Hacker News Reader

Comment by lilyball | Hacker News Reader

This is really worrying.

> To illustrate the point, he selected a sample from a 52-year-old Bensalem resident who had been pulled over the previous day for running a red light.

They're doing DNA matching against people pulled over for misdemeanors (speeding and an outstanding warrant for "retail theft"). And this is apparently now being connected to a national database.

> To collect DNA, police in Pennsylvania must obtain consent from people under arrest. Ninety percent of those asked say yes […] Asked why so many people would consent to give DNA, he said: “I have no idea. But criminals do stupid things.”

I know why. It's because you've got someone in a position of power asking those they have power over for something they don't really understand. People will say yes because they hope that agreeing to the demands of their captors means they'll be treated better.

View on HN

Further in the article

> “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any crimes?’”

The way they're phrasing this makes it even worse. They're clearly not explaining what this actually means, they're pretending like this is to help the suspect, and the suspect probably has no idea that this is being compared to a large database of crime samples.

> Mr. Harran called this criticism “total nonsense.” His officers do not target particular groups for DNA collection, he said: “You have nothing to fear if you’re not going to be a criminal.”

This is the exact same argument made against the right to privacy.

Yeah, totally ignorant. If there is a database with DNA from everyone, you can trivially frame anybody.

It is usually easy to obtain DNA from a specific person and put it at the crime scene.

I'm sure Mr Harran's DNA won't be found in any database.

My understanding that these databases effectively contain a checksum which has a very low chance of collision. I don't know if you could actually make DNA material from that checksum.

The comment you replied to did not mention making DNA material. DNA can be obtained directly from the target.

CCC members has obtained fingerprints from politicians, for example. DNA is no harder.

Or don't target a specific person, but place random hair found in a public toilet.

Not only is obtaining DNA contaminated samples not harder than fingerprints, it is orders of magnitude easier.

I can believe they don't target "particular groups", just "every group".

Anybody who parrots ‘nothing to hide’ or anything similar needs to read The Trial. If we’re heading towards a dystopia, I don’t think it will be Orwell’s, I think it will be Kafka’s.

Anyone who parrots 'nothing to hide' should have a public webcam in their shower.

"My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong."

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal...

suggesting a webcam in the shower is not about "hiding a wrong".

Parent was agreeing with the grandparent.

While that argument is valid, it doesn’t touch on the true nefariousness of ‘nothing to hide’. Which is how a secretive bureaucracy can interpret isolated facts any way they please, and place the burden of proof onto the accused. A real life example would be the no fly list. How do you get on it? How do you get off it? The best example in fiction would be Kafka’s The Trial, imo.

Weird, because this genuinely wouldn't bother me, while being on a DNA database would.

I don't understand your point. It's possible to not want your nude photos public while also being comfortable submitting your DNA to a government database.

I personally probably wouldn't submit my DNA without a particular reason, but I don't see what's the contradiction here?

Ever been in a liason with a policemen wife and had your DNA turn up in a murder case?

You're missing the point. Everyone in this thread agrees that submitting DNA voluntarily is a bad thing. There is no need to pursue that part.

The confusion felt by some in this sub-thread is the analogy between 'having nothing to hide' and 'having a pub webcam in your shower'.

I don't see the connection either.

I'm not sure. I have always interpreted the "Nothing to hide" line as being past tense. Mr. Harran's statement is arguably future tense.

> “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any crimes?’”

But this is exactly what they are doing? It is an accurate description. Of course they keep it for future crimes too.

It's actually the inverse: They suspect the individual but have no other recourse but to suggest to the suspect that they want to rule him out.

It's akin to when police ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The question is open-ended and if the driver admits to any other wrong-doing, other than the reason for the stop, that's now introduces reasonable suspicion (by the act of admission) to other crimes.

Is it illegal? Technically, no. (Unless you go down the entrapment road.) Is it morally wrong? I think most people would agree that it is because the consequences aren't told the individual. (The informed consent argument.)

Also, Gattaca.

> And this is apparently now being connected to a national database.

And yet we still don’t get a national id. This is the worst of all worlds outcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com