The feds will soon be collecting about one million DNA samples a year
under a new program that lets federal agents collect cheek swabs from citizens
merely arrested for any federal crime or from any non-citizen detained by
federal agents -- including visitors to the country who have visas.
The intent is build a massive database of DNA samples (.pdf) that police can
use to catch rapists and murderers, but even the innocent should fear being in
the database, due to the vagaries of how cold case DNA searches can easily
pinpoint an innocent person.
Thanks to an amendment in the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that was
sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the feds now have the authority to
immediately take DNA from any arrestee or 'detained' non-citizen and
immediately upload it to the FBI's CODIS database. That database is currently
fed by federal law enforcement agencies and all 50 states, a few of which
collect and upload DNA samples from people arrested, but not convicted of a
crime.
DNA profiles are composed of 13 genetic markers that are meant not to reveal
genetic makeup or disease. Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and
scientifically sound evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence
found at the scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA
link for someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the
odds against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.
But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the
profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the
chances that a match between a DNA sample -- especially an incomplete one --
and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has different math.
Very different math.
So if you have a probability of 1 in 1.1 million chance of people having a
certain sequence of DNA markers and you have a database of 550,000 people, you
have a 50% chance of making a match. That's great, if you know that the
perpetrator is in that database. But what it also means is that as you start
testing DNA profiles against more and more people, the chances that you will
match an innocent person to a DNA profile from a crime scene gets higher.
A recent L.A. Times story about a cold case prosecution of a 1972 rape and
murder in California, where 30 years later, police matched a DNA sample from
the scene to that of a convicted rapist in its 338,000 profile strong DNA
database. Given the number of markers that were used there was a one in three
chance that some profile in the database would match. In this case, it matched
John Puckett, who lived in the same city.
The jury however, wasn't told about the probability that someone in the
database would match against the profile (The L.A. Times story erroneously says
that there was a 1/3 chance that someone innocent would be fingered in such a
search. If one knew for a fact that every person in the database were innocent,
then there was a 1 in 3 chance that an innocent person would get fingered, but
in Puckett's case, one simply knows that there was a one in three chance
someone in the California criminal database would be fingered.)
And that's a problem when the government starts collecting millions of DNA
samples, sticking them in a massive database and finding 'cold hits.'
Imagine the innocent man facing down a jury of his peers, hoping that they
understand something about statistics.
The Justice Department is taking comments on the proposed DNA rules until
Monday, May 19.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/feds-to-collect.html
Let the people do what they want, you get Woodstock. Let the government do what
it wants, you get WACO!....Mary.
---------------------------------
Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger<<image/jpeg>>
