Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has a mid-aughts understanding of how DNA works. DNA science has evolved to the point where we can detect small amounts of DNA on basically everything. You are constantly leaving your DNA on surfaces, so the presence of a person's DNA at the scene of a crime isn't necessarily probative of anything.

I used to prosecute gun cases and we routinely DNA tested the guns. I can't recall a single instance where there was only one person's DNA on the gun. It was always a mixture.

Couldn't you just arrest them all and charge them all?

No. It isn't a crime to, at one point in time, touch a gun. Without knowing the circumstances under which they touched it, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the person committed a crime. We also don't necessarily know whose DNA is in the mixture. We can identify that there is another contributor without knowing who the person is.

Imagine this scenario: a shooting occurs and the next day police arrest a suspect, who is found in possession of the same gun that was used in the shooting. The gun is swabbed for DNA and sent for analysis. The lab results show a mixture of three different people's DNA on the gun, including the suspect. How do we know that one of the other contributors was involved in the shooting? What if the DNA belongs to the clerk at the store where the shooter bought the gun? What if the shooter loaned the weapon to his brother or friend to use at a shooting range, and one of the contributors is the brother/friend? What if the DNA belongs to the shooter's child who touched the gun when it was left unsecured?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond privacy for crime related reasons, it’s a potential nightmare for medical privacy for descendants of the deceased.

If they haven't committed any crimes, they have nothing to worry about.

You could find out your daddy isn't your daddy. You could find hereditary diseases that prevent you from getting insurance.

The same thing happens when people join Ancestry or 23andme! It’s out there already. Your family’s data is out there already!

You do realize that one is completely voluntary and the other one is not, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond privacy for crime related reasons, it’s a potential nightmare for medical privacy for descendants of the deceased.

If they haven't committed any crimes, they have nothing to worry about.

You could find out your daddy isn't your daddy. You could find hereditary diseases that prevent you from getting insurance.

The same thing happens when people join Ancestry or 23andme! It’s out there already. Your family’s data is out there already!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond privacy for crime related reasons, it’s a potential nightmare for medical privacy for descendants of the deceased.

If they haven't committed any crimes, they have nothing to worry about.

You could find out your daddy isn't your daddy. You could find hereditary diseases that prevent you from getting insurance.

The real reason is money. It costs money to run dna tests. Many jurisdictions do not even have the funds to run dna on collected rape kits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond privacy for crime related reasons, it’s a potential nightmare for medical privacy for descendants of the deceased.

If they haven't committed any crimes, they have nothing to worry about.

Why would it compromise medical privacy? Genetic genealogy closes the loop.Genetic genealogy has helped solve more than 1,400 cold cases and unidentified human remains by matching crime scene DNA with publicly accessible ancestry databases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has a mid-aughts understanding of how DNA works. DNA science has evolved to the point where we can detect small amounts of DNA on basically everything. You are constantly leaving your DNA on surfaces, so the presence of a person's DNA at the scene of a crime isn't necessarily probative of anything.

I used to prosecute gun cases and we routinely DNA tested the guns. I can't recall a single instance where there was only one person's DNA on the gun. It was always a mixture.

Couldn't you just arrest them all and charge them all?

Maybe your DNA is on one them. Can we arrest and charge you?

Anonymous wrote:Beyond privacy for crime related reasons, it’s a potential nightmare for medical privacy for descendants of the deceased.

If they haven't committed any crimes, they have nothing to worry about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has a mid-aughts understanding of how DNA works. DNA science has evolved to the point where we can detect small amounts of DNA on basically everything. You are constantly leaving your DNA on surfaces, so the presence of a person's DNA at the scene of a crime isn't necessarily probative of anything.

I used to prosecute gun cases and we routinely DNA tested the guns. I can't recall a single instance where there was only one person's DNA on the gun. It was always a mixture.

Couldn't you just arrest them all and charge them all?

DP. That's right, charge all the corpses.

Some believe the dead should be respected.

What if it's Trump?

You could probably get peolel to wave the constitutional rights but offering some dumb incentive. The same way we’ve given up rights to privacy in our photo image or shopping history or whatever because we want something like free shipping or to play a game where it tell us what our kids with a movie star would look like or whatever.

We make such a big deal about privacy rights with compelled governmental action but then we give them up to mega corporations for small conveniences or sillygames. Like how disney has everyone’s fingerprints. Or apples has eveeyones Face ID.

They should collect it at birth as a birth certificate requirement

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has a mid-aughts understanding of how DNA works. DNA science has evolved to the point where we can detect small amounts of DNA on basically everything. You are constantly leaving your DNA on surfaces, so the presence of a person's DNA at the scene of a crime isn't necessarily probative of anything.

I used to prosecute gun cases and we routinely DNA tested the guns. I can't recall a single instance where there was only one person's DNA on the gun. It was always a mixture.

Couldn't you just arrest them all and charge them all?

DP. That's right, charge all the corpses.

Some believe the dead should be respected.

Beyond privacy for crime related reasons, it’s a potential nightmare for medical privacy for descendants of the deceased.

The volume would be overwhelming. We don't have the personnel, facilities, or funding to process the samples that are already collected. There's no way our processing systems could handle the many orders of magnitude more quantity that would result from your proposal.

And if something did pop up, the person isn't around to defend themselves or offer an explanation, so the case wouldn't really be solved anyway.

Oh, and the whole thing about being unconstitutional.

Because corpses have rights.

Ahem