> “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.
This is the exact same argument made against the right to privacy.
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.
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.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal...
I personally probably wouldn't submit my DNA without a particular reason, but I don't see what's the contradiction here?
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.
But this is exactly what they are doing? It is an accurate description. Of course they keep it for future crimes too.
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.)