Beta
×

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!

Convicted Hacker Adrian Lamo Refuses to Give Blood

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-so-juicy-cases dept.

673

CaliforniaCCW writes "Hopefully everyone here remembers the case of Adrian Lamo, a so-called 'gray hat' hacker who plead guilty to one count of computer crimes against Microsoft, Nexis-Lexis and the New York Times in 2004. He got a felony conviction, six months detention in his parents' home, and two years of probation. Today, as a condition of his probation, he must provide a sample of his DNA in the form of a blood sample, something which he has refused to do. Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

cancel ×

673 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If CSI has taught me anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324706)

You can't use blood for DNA? I belive this is actually only true for red blood cells, so do they seperate white/plasma for the analysis?

YES - separate out and amp up the white cells DNA (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324968)

Title says it all

if the gov wants his/or any slash DNA (5, Funny)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324710)

all they have to do is supply the blonde!

Patented? (5, Funny)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324713)

Quite possibly his DNA has been patented by one of the big bio tech firms, and he is just trying to avoid costly litigation.

Re:Patented? (2, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324796)

Ah, yes, but don't forget that the government is largely immune to patent litigation, and so are government contractors if it suits the politicians' pet projects well to do so. Check out the fibre optic flexible waterproof splice incident reported in recent months. The owner of the design would have been due several million from the contractor who raided his patent were the government and its contractors were actually required to obey the law as the Constitution demands. I know your post was meant to be a "funny" but the whole patent and government immunity thing rubs me the wrong way.

The logic escapes me (5, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324714)

He was convicted of a computer crime. How likely is it that, if he does something similar in the future, it will be of any help to the authorities that they have his DNA on file? I suppose, though, the same goes for fingerprints. If the law is not specific on the subject, I think he has a right to refuse.

Re:The logic escapes me (5, Informative)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324722)

Actually, the law is specific on the subject. If you are convicted of a felony, they have a right to keep your DNA on file. I don't think there are any exceptions made for white collar crime.

Re:The logic escapes me (5, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324770)

Well, F me for not Ring TFA. He is refusing to give a blood sample, not refusing to give a DNA sample. His reasons for not giving a blood sample are religious. He offered instead to give hair and nail clippings, both of which he brought in, both of which were refused. So long as he is willing to comply with the law, even if not with the the particular collection method, I think he'll win this.

Re:The logic escapes me (1)

July 21, 2006 (968634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324892)

Fuck him and his religion. Enough of this mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

CUT THE MOTHERFUCKER!!!

Re:The logic escapes me (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324745)

what if he has his way with a windows box? pun intended

Re:The logic escapes me (0, Offtopic)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324763)

Perhaps it's just those bloodsuckers in the government wanting to satisfy their craving for blood? And not just from convicts, but from everyone.

Re:The logic escapes me (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324766)

yes, repeat offenders are a myth.

esp in white collar crimes, once convicted they never think that they can get around the mistake that caught them earlier and get away with it...

Re:The logic escapes me (2, Informative)

Hollyfeld (959273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324773)

Even if the DNA is useful in some way that other evidence would not be - I fail to see how this would be the case, since there are a myriad of other ways to tie a suspect to a computer used for hacking - This seems pretty invasive - could a DNA sequence not also be generated from a hair sample or skin cells from the inside of the mouth, which are comparitively less invasive? While the law specifies that a blood sample must be provided, it would seem to be grounds for constitutional challenge if it does not provide for other means of testing in the case of contrary religios convictions, especially given that the "perp" is willing to provide the DNA by whatever other means they choose...

Re:The logic escapes me (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324791)

He was convicted of a computer crime. How likely is it that, if he does something similar in the future, it will be of any help to the authorities that they have his DNA on file?

Not likely at all.

This isn't about his crime and prevention/ease of conviction. This is about gathering DNA of everyone they can. Pictures, fingerprints, blood samples, they want it all, from everyone. They start with convicted criminals, because no one cares about their rights. Then they added people flying in (only pics and fingerprints for now, baby steps, baby steps).

The phone calls of everone, add a lil' voice recognition software, cameras all over the place, GPS transponders in every car, RFID in every compulsory ID cards.

They're creating a perfect police state, and we're letting them.

Re:The logic escapes me (1)

general_re (8883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324928)

This is about gathering DNA of everyone they can.

Well, except that one can easily avoid this type of collection by the rather simple expedient of not committing felonies. Me, I don't much care for the idea of spending a couple of years in a 9x12 cage, so I don't do things that would tend to lead to that outcome either.

Re:The logic escapes me (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324971)

I can't help but wonder..

But who the hell are 'they'?

Seems to me like this is still a democracy. And if the majority of people *aren't* fighting what you call a 'perfect police state' from being created, then the majority might as well be supporting it.

So are 'they' the majority?

Also, do you really think there's a way to stop ubiquitous surveillance? The way I see it, in the future, with the technologies becoming available, you can either give the 'good guys' the 'right' to watch everything, or just leave that ability for the 'bad guys' who will do with it anything they want.

So, we can shoot ourselves in the right foot with a .22, or we can blow our left foot and most of the leg off with a grenade.. You choose.

Except he agreed as part of his probation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324834)

He don't like it, he can go to jail. Where he can take Tiny's DNA samples. :-)

Re:The logic escapes me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324835)

Come on, the government will ask internet cafes to wipe the keyboards and monthly mail the tissues to the NSA...

Re:The logic escapes me (0)

rhendershot (46429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324909)

A core precept in investigative psycology is 'once a criminal, always a criminal'. DNA records on any convicted person can be seen as a hedge against the *next* crime that person *will* commit.

IMO it abrogates the precept of innocence until proven otherwise and violates the Bill Of Rights guarantee against search without probable cause.

Re:The logic escapes me (1)

TherealDreck (552116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324943)

If they are tracing evidence at a scene, such as his house, from his keyboard, the might be able to use the dna to match hair or sweat samples.

Crossing a line? (5, Interesting)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324717)

I can't exactly say why, but taking an imprint of my finger doesn't seem like a big deal where taking my blood and analyzing my DNA seems a bit invasive.

Maybe they had the same debate back when the line was between taking down a physical description and taking an imprint of my finger. We all know how that one worked out.

biometrics pre-fingerprints (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324731)

before fingerprints were decided to be unique per person, law enforcement used to use all sorts of interesting methods of biometrics.

even measuring head bumps...

Re:Crossing a line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324762)

and since when does the government expect everyone to give their fingerprints?

Re:Crossing a line? (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324885)

and since when does the government expect everyone to give their fingerprints?

Not "big brother" government, but have you ever heard of the "CHIPS" program?

Basically, the local PD come into a school (usually at the request of the PTA or some other group of well-intentioned but grossly misinformed parents) and fingerprint everybody.

They do this on the pretext of helping track down kidnapping victims.

Anyone care to guess how many (still-living) kidnapping victims this has recovered, out of the thousands that vanish yearly? If you raised your hand, you've come pretty damned close.


But such programs happen on a strictly voluntary basis, right? Now who wants to guess how many kids have experienced some form of punishment, up to and including suspension, for refusing to cooperate - If you only raised one hand, you've missed by a few orders of magnitude. Good luck finding hard numbers on this one, though - I myself count as an undocumented statistic, having refused to give my fingerprints in... third grade, I believe. As punishment, I didn't get to go on the field-trip to tour the police station (hey, sounds minor, but to an 8YO, suspension merely means a day off from school, while social exclusion and missing a field trip means the end of the world).

You think that's bad... (5, Interesting)

Manip (656104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324721)

If you think that is bad (having to provide DNA after being *convicted*) you must not have been to jail in the United Kingdom...

Over here if you are arrested for things like littering, speeding, drunkenness and other minor infractions the police are legally entitled to take a DNA sample (and they DO from just about everyone).

You can refuse the order either... If they want a sample they are getting a sample...

Re:You think that's bad... (1)

Vyvyan Basterd (972007) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324765)

Yeah, well. The UK is hardly the place to use as an arbiter of personal privacy. I don't know of any western country where the government feels like it can piss in the face of the people as much as in old blighty. Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed.

I guess we can thank the tabloids for this. "Think of the Children" hysteria in England is like 10 times worse than in USia.

Re:You think that's bad... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324798)

Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed.

Bullshit. I'm one of the first to rail against some of the crap that our New Labour masters are shoving down our throats*, but that's just crap.

Yes, most cities have CCTV cameras all over the place, especially Central London. However, it's disingenuous to suggest that "it is basically impossible to leave your house without being filmed" - I most certainly can do so, and I live in London.

Even if you count speed cameras, they only film transgressors; stick to the limit and they won't get you either.

That's not to say that there aren't far too many cameras around the place, just that it's nowhere near as bad as you paint it.

Re:You think that's bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324808)

Those CCD cams sure did a good job of stopping the train bombings, didn't they?

And don't get me started on the tapes we have of various MPs in 'interesting' positions that we are unable to do anything about. Guess some are above the law.

Re:You think that's bad... (1, Troll)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324789)

>Over here if you are arrested for things like littering,

no we aren't

>speeding,

boo hoo, you wanted to endanger other peoples' lives to show off how fast your car is. and you're only arrested if it's like 2x the speed limit or blatantly dangerous, otherwise points and a fine.

>drunkenness

wrong again, but you can be arrested for being drunk and disorderly. if you're going to get pissed and also act like a twat then who cares that you have to spend a night in a cell.

Re:You think that's bad... (1)

infolation (840436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324977)

>>Over here if you are arrested for things like littering,

>no we aren't

yes we are [telegraph.co.uk]

(since 1st Jan 2006 UK Police have had the power to arrest you and take a sample of your DNA)

Re:You think that's bad... (-1, Offtopic)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324852)

Referencing the UK is like a burglar asking a pickpocket for moral support. Neither are bastions of freedom and civil liberties. After all, the UK invaded Iraq quite willingly in 2003 and is still occupying the south of the country.

Re:You think that's bad... (0, Offtopic)

Manip (656104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324893)

If I had mod points I would give you -Troll, -Off Topic, -Redundant for that obvious troll Iraq reference.

Re:You think that's bad... (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324946)

A trifecta? You can do that?

It's even worse than that (1)

cyberformer (257332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324932)

It used to be that samples would be destroyed and data erased if the police didn't charge you or you were acquitted. (You even had the right to go to the polie station with your lawyer and see them being physically destroyed.)

They still do this with fingerprints, but *not* with DNA. Now, even if you're provably innocent and only arrested due to police error, prejudice, etc., they still keep your DNA profile in a database. And they keep the actual samples too, so that they can get a reading of your complete genome when DNA sequencing techniques improve.

no (0, Troll)

CrayzyJ (222675) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324723)

Instead of probation, perhaps he would prefer to do jail time instead? Probation is a nicety given to crimimals. If they don't like the terms, back to prison.

False Dichotomy (3, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324733)

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Nice transitions from convicted felons to "everyone" there.

Felons don't have the same rights... (4, Insightful)

LamerX (164968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324725)

I'm pretty sure that because he's a convicted felon, that he doesn't posess the same rights as a regular citizen. I don't think he can even vote. Bummer to get caught.

Some do. Some don't. (5, Interesting)

leftie (667677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324760)

Did they take a DNA sample from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham when they put him in jail for taking bribes from defense contractors?

This guy didn't do close to anything as bad as Cunningham.

Re:Some do. Some don't. (1)

general_re (8883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324828)

Did they take a DNA sample from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham when they put him in jail for taking bribes from defense contractors?

The list of qualifying federal offenses for DNA collection was pretty dramatically expanded back in 2004 (google on H.R. 5107, the "Justice For All" Act, for details) to cover pretty much all federal felony convictions, so yeah, they almost certainly did collect DNA from Cunningham.

Goverment's bio databank (2, Insightful)

Gord (23773) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324734)

> "Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"

I'm still yet to be convinced that the government should, or needs to have, a record of everyones fingerprint, let alone DNA.

Re:Goverment's bio databank (1)

duke12aw (936319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324874)

your kidding, right? why dont you just give up your consititutional rights while your at it.

Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (2, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324736)

For example, they can't vote

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (1)

Matthew_Martin11 (921946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324860)

In Canada they can vote

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324862)

Its pretty funny that USA - the supposed greatest democracy in the world - takes away rights to vote from some people. Its really sick imo. In a democracy, all citizens above some age limit where we are considered adults, should have the right to vote no matter race, views, actions, gender, etc.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (3, Insightful)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324870)

Two wrongs don't make a right. I find that denying felons the right to vote to be horrible. It's an awfully strong incentive to jail people whose beliefs are different from your own or oppose your party.

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (1)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324910)

Acutally, that depends on the state. In some states, even felons currently in prison can still vote! See the Straigh Dope answer http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfelonvote.htm l [straightdope.com]

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324916)

and thats really bad. Because the opposition loose a potential voter. I wonder if all of this is part of the same... hmmm

Re:Convicted felons never had full rights anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324969)

Most people who were against the current administration couldn't either.

WTF?!?! (5, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324740)

is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Why the fsck should *everyone* provide fingerprints to their government?

Re:WTF?!?! (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324787)

It's called "biometric passport" and it is required for every non citizen to enter the U.S. So in reverse, it is required for every U.S. citizen if they want to go abroad. (They might be gun owners, so just a step till fully grown terrorists, you know?)

Re:WTF?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324917)

The international agreement requires one biometric to be digitally encoded on the passport, to make passports harder to forge. Digitally encoding the passport photograph (itself a biometric) is enough to satisfy the requirement. The claim that other biometrics are required is bullshit invented by the UK government to justify their ID card programme. You'll have noticed that no country apart from the UK has had to drastically overhaul their passport system to meet the new requirements.

Re:WTF?!?! (2, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324803)

well if there was a national register of DNA and finger prints then it would be rather quite easy to find the person who committed any crime... it seems like it would cut the spending which is needed on poilce resources and because of the huge increase in probabilty of catching criminals it would certainly cut the crime rate (so long as at least some of the criminals are rational). I don't even see an arguement against it on grounds of civil liberties; if someone wanted to set you up then they could just as easily plant your DNA and make an anonymous report. It should even cut down on wrongful convictions; it's not perfect but would help

Re:WTF?!?! (5, Insightful)

BVis (267028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324914)

This is, of course, assuming that you WANT your government to treat everyone like a criminal.

I'd prefer that they didn't. If they want my DNA or my fingerprints, they can bloody well get a warrant signed by a judge. If they can't get that, then the Constitution protects my privacy. Bloody annoying, that Fourth Amendment. Requiring that "due process" and all. After all, law enforcement is entitled to be autocratic and lazy and just demand whatever they want on a pretext.

Pretty soon they'll want to put black boxes in your car.. oh wait, we already have those. Then they'll want to video tape you for the sole reason that you've driven down a street.. oh, we've got those too. Then they'll want to know about every phone call you make whether you've been accused of a crime or not.. oh, wait, we just found out about that one this week.

Amazingly enough, there are people who think a police state is a GOOD thing. I like to call those people "idiots" and would like to extend the police state to regulating their ability to breed, telling them it's to prevent terrorism. Fixes the problem neatly and ironically.

Re:WTF?!?! (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324965)

hmm, what would the world be like if the police's power was so limited that they couldn't work effectively...

"In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture on Earth; no navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodius Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, bruitish, and short."

Seems to me that if it's a choice between having more state intervention or that; I'll take the state.

DNA ID is Easily Foiled (1)

cquark (246669) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324937)

There are a lot of cheap ways to contaminate crime scenes. Criminals have already begun dumping the contents of public ashtrays onto crime scenes, contaminating the scene with the DNA of dozens of people. We need to consider whether the immense expense and privacy invasion of a national DNA database, along with the inevitable errors and counterfeiting (the 9/11 terrorists were able to pay DMV personnel for fake driver's licenses; surely people will pay to falsify their records to replace their digital DNA records with those of someone else), makes sense when there are such simple, cheap ways to evade the system. Are there other systems that would give us more security for those billions of dollars, perhaps without such loss of privacy?

WTF I have to give one to your gvt ? (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324805)

Disclaimer , from the reaction I am guessing you are from the US. Well, WTF why do I have to give a fingerprint to your governement every time I have to travel in the US ? Not even counting other data they get through APIS CAPS or whatever.

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324891)

cuz you are a visitor... not a citizen... aka a guest... our country, our rules, stay out if you don't like them...

Re:WTF I have to give one to your gvt ? (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324967)

We've got a real problem here with people who enter illegally, enter legally but stay illegally, or just enter legally to deliberately break our laws. I'd be fine if we just cracked down harder across the board on people entering the country for the reasons cited above.

You can have your privacy while you're here; but if you want complete anonymity, maybe you should just not come at all.

Anonymity is a nice-to-have feature of society in some ways, but I think that the great Internet experiment has shown that anonymity just leads to spams and scams in your mailbox; constant threats from script kiddies, hackers, vandals, viruses, and trojans; and just a great lack of civility and human-deserved respect from destructive cowards who would never do what they're doing if they could easily be identified and have their asses kicked.

I wouldn't mind if we returned to a bit of the old days where everyone in a town knew you by name and if you fucked up, they all knew it was you. Fingerprinting gets us a little of that familiarity and sense of consequence to our actions in a society.

I know that the above sounds harsh and you're thinking that I'm some sheep republican religious dumb-ass rube... but you'd be surprised. I like a strip club as much as the next guy. I think that marijuana and prostitution should be legalized (even though I probably wouldn't partake in either)... I'd love to live in a society where anonymity was one of its guarantees. Unfortunately, there are too many assholes fucking it up for the rest of us to allow that. Hence my willingness to sacrifice some anonymity for some security. Don't quote Ben Franklin on me, since his saying about liberty vs security is provably bullshit as a rule to live by. I don't care who you are -- you sacrifice liberty for security every day in some way... it's just a matter of where we all draw the line.

Re:WTF?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324867)

Because that's what government taught him to believe.

We'll just need about 10,000 copies... (3, Funny)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324750)

Well, the way I see it, a government could perform executions by requesting 10,000 copies of a DNA sample, if a person is required to give DNA to any government person that wants it. It's kind of hard to kill someone with 10,000 index finger print copies... It'd just waste a lot of time.

Re:We'll just need about 10,000 copies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324859)

Well, the way I see it, a government could perform executions by requesting 10,000 copies of a DNA sample, if a person is required to give DNA to any government person that wants it.

There is a much easier way to execute someone, requiring only one DNA sample.

They simply make a clone of you from your DNA, train the clone as a government secret agent, then get it to kill you. The clone will then take over your identity.

Your dead body is broken down into raw materials, and used to make new clones. Your clone will live out the rest of your life for you, whilst acting as a government spy.

from the article: (5, Interesting)

seezer (842248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324752)

According to his attorney, Lamo's refusal is based on a religious objection to giving blood, and he's willing to provide his DNA in another form.
"He went in there with fingernail clippings and hair, and they refused to accept it, because they will only accept blood,"

Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek? (1)

leftie (667677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324821)

I could swear the standard procedure is to swab cells from the inside of ones cheek. If he's willing to do that, then they they are just intentionally screwing with him for no reason.

Right wing Christians have a real bad habit of intentionally screwing with people with differing religious beliefs (See photos of naked Iraqi pyramids, and the long, long history of guards in US prisons screwing with African-American prisoners who practice Islam).

Re:Aren't cells ususally swabbed from inside cheek (1, Troll)

jscheelmtsu (955511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324970)

How dare you accuse right wing christians of that. Your gross generalization is both pitifully uneducated and extremely offensive. First and foremost, not all conservatives are christian. Second, prove to me that those guards are conservatives. Third, prove to me that they are christian (this one is going to be rather hard, considering the fact that their actions were completely un-christian-like, not to mention the fact that not everyone who says they are christian actually is). Then, if you can prove that they are right-wing and christian, prove to me that this is what every right-wing christian does. I am a right-wing christian and you don't see me making prisoner pyramids. Then, after all of this, prove to me that the authorities demanding a dna sample are all right-wing christians. Oops, you can't! Why don't you attempt to comment on the story instead of using your post as a completely unrelated jab at conservative christianity.

As for the story in question, if the government will provide alternative options for different faiths in some areas, then they should carry it through to the end. Of course, one can question if the government should make concessions for anyone. Being a christian, I can look at several instances where men and women of the Bible stood up for their faith in front of government opposition, and paid the price for doing so. They stood up for what is right, but they did so fully understanding the consequences. It's up to the people to decided whether or not the government should bend for individual's beliefs. On one hand, you end up being crippled by attempting to bend to everybody, on the other, you end up being overbearing and stomping on the citizens of the nation.

Re:from the article: (1)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324922)

Jehovah's Witnesses carry cards, or wear wrist straps that say "No Blood" there have been court cases surrounding this.
Link here [wikipedia.org]

Re:from the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324942)

Has he offered semen? According to my religion, that is the only way I can give DNA samples.

No! Hold the line! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324761)

There are some that want laws to mandate DNA samples for anyone held in federal custody for ANY reason, even those released and never charged with a crime. There have been attempts to have mass DNA testing in the case of some crimes. There is also a move to have family members of criminals tested as well. This big brother crap will never end unless we stand against this crap.

Well (3, Interesting)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324778)

I can see his line of thought, why would they need his DNA when his crime didn't involve anything that would require him to be traced via DNA. Seems like they need samples of his IP more ;). On a more serious note, it is worrying to see a trend in the creation of nation-wide databases of DNA, although it could be argued that they are very effective in tracing criminals, it also goes against some of the basic freedoms that we enjoy in living in such a country.

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

humphrm (18130) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324856)

As has already been mentioned several times, those "basic freedoms" you speak of apply to law-abiding citizens; there is no such protection for convicted felons. And, indeed, he plead guilty.

There is plenty of freedom at work here. His freedom to refuse. Note that they are not tying him down and forcing a needle into his arm. His freedom to choose more court proceedings and possibly a five year prison sentence over violating his religious beliefs.

The law is the law, but in this case the law is probably pretty weak, since he did offer up his DNA in another form. I am willing to bet that a judge might very well order the probation department to accept his alternate DNA, if he behaves himself.

Re:PLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324958)

The past tense of "plead" is "pled" (or "pleaded") - get it right!

Oh, and the past tense of "lead" is "led", just in case you managed to not absorb that fact either.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324975)

since he did offer up his DNA in another form.


No, he offered someone's DNA in other forms. Showing up with a little baggy with some hair and fingernail clippings and expecting them to accept it as "your" dna sample is just stupid. Show up with an offer to let them shave your head or pluck a fingernail from your hand with a pair of pliers and maybe you'd have a stance here. But saying "here you go" and handing them some random hair clippings is just stupid. He's already proven he lacks integrity, honesty and good judgement. He will not regain anyone's trust by playing games.

Go Lomo! Don't give up your DNA! (1)

kkamrani (882365) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324784)

I support Adrian Lamo's decision to not give his DNA. Not that I'm a government conspiracist, but DNA is yours, what does the government have to do with it? Why does the government need it? I think this sounds like people are looking for a genetic profile of a hacker/genius/criminal. Sounds wrong to me on so many levels.

I say so because about two months ago researchers published a research article on gene called MAOA [anthropology.net] . Trying to find a gene that expresses violence, deviance, or genius sounds a lot like the work of Cesare Lombroso and Enrico Ferri, who both researched the anatomy of 'criminal' brain in the early 1900s. They concluded the criminal brain is more primitive and less developed; even going as far as to say they are ape-like. With that conclusion, they stated that humans are born criminals, and there was no way to avoid criminal behavior. I am concerned about this because this sort of demand for Lomo to give up his DNA seems like research that will not factor in the socialization and enculturation process whatsoever.

Furthermore, just because you committed a crime and gave up a lot of your 'social and civil rights' like voting, doesn't mean you're dehumanized to the point that you do not have decisions over your own body. I know there are exceptions, in the United States, for my statement... specifically in relevance to capital punishment; but Adrian Lamo is not going down that route.

P.S. as you can tell, I thoroughly oppose solely looking at biological determinism to define and describe human behavior.

P.P.S. I know Lomo agreed to give his DNA in other forms, but I think he shouldn't!

Re:Go Lomo! Don't give up your DNA! (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324854)

Not that I'm a government conspiracist, but DNA is yours, what does the government have to do with it?

Here in the UK, the reason given is that it, "Helps to eliminate you from the police's enquiries."

What reasonable, righteous, innocent and public-spirited person could possibly refuse?

I don't know what all the fuss is about... (1, Offtopic)

andrewa (18630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324786)

Adriana Lima is hot, I'd give her some of my DNA anytime....

If it's a condition of his probation... (3, Interesting)

Silverhammer (13644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324790)

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now. End of discussion.

On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation... (1)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324945)

If it's a condition of his probation to which he agreed in order to stay out of prison, then he has no standing on which to object now.

How about an indirect condition of his probation? The intent of which he has agreed to satisfy, if not the specific method?

Some stupid statute says he needs to let the FBI put his DNA in their happy little database. Even in genetic research, they usually use a cheek swab rather than draw blood, so why won't they accept another method of DNA recovery?

If they want his DNA, we can debate the moral and privacy implications of the issue, but most people will agree that it will probably help solve certain classes of crimes. And it wouldn't matter if they get that DNA from blood, from buccal cells, of from hair follicles.

If they just want his blood, we don't have much to debate - Nothing more than a barbaric ritual of the supplicant allowing the alpha-ape to ritually wound him to prove his subjugation. And that we absolutely cannot allow, whatever the pretense.

Re:If it's a condition of his probation... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324951)

On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.

Actually, since the law changed after he committed the acts he was convicted of, even if the change came before the conviction, then applying the law to him is Ex Post Facto. (See the second paragraph of the definition [lectlaw.com] ) and thus, plainly unconstitutional.

I would certainly think that the imposability of probation for people who object to giving blood samples is a significant change in the severity of the penelty for such a person.

The fact that date of conviction is so frequently treated as the legal cut-off point simply reveals either an astonishing ignorance of or a profound disrespect for the Constitution on the part of U.S. judges and lawmakers.

Genetic privacy (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324800)

Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

Felons? I suppose it depends on whow serious the crime is, if the person in question committed murder, rape, child rape or some equally serious crime I suppose that sample taking can be justified, but should we DNA record every person that breaks the law right down to a casual shoplifter? As for it being mandatory to hand over your DNA profile to the government that is to my mind a pretty awful thougth. As a somebody who has a common metabolic affliction that has little effect on my ability to function normally and can be easily regulated with medication I still have found that this affiliction has already made me practically uninsurable when it comes to private health and life insurance. I shudder to think what will happen to peoples insurance policies and how their payments will increase or even how they will become completely unensurable when some corrupt bunch of lying and cheating piece of sh!t politicians pass a law that gives the insurance industry unlimited access to such a global DNA database. The insurance companies will use every single possible genetic imperfection to fleece people and discriminate against them and they won't be the only ones doing this either. The potential for colossaly abusing such a central DNA information repository is just to great for me to be in favor of genetic samples being collected by the Govt. of the entire population.

Something everyone should provide to government?! (4, Informative)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324827)

"Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?"
At birth, "just in case", huh?

Here are two particular movies the submitter urgently ought to get for the weekend:

  1. GATTACA [imdb.com]
  2. Minority Report [imdb.com]

Hopefully he'll be able to do so while neither a blood sample nor a fingerprint are considered "something that everyone should provide at video rental" just yet.

Nexis-Lexis? (0, Redundant)

tyme (6621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324833)

What the hell is Nexis-Lexis? Maybe the submitter meant LexisNexis [lexisnexis.com] and maybe the so-called editors should have caught this?

Re:Nexis-Lexis? (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324901)

If I was an editor I would throw out LexisNexis (error intentional) as no letter in proper English can be capitalized save for the first letter. I would replace it with the closest valid spelling, in this case Lexis Nexis. I also correct misspellings (especially when the misspellings are just so that they can get a trademark on a generic word, like with Blue Ray).

I can understand ordinary people being sloppy with their spelling, but when marketers do it on purpose, it drives me crazy. Just one more reason they should be rounded up and thrown into the sea next to their lawyer friends.

Retention policy? (5, Interesting)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324851)

On a related note, what's the law regarding retention of stuff like DNA data, fingerprints, etc? For example, if my next door neighbor got murdered, I might get asked to provide my fingerprints to rule me out as a subject. I might be willing to do this (provided I'm not actually guilty) but what happens afterwards?

Are there restrictions for situations like this that only allow the authorities to use such data for only a specific case? Or does my data get permanently entered in a general database, to be automatically scanned for any and every crime in the future?

I'm not against cooperating with the police, but if it's the later, I'd be extremely wary of volunteering for such things.

Re:Retention policy? (2, Informative)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324921)

AFAIK, there was a case where they did this with a rape suspect.. Got his DNA to rule him out of a murder trial, but they used it to convict him in the rape trial.

Why not a DNA Swab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324863)

Why Blood? Can't they just swab his mouth?

It's a sign of the times, I tell you! (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324864)

Big time criminals used to get hanged or chopped into bits in the middle ages.

Not too long ago, they might get the electric chair!

Nowadays, hardened, dangerous criminals get detention at their parents' house.

Really, soon I won't even be afraid to walk the streets at night anymore.

Fuck the government! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324865)

Bunch of fascist fuckers anyway.

Felons don't have privacy rights. (2, Interesting)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324868)

When you're a convicted felon, you pretty much lose your right to privacy. Whether you're sentenced to prison or probation, it doesn't matter. Giving a DNA sample is not much different than having to give you fingerprints, which you're required to do when you're arrested, not even convicted.

So personally, I have no problem with it. Don't want to give up your DNA? Don't commit crimes.

Look, more and more, DNA is being used in investigations and that's a good thing. It's getting innocent people out of prison and it's putting guilty people away. As much as I have issues with the government and invasion of privacy, I don't have issues with the police enforcing the law and using the tools available to them to solve crimes.

Once you're convicted, the law makes the assumption that you have a tendency towards crime, so they collect data that will help them catch you if you do it in the future. That makes sense. That's why they've been taking fingerprints and mug shots since those two pieces of information have become part of fighting crime. They're tools that are, for the most part, used for very good things.

The guy broke the law, got convicted, and if the police feel they need a DNA sample as part of their ability to enforce the law in the future, then I'm totally okay with that.

Now, that said, once his sentence is completed and he's no longer on probation, then no, they shouldn't be able to come collect this data from him. Once you've served your time, unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise (such as being a suspect in a new crime), you should have your right to privacy back. But as long as you're serving, whether in prison, or at home, you don't. It's that simple.

not the same (2, Insightful)

sidb (530400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324879)

There are some important differences between fingerprints and blood that get glossed over by calling them both just means of identification. Blood has historically been regarded as much more private than fingertips. Plus, the more we learn about genetics, the more powerful that DNA becomes. The government could theoretically start analyzing it for different genetic traits. They could probably clone you someday soon. Not that they couldn't just follow you around and pick up your hair, of course, and sure, they have no policy of doing any of that stuff, but governments always abuse their powers sometimes. I can understand the guy's reluctance.

A fingerprint is fine but... (0)

Roblem (605718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324886)

I think if they were only asking for a DNA fingerprint (just the factors used to identify one person from another) that's ok. It's just that today you can't control what anyone dose with a blood sample. I would like to think that I have copyright over my DNA sequence but it's likely not to be true. I can understand why he is refusing.

For those who weren't paying attention... (1, Redundant)

danwesnor (896499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324888)

He's not refusing to give DNA, he's refusing to give blood, on religious grounds. He has offered up DNA in other forms, but the state says they can only process DNA from blood.

Re:For those who weren't paying attention... (1)

MaXiMiUS (923393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324906)

Vampires! *runs*

The summary is asking if DNA samples are required. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324954)

The summary asks, 'should DNA samples be required' and we're addressing that discussion.

It's silly for you to tell people to not discuss the discussion.

6 months in parents basement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324894)

six months detention in his parents' home

And exactly how is this supposed to punish a geek?

What's the problem? (1)

hpcanswers (960441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324895)

Why is anyone afraid of providing a DNA sample? Is the government going to discover that I have a rare genetic condition that makes me susceptible to disease? If I did, then I'd sure like to know; thanks for the free life-saving test. Is the government going to clone me? I already have an identical twin brother. Resistance to ID cards makes sense; FUD about DNA sampling does not.

Didn't he stalk an old GF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324902)

If so, stalkers should be made to provide dna samples.

But that's not the issue here (1)

ladybugfi (110420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324903)

>Should convicted felons on probation have privacy rights over their DNA? Or is a blood sample like a fingerprint, something that everyone should provide to their government?

This is an interesting issue, but unfortunately not the one Lamo is raising. According to TFA, Lamo is refusing to give a blood sample, but is prepared to give other forms of DNA (nail clippings and hair). His reasons seem to be religious and aren't based on any privacy concerns.

Other means of DNA (4, Funny)

Rainbird98 (186939) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324911)

If the NSA can tap your phone. Surely the cops can tap his toilet. Instant DNA.

Fingerprints (1)

jbailey999 (146222) | more than 8 years ago | (#15324913)

Eh? I've never provided fingerprints to my government. Are americans already whipped into shape that badly?

... DNA evidence for a computer hacker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15324940)

I don't see how DNA evidence would be applicable to computer crimes where you don't have a bloody keyboard or something. Felon or not, I don't think anyone should have to give their DNA when it has absolutely no use in solving the crime or linking them to others. Beyond that scope it's an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?