×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

129 comments

"Brigands" (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44030863)

...really? That's the word we're using today?

Re:"Brigands" (2, Funny)

telchine (719345) | about 9 months ago | (#44030999)

They're brigands and blaggards; those dirty vamints. These dastardly perpetrators must be stopped forthwith! What do you think, old bean?

Re:"Brigands" (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 9 months ago | (#44031593)

I was thinking more "Why DNA instead of fluorescent dye?"

Re:"Brigands" (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#44031805)

I was thinking more "Why DNA instead of fluorescent dye?"

For truly efficient brigand-tracking, you want a globally-unique taggant, rather than being limited to the few dozen-ish colors of fluorescent dye...

Just imagine! Incentivize your riot cops during the next protest by mixing a unique DNA tag into each one's pepper spray and then analyzing the detainees. The more dirty hippies with your spray on 'em, the better your chance to win the department raffle!

Re:"Brigands" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032073)

I was thinking more "Why DNA instead of bullets?"

I "tag" all my property with my DNA.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44030891)

Under a black light it read "Property of AC" in very legible penismanship.

Re:I "tag" all my property with my DNA.... (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about 9 months ago | (#44031799)

penismanship?

Zardoz teaches : "The PENIS is EVIL"! (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 9 months ago | (#44031929)

well, they are talking about indiscriminately spraying DNA around all over the place...

Re:Zardoz teaches : "The PENIS is EVIL"! (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about 9 months ago | (#44033159)

yah. Didn't read the post closely enough. "Black light" was the key phrase.

a whole new take on "The Three Musketeers"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033607)

you'd have to be a very skillful penisman indeed to write your name legibly at any size!

Re:I "tag" all my property with my DNA.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033033)

Yes, I am very lucky to be hung like a #2 pencil.....

Why stop there? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 9 months ago | (#44030895)

Why not fog the warehouse with cold viruses that give you flourescent green boogers?

Re:Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031221)

A few years ago, someone suggested putting rat poison in a bait sandwich to punish a food thief who was chronically filching from a communal fridge. same idea?

Not even Texas would permit that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031323)

Well, one is arguably assault in defense of property (okay in some but not all jurisdictions), and the other is unarguably attempted murder in defense of property (only Texas devalues human life enough to permit that, and even there only when the person reasonably believes there's no other way to prevent the theft), so they're in the same broad category but not really the same at all.

Re: Not even Texas would permit that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033511)

Wait, which is attempted murder? You do know that amounts of rat poison sufficient to kill a rat are not necessarily enough to likely kill a human being, yes?

Re: Not even Texas would permit that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033687)

Does the person placing the poison know that? If not, attempted murder. If so, aggravated assault.
Anyway, why would you use rat poison if you didn't think it would be more effective than it is in real life?

Re:Why stop there? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#44031363)

Don't you think that a potent laxative would be less prosecutable? It would also be more fun to watch, especially when combined with a strong diuretic.

Re:Why stop there? (2)

djl4570 (801529) | about 9 months ago | (#44032545)

Rat poison would be reckless endangerment. Like gun trapping an empty house. There are non lethal approaches.
A friend told me of a time at TPC where a plate of brownies laced with Ex-Lax was left in the fridge for the resident fridge thief. It worked well. Five brownies were missing. The suspected thief clocked out sick less than an hour into his shift and there was evidence that he didn't make it out of the building without shitting himself.

Why start there? (1)

plover (150551) | about 9 months ago | (#44033649)

Seriously, UV dye taggants have been around for decades. You sprinkle fairy dust on the stuff you don't want touched, then UV shine the people who might have touched it. If their fingers glow, they're a suspect; you have probable cause to check them for stolen property. But if they go home and wash their hands, that means you failed to catch them in the act and you suck at your job as a security person.

Being near the ventilation system outlets, or washing the clothes of a warehouse employee, or of sitting next to him on the bus, or standing in line at McDonalds when he sneezes, all those sound like ways to spread the DNA tags. It'll be meaningless fast, if it can prove nothing conclusively.

Why not just use Skunk odors.... (1)

realsilly (186931) | about 9 months ago | (#44030909)

...that's a spray, and the smell is fairly easy to follow.

Seriously, this sounds pretty interesting, and scary all at the same time. It has the potential to last years, but it appears that a Police swab would be necessary. Why not make it so it's luminescent thus allowing a special light to be used to detect the DNA? This would prevent the need of the swab and the refusal of a perpetrator from providing the sample.

Just a thought.

Re:Why not just use Skunk odors.... (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 9 months ago | (#44031317)

It wouldn't help you track the brigand to tag them with just DNA, you would have to pick them up for something else or have enough evidence for probable cause before you could even swab them or their belongings. I am however sure a police dog could be trained to track a some kind of oil based scent that would be really hard to remove like a skunk scent. Then everything in of your store/warehouse/factory/home would be tagged with it as well so I don't think that would work either.

Re:Why not just use Skunk odors.... (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#44032475)

Ah, at last someone gets to the crux of the matter.

You still have to find the perp via some other means.

Then take DNA samples and process those. But wait, you also have to sequester every cop who visited the crime scene and not let them touch any evidence for weeks on end. And not just the evidence from one crime scene, but all the crime scenes using this technology. Once the cops set foot on the premises they too will be tagged. As well as their wives and co-workers that come in contact with their uniforms, objects they handled, and any perps they happen to apprehend.

Your average burglary detective would spread the DNA from several recent robberies to every suspect they hauled in. Would do wonders for their arrest rates. *cough*.

So the DNA taging system builds a web of uselessness around itself, which spreads wider daily, while at the same time provides not a single additional clue to help you catch the thief.

And I don't believe that bit about being hard to wash off either. After all, if you can sample it by simply using a swab, how tightly can it be bound?

Re:Why not just use Skunk odors.... (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 9 months ago | (#44033053)

Shortly after they had new security cameras professionally installed at work, I called the site director over and had him watch the dvr screen. I told him to watch me walk out of the building and back in... I walked out of the building normally and off camera then walked back in at angles I knew the cameras where missing when I got back to the office he says "I thought you were pulling a prank and just went to lunch cause I didn't see you coming back".

He ended up calling them back to fix it. I think the building was more secure when they had a security guard.

Re:Why not just use Skunk odors.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033463)

So the DNA taging system builds a web of uselessness around itself, which spreads wider daily, while at the same time provides not a single additional clue to help you catch the thief.

It seems to work for the NSA and the banks...

Re:Why not just use Skunk odors.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032737)

The problem with this is false positives. It's a spray, droplets are carried by air currents. There's no way to keep it on your own property, you would have to coat all surfaces (not spray) and someone would actually have to touch it. Meanwhile, if you coated the surfaces, a pair of gloves would defeat it.

It's unworkable.

Re:Why not just use Skunk odors.... (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 9 months ago | (#44033027)

fluorescent dyes are great, but they would also alert the criminals that they need to wash up. (blacklight flashlights cost less than $10 these days). DNA is great, but easily destroyed by 5% bleach. So long as the criminals throw away or bleach everything they brought with them (including themselves and the loot) this system is beatable.

I think the police would ban the use of thiols at crime scenes after their first investigation. "You want me to go IN THERE and bag evidence? Fuck that, I'm on sick leave as of 10 minutes ago". "You want me to put THAT GUY in our cruiser? We'll be smelling that for weeks! We'll smell like that for weeks!"

Those chemicals are really difficult to get rid of without peroxide or chlorine bleach. I used to work with them, a few microliters at a time in chemical hoods with great ventilation, and the odor would still get in your hair and clothes.

The end of crime (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 9 months ago | (#44030923)

Because this could NEVER-EVER be misused.

Re:The end of crime (3, Insightful)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about 9 months ago | (#44031233)

Yup, it's not like the clothing could be washed & dried in a public laundromat and the next fifty people to use it become suspects. It's not like the DNA could rub off on the seat of the stolen car thereby implicating the owner of the car. It's not like the next pool the drug dealer cleans (because drug dealers always have pool cleaning businesses because it gives them easy access to chemicals used in drug manufacture) would be at all contaminated with the stuff.

Re:The end of crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031337)

Yes but would it be stuck in your hair for 1-2 days? Unless you shave it off...

Think the idea here is someone robs something. Gets sprayed. Cops do not pick them up for a couple of days they are still marked.

Would it last weeks? Prob not. But if it lasts a couple of days it may be worthwhile.

Seen this a few times but with florescent dyes.

Re:The end of crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032487)

Yup, it's not like the clothing could be washed & dried in a public laundromat and the next fifty people to use it become suspects. It's not like the DNA could rub off on the seat of the stolen car thereby implicating the owner of the car. It's not like the next pool the drug dealer cleans (because drug dealers always have pool cleaning businesses because it gives them easy access to chemicals used in drug manufacture) would be at all contaminated with the stuff.

Great, now we know where he washes his clothes, what car he uses and where he works. That's a lot more information than we'd have otherwise.

Re:The end of crime (1)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#44032517)

Yup, it's not like the clothing could be washed & dried in a public laundromat and the next fifty people to use it become suspects.

Well the detectives investigating the crime scene will pick up quite a load of this DNA too. So any random person they choose to get off the streets and puff up their arrest record will be tagged as the detectives grab them and cuff them. And sure enough, the tags will match.

Re:The end of crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033093)

you seem to know a lot about drugs. Know where I can score some blow?

Re:The end of crime (1)

tloh (451585) | about 9 months ago | (#44031319)

Maybe the article was badly written, but at face value, it seems like a dumb idea to begin with. DNA molecules of any practical size are much to large to be suspended in the air for long. Any surface that is non-sterile is filled with nucleases released by microorganisms and endogenous enzymes from the human body that will quickly degrade your DNA beyond recognition. It would be as if those dye packs being used by banks are water soluble. All a criminal needs to do is do laundry and take a shower to eliminate the evidence. If these so-called DNA tags are not protected in some way, all you'll end up with is the constituent of nasal mucus.

Re:The end of crime (2)

boristdog (133725) | about 9 months ago | (#44032199)

Plus, the security guard who responds to the alarm will probably get the DNA all over themselves as well. And security people are always on the first list of suspects, so every job will appear to be an inside job, OR the security people will be free to steal whatever they want, since they have an alibi for having the DNA on them.

Until the security guards learn to just not respond to alarms. Which means the cops are free to steal as much as they want, since THEY will be the ones to have the DNA all over them, and have a good alibi now.

Re:The end of crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032321)

Cops and security guards don't really need to wait for this to be widely use to start stealing whatever they want because they have a good alibi.

What could possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44030963)

go wrong?

Re:What could possible (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031835)

Grammar could possible go wrong.

YOU FAiL IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031023)

at my freelance any doubt: FreeBSD They want you to used Wto. SHIT ON Moans and groans the most. Lo0k at And she ran asshole to others join in especially

Soylent Green Aerosol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031145)

Gah, so they spray soylent green poop into the air and it sticks to everybody and everything. What could possibly go wrong.

Application with a gun (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about 9 months ago | (#44031227)

I've never heard of applying DNA to a fleeing criminal with a gun. Sampling, yes, but not applying. A 9MM provides sufficient DNA samples.

Slashvertising! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031237)

What fun!

A gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031259)

Do you stick your hand over the barrel before shooting at your target?

I thought bleach destroyed that stuff. (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 9 months ago | (#44031339)

... So... you couldn't just take a dip in a swimming pool?

It goes without saying that once it becomes common knowledge that these things are being used thieves are going to burn their clothing after the heist. What then? Swab their bodies? Their lungs? The whole diver mask thing seemed to imply the air had to be filtered.

Brilliant. (1)

cfsops (2922481) | about 9 months ago | (#44031389)

From the cited article:

DNA Fog is an airborne suspension of artificial DNA molecules with a known but biologically inert sequence

[emphasis mine]

Because DNA is such a simple and easy to understand structure, spoke the head growing from ADNAS's ass.

Re:Brilliant. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#44031671)

Isn't it? It's a string made up of only four characters. Very simple. I thought it was also quite well understood which codons encode to which amino acids.

Given that there's always someone ready to dump on any announcement of scientific advancement, I'm going to take ADNAS's word for it until an actual scientist turns up.

DNA is inert outside of a cell anyway, isn't it?

Re:Brilliant. (1)

cfsops (2922481) | about 9 months ago | (#44033549)

Sorry, I don't see this as a "scientific announcement". The company, Applied DNA Sciences [adnas.com], is not a research company, it's a for-profit business. From their web site:

"Applied DNA Sciences delivers counterfeit protection, brand authentication, combats product diversion, and offers its award-winning programs against cash-in-transit crimes, all using the proven forensic power of DNA. With impenetrable taggants, high-resolution DNA authentication, and comprehensive reporting, our botanical DNA-based technologies deliver the greatest levels of security, deterrence and legal recourse strength."

I'm not shitting on science, I'm questioning how a for-profit business is using science. I don't consider this an "advancement" any more than I consider Big Boy and Fat Man, or the myriad other weapons that came after, to be "advancements" of our understanding atomic science.

amazing (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#44031451)

Wow, I can see thieves and trespassers but for brigands you typically need to make a perception or arcane check roll to identify them.

Re:amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031943)

Perhaps this DNA tagging is exactly the arcane check. ;)

Scenario (3, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | about 9 months ago | (#44031529)

Here's a scenario for ya. You're on the scene on day ten of the latest round of anti-capitalist protests in Zucotti Park, New York city. The crowd gets a little unruly and a full-scale riot breaks out. A cop gets his head caved in with a brick, a couple people get trampled, and the tear gas and truncheon work gets underway. The crowd scatters and disperses, and you go home and wash the tear gas out of your eyes.

Two days later, the cops show up at your apartment. It turns out they mixed a little DNA taggant into the tear gas grenades. They're going door to door throughout antiestablishment hot-spots in the city, asking for people to let them take a swab off their skin, so they can find the bastards who started the deadly riot. If you refuse, they apologize politely, and then swab your door handle on their way out.

Re:Scenario (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 9 months ago | (#44031775)

... And then you get a pro-bono lawyer to win the biggest 4th amendment case of the decade.

Im pretty sure you cant get a warrant to go door-to-door swabbing random people-- at least not yet.

Re:Scenario (2)

MasseKid (1294554) | about 9 months ago | (#44031827)

Actually, they effectively can. They simply arrest you, book you (where DNA taking is legal), and then fail to press charges, and release you. Knowing this is all legal, they can go door to door telling you that you can either give it, or they'll just arrest you and take it anyways.

Re:Scenario (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031901)

No, but police can and do simply ask for compliance without a warrant. If you say no, well- you obviously have something to hide by refusing a police request and that is all the probable cause some jurisdictions need to get a warrant.

Swab the door handle (1)

aclarke (307017) | about 9 months ago | (#44032061)

It seems like you and your poster children have missed the "swab the door handle" comment. The police are allowed to knock on your door and politely ask you for something. IANAL, but I'm sure they're also allowed to swab your door handle as it's on the OUTSIDE of your house. If they find the DNA on the door handle, it would be easy to get a warrant based on that evidence.

Re:Swab the door handle (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about 9 months ago | (#44032711)

I'm the original poster: glad you see what I did there. IANAL either, but I bet taking material from the outside of someone's house won't pass constitutional muster either, though it's much murkier than demanding a cheek swab.

I'll be honest here and say that I didn't intend for this to be a totally realistic scenario... just one with enough truth to scare y'all. Think of it as the Slashdot equivalent of a spooky campfire story.

Re:Swab the door handle (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 9 months ago | (#44032961)

An outside door handle that anyone could have touched you mean? I think I spot the problem with using the presense of DNA on the door handle as evidence of, well, anything...

Re:Scenario (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032407)

They don't use warrants anymore. the cops just do whatever they like, and the courts let them.

Re:Scenario (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031995)

Here's a scenario for ya. You're on the scene on day ten of the latest round of anti-capitalist protests in Zucotti Park, New York city. ...It turns out they mixed a little DNA taggant into the tear gas grenades

Tear gas, eh? So you were somewhere inside a 10-block radius of the park sometime within a week of the riot. So were three million other people.

By the way, how much money do you think the NYPD would need to pay for all of the chemicals needed to run the tests specified in the article? How much time do you think it would take to run 20,000 samples according to the process described in the article?

This whole thing is a gimmick to get money from business owners. It will always fail to identify the perpetrators but that's ok because it will be blamed on the local police and their lack of money, manpower and general laziness and not the corporation selling snake oil.

You forgot to mention the Agent Provocateurs (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 9 months ago | (#44032127)

You forgot to mention the undercover police or agents hidden among the people who were intentionally arousing tensions to provide the excuse for a crack-down.

Re:Scenario (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033319)

easier scenario, they already have your picture on the millions of security cameras near Zucotti park, they simply scan your face and boooooooooooooom you're there. Granted the New York Post may identify you as a Boston Marathon bomber, but who haven't they identified?

Re:Scenario (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about 9 months ago | (#44033453)

The biggest difference between facial recognition and DNA fingerprinting is that DNA fingerprinting actually works.

Good movie title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031701)

DNA fog sounds like it would be movie title for a movie directed by John Carpenter.

I can see the plot now:

The fog rolls in a changes your DNA and you go from being a person to a thing while you try escape the L.A pretty people.

Re:Good movie title (1)

linear a (584575) | about 9 months ago | (#44032875)

The fog rolls in a changes your DNA and you go from being a person to a thing while you try devour the L.A pretty people. FTFY

Mad Scientist (2)

b4upoo (166390) | about 9 months ago | (#44031841)

In order to fight back for crime we will be offering a spray that contains cloned DNA from millions upon millions of people. That way DNA evidence will become worthless as it will appear that the population of large nations was in the room not to mention the expense of sorting all the DNA samples. Due to the tiny nature of DNA a handy one ounce spray bottle could fit in pocket. Keep in mind that if your thing is rape you will need to spray this stuff where the sun doesn't shine in order to confuse the issue. The woman would appear to have slept with 23 million people the day of the attack.

Re:Mad Scientist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032923)

Yeah I don't think DNA works that way ... I'm guessing the DNA would have to be inside of a cell. And if there was a statistically higher amount of your DNA relative to the well documented DNA sprays and what kind of composition they had in lot #30982148 you'd still be screwed due to the extreme unlikelihood that your DNA just happened to be in such high concentrations of the spray.

Re:Mad Scientist (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | about 9 months ago | (#44033333)

It wouldn't take much to cross-contaminate it and make it utterly worthless though. It's hard enough to filter out one reference sample (victim) from the perp's DNA to get a clean read. And labs have to take some pretty extraordinary measures to make sure none of the suspect's reference sample mixes with the crime scene sample to avoid a false positive. Throw a random mix of a bunch of other people's DNA in there and you would probably mess it up enough to make the sample worthless. Granted, I wouldn't want to bet 20-30 years of my life on it, but I guess if you were going to commit a crime anyway it wouldn't hurt in trying to cover up your tracks.

Harsh penalties for possessing DNA avoidance systems in 3...2...

scre the liberal moderator's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031865)

Tagging some one DNA is calling them the incrimanate themself. It is unconstitutianel.

roman_mir [slashdot.org]

Re:scre the liberal moderator's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032177)

Tagging some one DNA is calling them the incrimanate themself. It is unconstitutianel.

This is not tagging a person's DNA, this is tagging (like tagging as in spraycan grafitti sense) a person with specific junk DNA (not their dna, nor any actual person's dna) that is easily identified with a generic pcr DNA test.

Good troll try, though ;^)

With your spell'n abilities I thought you'd get the taggin' reference... ;^p

DNA Fog Helps Identify Trespassers, Thieves, and B (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44031945)

old stuff these sprays are already hanging in some jewellers and other muggin prone bussineses in the netherlands

Mixed feelings, dye packs are fine. But this? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 9 months ago | (#44031967)

I'm cool with dye packs. They're immediate, short-range, they make it very visible that you're the bad-guy or were at least near the money at some point. In the days / hours following the heist there's a chance someone saw a fluorescent blue guy running around. Maybe you were part of the crime or maybe you were near a discarded pack when it went off. In either case, it's a visibly obvious way to at least track where the money was going.

So: short range, easy to notice (and complain about) accidental exposure, etc.

This... I don't know. What happens if you were exposed by accident; via a leak or rub-off from someone else. You won't know, in which case if it gets "found" then you have a big hassle of explaining your alibi. IE: they find out you were there around that day, check you out, and zap you have the DNA residue.

And of course, some a$$hats will just assume it's fool-proof and that you're involved. Some people really gobble this stuff up; every new thing is infallible and the best thing since sliced bread.

So they take it a step farther and instead of passively spraying someone when an exhibit case opens, they spray it on unsuspecting crowds during a riot / protest while you're buying some street hotdog. And going along with the a$$hat argument, they try to say "Well you were there so you must have been a trouble maker"

Re:Mixed feelings, dye packs are fine. But this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032555)

I can't imagine what the reason is for using DNA rather than some other substance, other than to say in court "The DNA matches!" in order to get the automatic guilty verdict that comes with a DNA match.

Re:Mixed feelings, dye packs are fine. But this? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 9 months ago | (#44032861)

To play devil's advocate I can see one logical reason

By using the x-million (or whatever) combinations of the DNA sequence it acts like a barcode. So just because you have some random DNA sludge on you from one place doesn't mean you have it from the place they're looking at.

With chemicals you're limited in the combinations. Sure you can have chemical markers like most of the chemical products out there have (this % of inert compound is batch A, % of that inert compound is batch B%). But if you're talking about a thin film of chemicals surviving on a person for a few days... who's to say the Mass Spec readings won't be tainted by exposure to every day stuff (soaps, detergents, cooking ingredients, fertilizer, etc).

So with the chemicals, a few days later you find a guy and can say in the report: he has enough of the "base" on him to say he was exposed to BrandX chemical marker, unfortunately we can't say with enough certainty that it was from BuildingY because the mass spec is getting lots of different readings

With DNA, you can say "OK, we found a fair amount of this DNA marker from sweat-swabs, and said marker does not appear to exist in nature. So he was at least in BuildingY and got hit with the BrandX chemical marker at some point.

I'm not saying I agree with DNA-laced film vs compound, or even this whole "fog" concept in general. Just saying, there's at least one valid reason.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032023)

Pretty common in Europe. Slashdot should have stories about new things, not just things which are new to America.

Why use DNA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032147)

You could just use a fog consisting of microscopic grains of whatever with the name of the place on them.

You could maybe combine that with a substance that colors a particular non-water liquid if mixed with it. That way the detective could swab the suspect, immediately see if he has been exposed to microdots, and if he has, then investigate them further.

Re:Why use DNA? (1)

slew (2918) | about 9 months ago | (#44033047)

Because there happens to already be a cheap way of amplifying a small sample of DNA for identification (PCR).
Most other easy to manufacture serializable microscopic substances mostly suffer from dillution/detection problems.

The technique is to use junk DNA encoded with a serial number. DNA are the is the microscopic grains and PCR is the way to quickly do the detection if a specific serial number is present (although PCR isn't yet as simple as a swab).

Presumably you could spend years doing revolutionary nobel prize winning research and replace DNA with another chemical that had an even cheaper way of detection for this niche application, but someone who worked for Applied DNA Sciences might instead think about just using DNA and an existing nobel prize winning PCR test and get something to market faster.... Just say'n... ;^)

I hate you. (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 9 months ago | (#44032197)

I spray you with guilty DNA. Stage a robbery. Call the cops.

just replace "I" with whoever it is you least trust.. the government, the government when dealing with Julian Assange or like case, businesses dealing with employees they think might become whistleblowers ... just use you imagination. We all know what people are capable of...

It's time for us all to become a lot more skeptical of the seemingly "definitive" information made available to us via technology. Basically, be highly skeptical of any technology used to convict that seems iron clad IF ONLY everyone is being truthful. You don't need proof to suspect manipulation, it should be the default assumption which needs to be overcome.

Only in this way will society develop systems that don't rely for their veracity on the presence of zero people of ill will somewhere in the chain of events.

Already tried? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032307)

Wasn't this already tried and patented by Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? I do remember something about DNA spraying....

1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032337)

It is this very reason that I and so many others are so guarded on our personal information.

Imagine going to the bank, only when you get there you discover the door is locked. You lean up against the window to look inside, and see nothing so you leave. A little while later, somebody throws a rock through the window, and police identify YOUR DNA on the glass.
I can come up with lots of other situations, just like this one.

Peter North? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44032535)

I can see a movie based on this being made. The burglars will be some scantily clad female co-eds.

Re:Peter North? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033123)

Teenage Delinquents - Hayden Winters

Splendid (1)

BenBoy (615230) | about 9 months ago | (#44032915)

Just splendid -- giant mutant criminals. What say we just pelt them with radioactive spiders and have done with it?

"Tagging" with "DNA" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033221)

Invoking Rule 34 on this story.

One word. Glitter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44033571)

Couldnt this be accomplished with Glitter? It sticks to everything, it can be uniquely identified by color.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...