Police are getting DNA data from people who think they opted out

This sort of Exceeding Access isn't being used to violate copyright or expose Gov wrongdoing. There is zero politician outrage over it, purchased or otherwise.

I think that would be cause to throw the whole thing out, if it was eluted during discovery.

as is the only thing stopping probative DNA from ending up in the evidence lane is a promise not to abuse the opportunity, that also says nothing about "by mistake" occurances

I'm convinced many of our "leaders" could not argue their positions adequately if they were forced to defend them. I remember reading about events like the Million Man March on Washington DC, and I wonder how America would handle a massive, peaceful demonstration communicating the general discontent of the citizen with this potentially great country.

It seems there was a period in American history where the common man COULD and DID stand up for their countrymen, for the health and endurance of the entire country instead of a handful of rich fucks. Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? I ask mostly rhetorically but the America of today looks and feels characteristically different from what it sells itself as or even who it was a mere 50 years ago.

I get that the author is trying to motivate people, but logically that's a straw-man: Nobody actually thinks that the average individual Dirt-Farmer-Guy is being oppressed solely because they're terrified of Shiny-Hat-Guy's bulging biceps (2) and shouty voice (1).

No, each Dirt-Farmer's decision-making comes from a fear of very large numbers of violent angry men or institutions capable of destroying them financially and socially, fears which are often entirely justified.

If things were truly as straightforward as Étienne is suggesting, he wouldn't need to write about it: He could walk up to any random dude and say: "Hey, you're getting screwed, with two of us we could kick the Shiny-Hat-Guy's ass". And they'd do it, since every single person they'd meet would automatically join the mob or at least stand aside.

The problem is that we just don't know, and law enforcement agencies aren't giving us a detailed breakdown of which plots were foiled (or at least successfully prosecuted after the fact) via privacy-invading means vs. old-fashioned police work. Of course they'll never give us this data; we probably don't even hear about most investigations, even after the fact.

Just trust them? No thanks. They are very publicly incompetent in many ways (e.g. all airline "security" procedures developed post-9/11 -- except for locking and armoring cockpit doors -- seems pointless, and don't catch people during sanctioned penetration testing), and I don't see why they deserve any blind trust here.

We don't know if this sort of dragnet genetic database trawling will broadly close cases. Sure, it worked with the Golden State Killer, when no other methods seem to have worked. But that's just a single data point. And I'd rather that the occasional -- very occasional, as it turns out -- serial killer goes free, rather than live in a police state with no privacy.

This is a meandering way for me to say: we on the outside cannot propose alternatives, because we have scant data and little understanding of what works and what doesn't. And the people in power consider it a feature that we don't have access to this information.

I'd be much more trusting of democracy or even representative democracy if the demos had a real say -- We should be voting on issues more than we do people. People can betray trust or twist a vote's meaning. Most of politics, as practiced, is sleight of hand and misleading people. If we vote on issues and then also vote on people whose leadership we trust to execute said issue conclusion, we'd get much closer to something representing the will of the people while also guarding against populist BS. That is the supposed goal of representative democracies, and yet in practice it's bread, circuses, and zero accountability from the top. Losing an election is not a replacement for consequences or taking responsibility for defying the will of your constituents.

But, you can't sell that as a sport to people and foment tribal thoughts as easily, so that's no good. /s

I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. Sometimes you'll be asked, "Do you believe in the rule of law?" Why would one need to believe in it? Is it a religion? (I think it is one, personally) Government sometimes likes to claim a "monopoly" on violence as well. One generally cannot trade or purchase violence per se, so to act like it's a market, or that a government has any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence, is silly to me. Police are typically late to the scene of a crime, after all, and even with their monopoly are terrible at de-escalation or deterring.

I think the social contract is different in every society, and changes based on the makeup of the groups. It's an amorphous thing that is always referenced, but never spelled out. It irks me that it gets referred to sometimes, but I think if we have them, they should be bidirectional and mutually beneficial.

In general, I think a government who expects something but doesn't offer anything in return is merely tyrannical. If we're going to go on with these fantasies of contracts without signatures and choices without markets, then the least that can be done is for a government to act in good faith that they are protecting or improving the lives of those they gave themselves permission to rule over.

As an American I do not see my "representatives" representing or helping me.

You just scoop out the centralized means of access to resources and the semi-anarchist masses don't have anything to with their power.

You can't predict quantum states, but you sure can build walls around valuable resources and imprison unpredictable quantum technologists.

All it takes is a conspiracy/agreement among the heads of resources industry and the world is 'owned' again.

Not advocating for that outcome, it's just unfortunately true.

I'm reminded of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Of course if you recently visited the place where a crime took place you might also be falsely accused.

I suppose they could also use it to track your movements if there was some way to massively collect DNA samples from the environment.

DNA could be tested for traits that are "more likely to cause criminality". People with those traits can be more heavily scrutinized and surveiled. Or have their employment opportunities limited.

DNA could be multiplied and planted as evidence.

DNA could be cloned, or used in scientific testing without consent.

DNA could be used for targeted biological warfare.

People leave traces of DNA everywhere they go. Who knows what type of detection mechanisms will exist in the future?

There's also the very likely scenario that a central database like this becomes a prime target and leaks. It's borderline guaranteed.

Remember that you shed cells everywhere you go, so soon the tech will be advanced enough where we can do nearly real-time DNA matching. If you sneeze, a sniffer could pick that up and figure out who you are.

Imagine a camera that films not things that are visible, but people who were there, at that protest, in that store, in that hospital, boarding that plane. It's practically irrefutable (or currently legally is, even though it's inherently flawed.)

And you can never change that identifier. Once that data is out, it's out.

The last headline in that article, "Solving Crime Before It Happens" could have easily been entitled "Minority Report" (another great sci-fi movie that's not so fictitious anymore.)

Now imagine they have the wrong DNA on file for you!

Maybe guilt by association? Imagine going into a business, having some DNA based system identify you, and being denied entry because the majority of your relatives are criminals.

Realistically, I'd say the opposite will happen though. Being related to someone wealthy or influential will automatically get you special treatment and you won't even have to ask "do you know who I am?"

> but I can’t think of a concrete way the government would be able to abuse this capability to assert power over me

I think the war on drugs in the US is a pretty good example. If I say it was used to marginalized and disenfranchise one specific group of people, everyone knows what group I'm talking about, so, IMO, that's a good indication it was intentionally targeted at that group.

Now imagine the same thing, but you're in the targeted group and, instead of having the police roaming your neighbourhood, you're simply locked out of all the "opt-in" systems that are necessary to have a decent life; banking, real-estate, licensing, etc.. Maybe you're even prevented from shopping at stores that have reasonable prices and have to overpay for food because you're a "bad person".

Opting in to beneficial systems, with less beneficial defaults, is the new way of discriminating IMO.

Or go back a few more generations, even here in the USA you might legally have been declared to be 3/5 of a person.

You think people have really changed since then? I don't.

something I had never thought about, but what does an organ transplant do to these tests if a sample was taken from a recipient?

The hospital definitely has an accounting for them. Typically tissue or organs removed are sent to pathology, where they may be further tested and/or sold for research, data or other purposes. It's a dirty secret that hospitals make a ton of money off of parts of your body that they cut out.

It's fucked up how normalized circumcision is. Apparently some hospitals do it without even asking. Imagine your son's penis being mutilated so some person can have child-sacrfice skin cream.