Saw that coming

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You may be thinking of ambulances. Cops don't normally show up until after you have needed them, hence the Second Amendment.

Au contraire. Cops are the ones who investigate a crime and collect evidence with which to arrest the criminal and ideally take him off the streets, at least until some scumbag lawyer and crazy liberal judge set him free again. That's is the whole reason they might want access to DNA.

Crimes are solved and people are located every day thanks to "intrusive" technology. The one Duke lacrosse guy was exonerated of that rape because the ATM location took his picture, proving he wasn't even at the house. People rail against ID technology, but the fact is that it saves innocent lives pretty much every single day.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Not surprising. You are highly pro-criminal and in favor of pretty much anything that keeps predators on the streets victimizing society.



well feel free to mail the FBI a swab of the inside of your mouth ....


from the OP:

.... New Orleans filmmaker Michael Usry became a suspect in an unsolved murder case after cops did a familial genetic search using semen collected in 1996. The cops searched an Ancestry.com database and got a familial match to a saliva sample Usry’s father had given years earlier. Usry was ultimately determined to be innocent and the Electronic Frontier Foundation called it a “wild goose chase” that demonstrated “the very real threats to privacy and civil liberties posed by law enforcement access to private genetic databases.”
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Holy cow we agree on something!

That should be, IMO, considered private medical data.


Although, the Marine Corps has my dna, so........ I wonder how they're allowed to use it.


:yay:


Thank You ... if the police want DNA from EVERYBODY - have the BALLS to petition congress for a DNA Collection System

and see how long you stay in office


US Army have mine ...
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The one Duke lacrosse guy was exonerated of that rape because the ATM location took his picture, proving he wasn't even at the house.


that is not MY DNA submitted for a personal reason ....
.... if I was the suspect in criminal investigation the police have procedures for gathering evidence, without trolling though ancestry.com DNA db fishing
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
that is not MY DNA submitted for a personal reason ....
.... if I was the suspect in criminal investigation the police have procedures for gathering evidence, with out trolling though ancestry.com DNA db fishing

Gurps, I really hope your paranoia about crime technology and cops in general doesn't come back to bite you in the ass some day. It would annoy me to have something horrible happen to you or a loved one, and it be in poor taste to go "Ha ha, told you so."
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Gurps, I really hope your paranoia about crime technology and cops in general doesn't come back to bite you in the ass some day. It would annoy me to have something horrible happen to you or a loved one, and it be in poor taste to go "Ha ha, told you so."

thanks ....
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Yeah... Ok... :lmao:

Speaking from personal experience...if I call 911 it takes anywhere from 10 minutes to a half an hour for a unit to respond. And at least once I got a phone call back about 25 minutes after the 911 call.."uh..running late...you still need somebody?"

So yes..I am by necessity my own "first responder". It's that way everywhere in this country. And I'm fine with that too.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I could give scenario's where each of my examples could require the tag readers to store the data longer. That doesn't really matter anyhow. You STILL can't tell me why it's wrong other than your opinion says so.

I love people like you, who have lived off the government dole their entire adult life, but then question the government who has been paying you all these years.

I like people like you, who think you have earned it, but for me it's the dole :) Screw off, buddy :) I question everything, from science to religion to government. You think I haven't earned the right to question? I say you don't get to say what I can question. I think the growth of persistent domestic surveillance is a step in the wrong direction. And I'm not alone in that thought.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...lock-national-license-plate-tracking-program/

"Sen. Ronald Latz (D), along with two cosponsors and four joint sponsors in the House, introduced senate bill 86 (SF86) back in January. The new law places strict limits on the use of license plate readers, including a warrant requirement in order to use ALPR data to track individuals subject to an active criminal investigation. The legislation also requires the destruction of any data unrelated to an active criminal investigation within 60 days, places strict limits on the sharing of any data gathered by ALPRs and prohibits the creation of a central state repository for such data.

The Senate passed the final version of SF86 55-11. The House approved the final measure 96-35.

The new law also includes provisions for destroying data related to inactive criminal investigations. The requirements limiting data retention and prohibiting a central depository will make it impossible for the state to establish a permanent database of information that state or federal law enforcement could later access to track individuals,

The bills strict limits on sharing ALPR data will also keep data on Minnesotans from finding its way into permanent databases. The bill requires any agency obtaining Minnesota ALPR data for an active criminal investigation to “comply with all data classification, destruction, and security requirements of this section.”

The law prohibits sharing of data not related to a criminal investigation completely."

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...lock-national-license-plate-tracking-program/

"Under the proposed law, law enforcement agencies would only be allowed to access a database of collected ALPR information for “the investigation, detection, analysis or enforcement of the law regarding a criminal offense.” The primary purpose of the pilot program is locating stolen and uninsured vehicle. Any data not related to that purpose, or felonies, including vehicle theft, homicide, kidnapping and burglary, or for AMBER and Blue Alerts, must be destroyed within 30 days.

SB250 prohibits sharing of data with any agencies not included in the pilot program. This would exclude federal agencies from accessing the Louisiana database."

And theres more, but you get the point. It's not paranoia to ask that restrictions be placed on the use this tech.
 
IMHO LawEnforcement has NO RIGHT to DNA shared with private companies for the process of finding relatives

In a perfect world I wouldn't have a problem with this. Perfect as in it correctly identifies the bad guy. Obviously, it isn't there yet. I wonder what would have happened if the police had checked the gun registration database, found out he was a collector, and sent a swat team. Oops.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/familial-dna-evidence-turns-innocent-people-into-crime-suspects/


The three men who showed up at Michael Usry’s door last December were unfailingly polite. They told him they were cops investigating a hit-and-run that had occurred a few blocks away, near New Orleans City Park, and they invited Usry to accompany them to a police station so he could answer some questions. Certain that he hadn’t committed any crime, the 36-year-old filmmaker agreed to make the trip.

The situation got weird in the car. As they drove, the cops prodded Usry for details of a 1998 trip he’d taken to Rexburg, Idaho, where two of his sisters later attended college—a detail they’d gleaned by studying his Facebook page. “They were like, ‘We know high school kids do some crazy things—were you drinking? Did you meet anybody?’” Usry recalls. The grilling continued downtown until one of the three men—an FBI agent—told Usry he wanted to swab the inside of Usry’s cheek but wouldn’t explain his reason for doing so, though he emphasized that their warrant meant Usry could not refuse.

[clip]

But the well-publicized success stories obscure the fact that familial DNA searches can generate more noise than signal. “Anyone who knows the science understands that there’s a high rate of false positives,” says Erin Murphy, a New York University law professor and the author of Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA. The searches, after all, look for DNA profiles that are similar to the perpetrator’s but by no means identical, a scattershot approach that yields many fruitless leads, and for limited benefit. In the United Kingdom, a 2014 study found that just 17 percent of familial DNA searches “resulted in the identification of a relative of the true offender.”

The technology’s limitations have the potential to cause real harm: What if Michael Usry was not a filmmaker, for example, but rather a high school teacher whose alleged involvement in a girl’s murder was leaked to the media? Yet despite all that can go wrong, few states have developed guidelines. California, Colorado, Virginia, and Texas have detailed policies regarding how and when familial DNA searches can take place; Maryland and the District of Columbia explicitly forbid the technique. Elsewhere in the nation, cops are largely free to search as they see fit, which is why Idaho Falls police decided it was OK to sift through an Ancestry database of genetic data from thousands of people with no criminal records.

Familial DNA searching is only going to get more prevalent as the cost of rapid DNA analysis plummets and the size of genetic databases swells. States must start putting rules in place to protect citizens, beginning by prohibiting police from running searches through nongovernmental databases, as happened in Usry’s case. This is not only because of privacy concerns—the people who contribute their DNA to such endeavors, whether medical or genealogical, rarely expect to have their genetic code scrutinized by cops—but also because those databases haven’t been vetted for use by law enforcement. Police in Idaho Falls, for example, were able to obtain a warrant for Usry’s cheek cells because his father’s DNA “matched 34 of 35 alleles” of that of Angie Dodge’s killer. But how common are those particular alleles in the general population? Does this even mean that there is a familial link? This isn’t entirely clear. (Ancestry, which gave Idaho Falls police the name of Usry’s father in response to a court order, has since shut down the database in question because, the company said, the “site [had] been used for purposes other than that [for] which it was intended.”)
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...
The three men who showed up at Michael Usry’s door last December were unfailingly polite. They told him they were cops investigating a hit-and-run that had occurred a few blocks away, near New Orleans City Park, and they invited Usry to accompany them to a police station so he could answer some questions. Certain that he hadn’t committed any crime, the 36-year-old filmmaker agreed to make the trip.
Never ever trust the police if being questioned. Never leave your house with them to answer any questions. Never answer questions. Always invoke your right to remain silent, in a nice polite manner. I'd say, about 90% of the time, police are on a fishing expedition. Remember, anything you say can and will be used against you .... even without that Miranda warning.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If I may ...Never ever trust the police if being questioned. Never leave your house with them to answer any questions. Never answer questions. Always invoke your right to remain silent, in a nice polite manner. I'd say, about 90% of the time, police are on a fishing expedition. Remember, anything you say can and will be used against you .... even without that Miranda warning.

Damn.

Well, I am against you all's pro-criminal attitude.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I think of it more as an "Assuming the police are acting in your best interest might not be the best idea" attitude. Or, to paraphrase that "Nobody cares about you and yours like you do".
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I think of it more as an "Assuming the police are acting in your best interest might not be the best idea" attitude. Or, to paraphrase that "Nobody cares about you and yours like you do".

So let's say someone breaks into your house. You...call the cops? And then what? Refuse to allow them in or answer any of their questions?

Pretty ####ing stupid, if you ask me.
 
Top