very America-centric point of view. And I'm probably also kind of confusing how stuff is and how I think it should be.

I got fingerprinted when I got a job at a federal agency.

It was a prerequisite for my tutoring job as well.

Re: Sasuga Jezebel

whositwhatsit - 2014-04-15 01:56 (UTC) - Expand

DA again

In this country, they destroy the DNA samples/info after the investigation is over. Would that change your opinion on it?

It makes it less bad, yeah. I'd still be kind of worried about it.

Actually no. where I work, since we do handle a lot of Federal things (i.e. Mail), we have our finger prints on file.

so as it is, somewhere, besides at work, I already have my self on file. So don't even go there.

Re: Sasuga Jezebel

cushlamochree - 2014-04-15 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

The tests were designed to exclude suspects out of a small pool. Applied to databases of thousands of people, they become substantially less accurate. (Fingerprints are not as accurate as in the movies either.)

No, I wouldn't let anyone swab my cheek, not even if they whined that it might help them eliminate me as a suspect. Not even if they tried to guilt me with the information that an innocent was harmed or that the perpetrator would carry on.

It's an enormous civil liberties issue, especially since they keep that information forever in the U.S., share it with various other LEO databases, and use it in unrelated matters.

If their idea of police work is to shake down everyone in an X miles radius to the crime scene for their DNA, shame on that police department.

If their idea of police work is to shake down everyone in an X miles radius to the crime scene for their DNA, shame on that police department.

This. I'm sorry, but if you don't have enough evidence to prosecute a case, you don't have enough evidence. I'd much rather a perpetrator go free than an innocent person end up in jail because the prosecutors/police were so hellbent on charging SOMEONE that they put together a case on shaky evidence.

It seems to me that one should combat ignorance, not reinforce it by saying, "you are too ignorant to be capable of relieving yourself of ignorance."

It's a civil liberties issue. There are, or should be, limits on how much scope the government should have to monitor and control citizens of a country, even if there were no abuse possible of the information. The default should be "the government does not have the right to this information". Because, essentially, we should be free people as much as that's possible.

In the same way that I would not be okay with EG the government recording all phone conversations or recording everyone in society's movements at all times, even if I knew that the information would never be abused, I'm not really okay with this. Yes, it's in pursuit of putting away rapists, which is a good thing, but the scope seems far too broad.

Even if they aren't keeping the records after? The article I read (I think it was BBC) said that once a person is cleared so will his file.

And the scope is "everyone who was in the school at the time". How is that too broad?

The article I read (I think it was BBC) said that once a person is cleared so will his file.

I didn't see it, that definitely makes it somewhat less bad

And the scope is "everyone who was in the school at the time". How is that too broad?

Cause there's no particular reason to think that any of those people did it, except that they happened to be around the area.

Yeah...if you believe the government is actually doing that. Because history shows otherwise.

so hundreds/thousands of people having dna samples taken is more of a violation of human rights to you than someone being sexually assaulted?? differences in numbers aside you have to compare the violations here

their taking of dna samples is a response, and one i personally find appropriate. i agree that people deserve their liberties but one of these dudes violated the express freedoms of the survivor in a way that simply doesnt compare to their own

Edited 2014-04-15 02:59 (UTC)

no, I think the violation of being sexually assaulted is profoundly worse than the violation of human rights involved in taking the human DNA, but i don't think the one pays back the other, or that the evil done justifies doing something that is wrong and violating civil rights, even if that is much less bad. it's not, like, an equation where you're permitted to do something bad in return as long as it's not as bad as the initial thing.

and yeah, one of those dudes did an awful thing that did violate the freedoms of the survivor, and i don't mind taking away his civil rights - that's more or less what the process of imprisonment is. but we're not just talking about that guy, we're talking about everyone else involved after the fact, and we're also talking about the system of laws and rights and the process of government, and our whole society.

yea i feel u i just happen to think french police are perfectly within their right to catch a dangerous person even at the cost of asking those ~500 dudes to submit to dna testing, however sketch some of you consider it

theyre legally within their right to ask this of these men. i dont normally take an ends justifies the means approach to law/justice but this specific case seems entirely reasonable, if not expected

i knew exactly who raped me & he never saw a day in jail or court for that matter, so speaking from my position i just happen to think whats being done to help this girl is tons better than the alternative, which i have to live with personally

It's a huge problem, potentially. Among the reasons:

a) Governments do not always do what they are supposed to do, so even promises to get rid of the info once someone is "cleared" is no guarantee that that actually happens.
b) DNA testing is not actually infallible, must as TV would sometimes lead one to believe otherwise.
c) There is potential for one's DNA to be in the wrong place at the wrong time for COMPLETELY innocent reasons and for that to turn into a wrongful conviction.
d) While totally aware that this is a French case in question, at least from a U.S.-based, 4th amendment perspective, one's DNA is part of one's bodily sanctity and thus protected against unreasonable search and seizure, meaning that the burden is on the GOVERNMENT to meet a certain threshold of cause before being permitted to violate that without an individual's permission. I happen to believe that this is an important protection for people against the government even if a person has never and will never do anything that would make it an issue. I don't know enough about French law to know if this is prosecutorial overrreach or completely within the realm of acceptable actions as far as the current legal framework.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only