Your DNA please!

January 7, 2003 3:32 PM

The movie Gattaca had a reoccurring theme of "the government and police have a right to your DNA." I thought it was silly sci-fi, decades ahead of reality. It appears I was wrong, as the Lafayette police go door to door taking DNA samples from 50-to-100 citizens in the hunt for a killer.
posted by mathowie (62 comments total)

Whoa, I just read this in Newsweek 10 minutes ago.

Resources are pouring into a special task force. It released a FBI sketch of a suspect and spent more than $700,000 swabbing the mouths of nearly a thousand locals who drive white pickup trucks in hopes of finding a DNA match. -Newsweek January 13, 2003 issue pg.8
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:44 PM on January 7, 2003

Here's the link.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:52 PM on January 7, 2003

History teach us one thing, people don't care.

What worth could privacy possible have to cattle, and are we not cattle? Unconcerned with the slaughter houses on the horizon.
posted by ex.pr.ni at 3:56 PM on January 7, 2003

The people who refuse to have their DNA tested will be forced to submit by a court order, the sheriff said.

Doesn't that violate the 4th and 5th amendments? I wonder if anyone has refused yet?
posted by Tenuki at 3:59 PM on January 7, 2003

It doesn't say one way or the other in the article, but I believe that you have the right to decline to give a sample. Of course, this makes you a suspect, and the police might be able to get a warrant for your DNA based on that alone... not sure. Any lawyers/cops care to speak up?
posted by cell divide at 3:59 PM on January 7, 2003

DNA databases are absolutely inevitable. Their advantages in preventing crime far outweigh the disadvantages in privacy, and proper regulation would ensure that, for example, possible employers would not have access to them as happens in Gattaca.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:01 PM on January 7, 2003

Compulsory DNA testing has been happening in Australia for the last year or two. Worrisome.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2003

"and proper regulation would ensure that..."
and therein lies the problem; who gets to define 'proper'?
posted by dolface at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2003

Also, here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:08 PM on January 7, 2003

I agree that a DNA databse is inevitable, but I worry they may not be well regulated. It seems to me that too many organizations would be interested in access to a DNA database. Large employers, insurance companies, the Dept of Homeland Security etc, all have a powerful influence on government policy. They will use that influence to their full benefit.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:11 PM on January 7, 2003

Perhaps I'm being cranky, but "Hey Copper! I got a DNA sample for ya right here!"

And now that I'm done furthering the discussion in a thoughtful and productive manner....
posted by stet at 4:11 PM on January 7, 2003

Wouldn't you voluntarily agree to provide a sample of DNA if the purpose was to apprehend a murderer?

It doesn't seem like anybody was coerced, or treated unfairly.
posted by hama7 at 4:19 PM on January 7, 2003

i actually loved Gattaca (and still do). i think it's a little extreme however to compare the premise of the movie - society striving for perfection via 'unnatural' methods - to this story: we already incorporate any DNA evidence discovered at a crime scene which, of course, is proper. The govt and police do have the right to process any evidence found; it's part of their job. The theme of Gattaca didn't seem to imply the intrusion of gov't into our lives, imo.

whether suspects in a crime are protected from DNA tests I'm sure is up for debate. i know absolutely nothing about law so i couldn't say.
posted by poopy at 4:20 PM on January 7, 2003

stavrosthewonderchicken, the testing here was not compulsory, but campaigns for voluntary testing were based on the [menacing tone]"you don't have anything to hide now, do you?"[/end menacing tone] method. They were required to destroy the material and all the results after the investigation was completed.
posted by dg at 4:26 PM on January 7, 2003

Whoops. Thanks for the clarification, dg.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:27 PM on January 7, 2003

hama7: How would volunteering my DNA help solve a murder if I wasn't guilty? If I have to give a sample to eliminate myself as a suspect, aren't I also being asked to prove myself innocent? And finally, what happens to the DNA sample after the case is solved? It seems to me that the police have been solving murder cases without DNA being collected from the general population. It's a slippery slope out there, kids, watch your step.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:29 PM on January 7, 2003

DNA databases are absolutely inevitable. Their advantages in preventing crime far outweigh the disadvantages in privacy

Lets be clear, a DNA database would not provide primary prevention- that is the initial crime. It would provide secondary prevention in that AFTER the intial crime was comitted, DNA would be left behind- allowing for analysis and (presumable) prevention of further crimes. As to whether it would deter crimes, I think that is pure speculation.
posted by CoolHandPuke at 4:30 PM on January 7, 2003

DNA databases are absolutely inevitable. Their advantages in preventing crime far outweigh the disadvantages in privacy, and proper regulation would ensure that, for example, possible employers would not have access to them as happens in Gattaca.

The same thing could be said for gun registry using different constitutional amendments as defense to the contrary.

I'm not trying to start a gun control debate here, just merely pointing out an example of mass registering that has, for quite some time, been fought and prevented by dedicated groups opposed to it. Is there really so little a chance of outrage over something like this that a massive DNA database is "inevitable?"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:31 PM on January 7, 2003

"Wouldn't you voluntarily agree to" unreasonable search and seizure "if the purpose was to apprehend a murderer?"

No.

IMHO it is wrong for law enforcement to ask us to suspend our civil rights so that they have an easier job. Our civil rights make law enforcement more difficult. It's designed that way. We do not give cops the benefit of the doubt in this country. We give that to citizens.

Demanding a search of *everyone* when a crime is committed is oppressive.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:32 PM on January 7, 2003

If I have to give a sample to eliminate myself as a suspect, aren't I also being asked to prove myself innocent?

Not exactly. You're volunteering to help an investigation.

If the investigators demanded samples, or neglected to explain why samples were needed, then we have a horse of a different color, and there'd be good cause for worry.
posted by hama7 at 4:34 PM on January 7, 2003

According to the two articles they are going door to door in one area and sampling the owners of white pickup trucks in another. Couldn't they just interview these people and determine who was a suspect and who was not? Instead the investigation has jumped right into taking DNA samples. In terms of helping an investigation I would gladly be interviewed, give names of alibis and tell them about my recent actions. I would not volunteer any physical evidence (read: DNA) or allow them to search any part of my property unless the police had a valid warrant.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:41 PM on January 7, 2003

These people are not "volunteering," hama7, they're being approached at their homes and "asked" to, as others quoted, essentially prove that they're not a serial killer. Those who do not "volunteer" are then ordered to. Because, as the article mentions, a serial killer "may or may not own a white truck."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:41 PM on January 7, 2003

DNA databases are absolutely inevitable. Their advantages in preventing crime far outweigh the disadvantages in privacy, and proper regulation would ensure that, for example, possible employers would not have access to them as happens in Gattaca.

Preventing crime? Are you suggesting, eugenics?

DNA samples, short of killing people we label has having "crime genes", will not prevent any crimes.

Why would you think DNA databases are inevitable? What would be so frightening for someone that this approach would seem reasonable to them? Sure, privacy be damned. We have crime and privacy has never been shown to increase safety the same way lack of privacy has never been shown to contribute to violence... yeah, that's it.
posted by ex.pr.ni at 4:44 PM on January 7, 2003

Again, hama7, if I'm not the murderer, how exactly would a DNA sample from me help the investigation? They'll be right back where they started - with no suspect to investigate closely.
posted by pyramid termite at 4:46 PM on January 7, 2003

i actually loved Gattaca (and still do).

Same here. Finally a SF movie that focussed on plot rather than special effects!

From the article: Neustrom asked people to keep an open mind when reading the profile and the description of the white pickup truck possibly involved in the killings of two of the four women.

Speaking in general terms, Neustrom said witness accounts of a suspect's vehicle are "often proven off the mark."

I like how, in this case, if DNA isn't voluntarily forked over, that a court order to do so will be enforced.
Kind of like the DC-area sniper, too eh?

Personal anecdote: my fingerprints, for all I know, are in the RCMP files. Our house got broken into years ago, and all the family's fingerprints were taken. The RCMP says they're not, but the RCMP says a lot of things.
posted by sillygwailo at 4:59 PM on January 7, 2003

DNA is something that seems much more effective in defense- this is a situation where investigators are starting with a pool of... well, everybody, and trying to use DNA to whittle down. That's the opposite of usual DNA evidence used to prove paternity (one preson accused of fatherohood) or judicial guilt/innocence (one defendant proving they are not the killer, prosecutors strengthening their evidence against the accused suspect, etc.) Turning DNA into the "glass slipper" gives chance to a host of manipulative actions that offset the entire widespread procedure. If a serial killer knows everyone in town with a white truck is getting their DNA checked, what's to stop him from grabbing a loose hair from the seat of any white truck he passes by to plant on a body?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:04 PM on January 7, 2003

Wait a sec. This article does not say they were going door to door doing testing. Read it carefully. The first paragraph says they will DNA test 50 to 100 people "Based on tips from the public about possible suspects..." So this is not random, it's based on tips, which may have given police probable cause to "search."

The next paragraph is a whole different issue: "Investigators also will knock on the doors of homes and businesses in Lafayette and St. Landry parishes to gather information..." This does not sound related to DNA testing, rather it sounds like the police canvassing the neighborhood.
posted by pitchblende at 5:08 PM on January 7, 2003

I don't see much difference in maintaining a DNA database and a fingerprint database, although I am conscious of the slippery slope effect.

If I recall correctly, in one of the cases that stavrosthewonderchicken linked, the person eventually arrested had not yet been tested, but gave himself up partly because be believed that his apprehension was imminent due to the "infallibility" of the testing program.
posted by dg at 5:14 PM on January 7, 2003

i agree pitchblende....i almost brought up the same point...the police aren't going door-to-door doing DNA testing and the fpp suggested that is what they were doing. however, they are asking potential 'suspects' based on this door-to-door canvassing to supply their DNA evidence. again, i really don't know what the law is but asking a person for a DNA sample based purely on 'tips' from the public is pretty shaky ground constitutionally, i would think. like others have said, if police want to enter my home, they need a warrant.
posted by poopy at 5:15 PM on January 7, 2003

The NYtimes had an article about a fellow who initially refused the test. His reasoning?

...he has feet much bigger than the prints left by the killer and had phone bills that show he was at home when the murders took place.

The police told him that ...if he refused, they would get a court order and that would get in the newspapers and then everyone would know he was not cooperating.

And, although GATTACA wasn't about de jure discrimination on the basis of DNA, it was about de facto discrimination by employers, etc. We already have that, in that many employers won't hire you if you have a crappy credit history. If you have a history of death from early heart attacks or cancer in your family, expect your kids to have trouble getting health insurance or college loans, once DNA databases become a reality.

It's almost inevitable, seeing as how there is already an unofficial department of Pre-Crime, based on racial and religious profiling.
posted by GriffX at 5:19 PM on January 7, 2003

Of course a DNA database would provide a great deal of initial prevention. A criminal would know that leaving the smallest bit of skin would result in them getting caught and successfully prosecuted!

Preventing crime? Are you suggesting, eugenics?

Bloody hell. Go and read some books or something.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:23 PM on January 7, 2003

A DNA database would be very much like a fingerprint database, and society has already decided that we shouldn't go around demanding fingerprints from vast swaths of society.

If a DNA database is inevitable, then I'll just wait around for my email account to fill with spam specially tailored to my genetic needs.
posted by Locke at 5:51 PM on January 7, 2003

Here in New Zealand, police are regularly taking samples from people convicted of burglary. The twist is that apparently, most sex offenders start off as petty criminals - as a result, the clearance rate for rape investigations is going up, as the odds that an offender's DNA is in the database improves. I'm not sure this justifies the practice anyway.

On a much spookier, X-files type note, all babies here have a little blood drawn shortly after birth to test for PKU and other metabolic disorders. The sample is a kept on a card in a central location. As far as I know, the practice continues, meaning that there is a central source of potential DNA samples for all New Zealanders born in the last 30 years or so - an unintended consequence, I'm sure.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:10 PM on January 7, 2003

And, although GATTACA wasn't about de jure discrimination on the basis of DNA, it was about de facto discrimination by employers, etc.

All right; a bit of a tangent here: I need to get this off my chest. The main act of "genetic discrimination" that takes place in GATTACA involves the protagonist deceiving his employer (a space exploration company) regarding his genetic makeup such that they are unaware that he has a heart condition which would make him ineligible for his job (an astronaut). My problem with this scenario is that I have no qualms whatsoever about excluding people with serious heart conditions (I think our man in GATTACA suffered from some variety of arrhythmia) from the job of astronaut. This is, in fact, the status quo. Only people in excellent physical heath are allowed to be astronauts. If someone applied to NASA and hid a potentially fatal heart condition via falsified medical records and hacking of testing equipment (as per our hero in the movie), that person would be a criminal and an asshole for endangering not only himself but his crewmates. Christ, it's not like they were discriminating against Ethan Hawke because of his feminine features or his bad poetry gene--the character's genetic makeup made him unqualified for the job. Just like 120-pound men can't play pro football or schizophrenics can't be CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations. It's the freakin' status quo.

Sorry about that. It's been on my mind for awhile, now.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:11 PM on January 7, 2003

mr_roboto - I thought the movie made it pretty clear that he didn't have a heart problem, rather that he had the potential to have a heart problem. See the scene where he runs his ass off on the treadmill, out-performing all of the other 'genetically superior' candidates. He hacked an unfair system, I thought.
posted by GriffX at 6:21 PM on January 7, 2003

See the scene where he runs his ass off on the treadmill, out-performing all of the other 'genetically superior' candidates.

except for the fact that the heart thermometer was jerome's - not his - and it malfunctioned during the exercise, almost exposing his true identity.
posted by poopy at 6:27 PM on January 7, 2003

What about the swimming scene, where Hawke shows he is more fit than his 'valid' brother? The clear message of the film is, that just as we cannot assume that white men can't jump and black men like fried chicken, people who are genetically predisposed to a condition but don't actually have it should not be assumed unsuitable for a job. That damages society.

It certainly doesn't mean that the police shouldn't have records of DNA to help solve crime, though.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:33 PM on January 7, 2003

your second paragraph negated by the first.

if we assume that the world of Gattaca is real then the gov't has our future DNA criminal profile and uses the 'evidence' from this DNA to predict whether or not we will commit a crime. Now, any objective look at the so-called facts in a crime is immediately corrupted because the police/gov't are tempted to base their assumptions on DNA profiles rather than looking at ALL potential candidates.
posted by poopy at 6:50 PM on January 7, 2003

i'm not a cop or a lawyer, but i am a probation/parole counselor. this is a bit tangential, as i can offer information about a certian subset of people, but hey: in any case, oregon already has a DNA database, consisting of samples obtained from probationers who have no choice in the matter. in fact, refusing to submit a sample is a probation violation that will land you back in the pokey. i have a client in jail right now for refusing the give a DNA sample. his initial offense? drunk driving (not that DUI isn't a fucked-up crime).

the good news? while the government is already forceably gathering genetic data, it is only happening to "criminals". the bad news? anyone with a brain, much less a dissenting one, will be a "criminal" soon.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 6:51 PM on January 7, 2003

poopy - I think getting DNA data from the scene of a crime and identifying the true culprit is rather easier than working out who was "likely" to have commited it from people's genetic profiles! Have you heard of nature vs nurture?

I'm as against using DNA in that way as any of you - it's sick and ineffective, and would mean a complete change in the justice system. I just want it to be used to genuinely prove guilt based on evidence at the scene, just like it is today, only with a larger database leading to more solved cases. Using the data one way doesn't mean we have to use it the other way!

I'm British. I don't seem to have such a pessimistic view of police and government as those of you under Bush II...
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:14 PM on January 7, 2003

See the scene where he runs his ass off on the treadmill, out-performing all of the other 'genetically superior' candidates.

Gattaca was shown on the telly 3 days ago so it's still fresh in my mind. After running on the treadmill and fooling the sensor with a recorded heart-beat something goes wrong and for a second his real heart beat is shown pounding away. He walks calmly out of the gym and to the lockers where he staggers around gasping for breath.

The moral of the movie is that people should have the chance to prove their DNA wrong.
posted by holloway at 7:30 PM on January 7, 2003

Here in New Zealand, police are regularly taking samples from people convicted of burglary.

Here in Australia, all those jailed are required to provide samples with the same sort of thing in mind.

We also get the heel-prick test, but I have no idea if the samples are held after being tested - that is freaky! What are they keeping them for?
posted by dg at 7:39 PM on January 7, 2003

society has already decided that we shouldn't go around demanding fingerprints from vast swaths of society.

Bzzt. I don't know about where you live, but in the last two states I've resided, you are required to give a thumbprint scan before you are allowed to get a driver's license. For those of you playing at home, that's California and Texas. I'm pretty sure that many (most? all?) other states either currently require the same, or will in the near future.

Me, I'm torn on the matter. Sure, prints/DNA are a huge help in crime-solving. However, I'm not a criminal, and I expect the government to respect my privacy, and not treat me like one. Additionally, I truly and deeply fear corruption in the government - I won't go into detailed scenarios of where this could lead, but I should hope I don't have to.

That being said, at least two states in the union now have my thumbprint, signature, and digital likeness in a database, along with almost every other identifying piece of information about me. I'm sure this information is available on a national level. Does this bother me? Yeah, a bit. Does this bother anyone else?
posted by majcher at 8:10 PM on January 7, 2003

GATTACA was a beautiful gay love story ruined by Uma Thurman.

I *heart* Jude Law.
posted by ColdChef at 8:50 PM on January 7, 2003

In NY and NC I haven't had to give any fingerprints for state ID cards (not driver's licenses).

I have had to give thumbprints to cash checks at the banks upon which they were drawn, and at which I didn't hold accounts - which seems illegal to me. Doesn't a check constitute a binding contract on the part of the bank?

Also, however practical a driver's license may be, there is a big difference between 'if you don't give us your DNA we'll get a court order' and 'if you don't give us your fingerprints you can't drive.' The other difference between a DNA database and a fingerprint database, of course, is that a DNA database could conceivably reveal things about your personality, and will certainly reveal things about your health, appearance, and proneness to disease; a fingerprint database will do none of these things.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:17 PM on January 7, 2003

"...Resources are pouring into a special task force. It released an FBI sketch of a suspect and spent more than $700,000 swabbing the mouths of nearly a thousand locals who drive white pickup trucks in hopes of finding a DNA match..." (link at top of post, from Elwoodwiles: I thought I'd reiterate the point) Speaking of which - that's over $700 per swab!
posted by troutfishing at 9:44 PM on January 7, 2003

The difference between snagging DNA samples from random citizens and having specific evidence (shoe size, fingerprints, matching gun, allibis, et al.) is that the latter involves deductive reasoning in which one is innocent until proven guilty, ergo, a reasonable excuse to be questioned by an investigator, while the former operates more of a stab in the dark. It automatically assumes that anyone is guilty. Who needs a police lineup or even crime scene details when DNA will do it for you?

And beyond privacy, this takes all the fun (or, more specifically, the tedious lead tracking and endless lab testing) out of solving mysteries.
posted by ed at 10:01 PM on January 7, 2003

Ishmael's hit it on the nail.

Step 1: Get a uni degree.
Step 2: Get DNA databases*
Step 3: Cha ching if you know what you're doing a la CC Fraud.

*At the present time nonexistent, let's keep it that way.
posted by ( .)(. ) at 12:18 AM on January 8, 2003

GATTACA was a beautiful gay love story ruined by Uma Thurman.

[insert every movie Uma Thurman has been in]....were ruined by Uma Thurman.

Except the one with the gratuitous nudity. John Malkovitch was in it too. Extra points.
posted by hama7 at 1:39 AM on January 8, 2003

I'm British. I don't seem to have such a pessimistic view of police and government as those of you under Bush II...

I wouldn't be so confident. Blunkett's shown a horrible controlling streak of late. Remember this is the government that wants ID cards and a central database of personal and financial information. It's also the government that wants the police and other bodies such as the post office (?) to have access to all internet communication.

The point about DNA testing is that if it's voluntary, it's ineffective. You're not going to offer up your DNA if you're guilty of the crime. Personally I think it's OK to take DNA samples from criminals convicted of similar crimes, as long as these samples are only used for the purposes of identification during investigations. That's about as far as you should go in a free society.
posted by Summer at 2:19 AM on January 8, 2003

hama7 said: Except the one with the gratuitous nudity. John Malkovitch was in it too. Extra points.

Dangerous Liasons, please, that wasn't even difficult.

GATTACA was such a beautiful film, the minimalist surface-oriented design sensibilities seem so ubiquitous now.
posted by yonderboy at 2:34 AM on January 8, 2003

Dangerous Liasons, please, that wasn't even difficult.

That's easy for you to say! All I could remember was that it was set in France, I think, and that other stuff.
posted by hama7 at 3:24 AM on January 8, 2003

How long until bloggers start publishing their DNA profiles to their blogs? Will people ever fiddle around with genetics and electrophoresis in their homes as a hobby, like working with computers or building robots?
posted by piskycritter at 5:41 AM on January 8, 2003

I've actually got a little clone of hama7 on my desk.

Can you say "Marxism"? Good boy!

OUCH! Right, no food for you young man!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:39 AM on January 8, 2003

I'd have to chime in on a couple of points: GATTACA really is a beautiful movie, it was about all about genome discrimination, and having a fingerprint db is not at all the same as a DNA db.

So there.
posted by silusGROK at 7:28 AM on January 8, 2003

Something similar to the FPP happened in Oklahoma City a couple of years ago, funnily, right around the same time that Joyce Gilchrist, the OKC police department forensic scientist, was being investigated for "errors" in her work that sent many innocent people to prison.
posted by tolkhan at 7:32 AM on January 8, 2003

In and near OKC, I should say.
posted by tolkhan at 7:33 AM on January 8, 2003

I live around Baton Rouge, a short drive from Lafayette, where the serial killer has found his first three (known) victims. The local paper has an archive of stories related to the investigation. The recent DNA samples (50-100) collected in Lafayette are only 10% of the total collected in the investigation; hence the cost is around $70 a pop - not $700.

The community has been residing in absolute fear; I imagine very similar to the fear that those around Washington endured with the snipers. The number of DNA samples collected was not revealed until someone refused to acquiesce as already indicated. The FBI has also released a psych and behavioral profile of the killer, and water cooler talk has revolved around these traits and those who drive white trucks. Many have discussed whether or not they would "voluntarily" offer samples of DNA, and surprisingly most would be more than happy to comply.

The investigation has been in full swing since July, and it seems that they are measuring their progress by "eliminating" suspects via DNA. The entire process has not been very confidence inspiring and the DNA testing has lagged behind the sample collection by weeks, which seems to make the whole process entirely ineffective.
posted by ajr at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2003

Question:

Suppose you are innocent, but still considered a suspect in a crime. You are interrogated at the police station, and while you are there, you blow your nose in a kleenex or smoke a cigarette and discard the kleenex/cigarette butt. Then leave and go home.

Can the police legally take the kleenex/butt without your consent for DNA analysis, since you've thrown them away?
posted by titboy at 10:29 AM on January 8, 2003

Remember this is the government that wants ID cards and a central database of personal and financial information...

In which case, they would be well advised to take note of the fate of the Australian government that lost a huge amount of support over their plans to introduce the "Australia Card" - a single card that would be used for all banking, health care, taxation ID uses etc. The fact that all the information is already available to government agencies (albeit in separate places) anyway, seemed to escape the voting public at the time and continues to do so. In the end, the government achieved their goal in a different way with no fuss whatsoever.

titboy - not in Australia, they can't.
posted by dg at 2:29 PM on January 8, 2003

Does anyone know of any solid information on the margin of error of these DNA tests? The only link I turned up in an admittedly brief search found the accuracy at around 99%. In the Lousiana case, in a sample of around 1000 subjects, that means potentially 10 people would be possible DNA matches with the serial rapist.
posted by MetalDog at 5:54 PM on January 8, 2003

ID Cards...
DNA Database...
Blanket CCTV coverage...

I've got a sneaky way to avoid all these things...

STOP COMMITING CRIME, ARSEHOLE!
posted by ed\26h at 1:43 AM on January 9, 2003