Wichita’s BTK investigation was featured in a Washington Post article this week about catching criminals by analyzing the DNA of family members — without their permission. Wichita police were able to link Dennis Rader to the BTK crimes in part through his daughter’s DNA, which it obtained from her medical records through a court order. States want to expand this approach by doing DNA searches of criminal databases. If there is a near match with someone who is already in prison, that means a family member of that person may have committed the crime. Privacy advocates are concerned, the Post reported, that such searches turn family members into genetic informants without their knowledge or consent, and could subject thousands of innocent people who happen to be related to someone in a criminal database to “lifelong genetic surveillance.†Also, because minorities are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, minorities would face greater scrutiny.
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- annie_moose on Open thread 7/20
- thomaswitt on National Guard still lacking equipment
- thomaswitt on National Guard still lacking equipment
- Chas on Open thread 7/20
- beber on Open thread 7/20
- Regular on Open thread 7/20
- Pages tagged "winning" on Winning message on personal responsibility
- cosmos_originally on Gore wants carbon-free electricity production
- cosmos_originally on Gore wants carbon-free electricity production
- WSClark on National Guard still lacking equipment
42 Comments
Won’t be long till we are told when to exercise by a box in our living rooms.
Get your fat ass off the couch and do some pushups, p.m.
Doorking, you’re so gross, I know my fat ass could outrun you on your BEST day.
[img]http://www.fiftyplusnorthantsadventureclub.org.uk/Hippy.jpg[/img]
drat, no images.
Maybe so, but I can lift more weight than you can.
That was an interesting article. I did have one question, though, realted to the BTK case. Why did the police need to get his daughter’s DNA? Rader was a suspect and I recall reading that many people had been asked to eliminate themselves as suspects with DNA samples. Why not ask Rader for a DNA sample? Would the police have no alternatives if he declined?
Test
PMom,
Let me give your pic a try.
Phillip are you saying the police should not have done what was necessary to catch BTK?
Why would you want to tie the hands of the law?
I’m glad the police did their job. BTK had to be caught and brought to justice. His daughter did not have a problem with the process.
Thank you Wichita Police Department for doing what you had to do.
Hmmmm, how strange. Oh, well, we tried.
I think what Phillip is saying is pretty clear, is it worth it in the long run to give up freedom for security.
I think many of us are afraid of the whole database thing. We’re not really free if we’re tracked like property of the government.
Political_mama
Posted April 23, 2008 at 6:12 am | Permalink
Won’t be long till we are told when to exercise by a box in our living rooms
______________________________________________
Placed there by elected democrats to force you to comply with mandates set forth by ‘free’ health care. By the way, the boxes cost $13,876 each because they were produced by a company friendly with the democratic leadership. Your taxes will go up 7% to cover the cost, the overruns, and to generally grease the skids.
is it worth it in the long run to give up freedom for security.
You beat me to it.
I already have an ever-growing distrust of police and so-called “justice,” but, I am looking at this from another view.
Insurance companies are among the world’s wealthiest of enterprises and they aren’t in business to lose money but add to their coffers. Every day health-care decisions are made by insurance companies and have nothing to do with what may be best for a patient.
With this kind of database insurance companies can decide not to offer coverage to a family prone to this illness or have exclusions of coverage for that malady.
They already have too much power!
Why not ask Rader for a DNA sample? Would the police have no alternatives if he declined?
Sure, they would have: Harrassment. But this was after the Keystone cops had already busted Roger Valadez, and making sure that the media knew that–oh, no, we’re not saying this is BTK, but. . .
So my guess is if Rader simply said “no”–that would tip him off, and he start destroying the mountains of evidence at his home (Privacy concerns aside, this one was reason why that stunt had to be the work of incredibly stupid people–they were just hoping that one of the refuseniks would “crack” and confess!).
I always wondered about that sister DNA approach myself. Granted, they had enough evidence to convict Rader anyway, but how much of came from the house search–which wouldn’t have been possible with the DNA match?
The DNA may add an exotic element, but this is really no different than a physical search of a relative who may have incriminating evidence on them without their knowledge. Not as physically intrusive–of course–but, in the information age, arguably a greater violation of privacy.
So the question is–I’m not sure of the answer–to what extent can law enforcement infringe the freedoms of third parties for arguably justifiable reasons? What if they get it wrong? As certain as DNA evidence is, we still have fallable and corruptible human beings doing the collecting and analyzing. And what happens to the third-party DNA information after the case is solved? Is is, like fingerprints, maintain by the state forever ?
Disclaimer: I have not yet read the article. I would recommend that.
P.S.I do know, though, prior to leaving Kansas, a seriously onerous “DNA collection” statute (HB2554) was in the works. We really need to take this stuff more seriously, folks. The Brave New World awaits.
With this kind of database insurance companies can decide not to offer coverage to a family prone to this illness or have exclusions of coverage for that malady.
Great point.
In the article the distrubing trend is the data trolling. Going thru the data sets because you might catch somebody doing something. Almost reminds me of the pre-crime department in the movie Minority Report.
The article also says 48% of the surveyed priosoners have biological relatives who have been incarcerated. The quesiton for me is, is having a bio relative who has been in prison probable cause for a search for which you are not able to give consent? To me, it is too close to the line of a 4th Amendment violation. We need to be concerned about those, these days.
“Sure, they would have: Harrassment.”
Rage, could they not get a court order directing Rader to provide a DNA sample. They had other evidence tying him to the responses to the police. Certainly there was adequate evidence to ask for a DNA sample. Having evidence that put him at the scene was highly desirable, it is just getting it from his daughter seemed wrong to me.
I thought it was interesting that Rader complained to the Landwehr that he (Landwehr) lied to Rader about the traceability of the computer disk. Rader had some crazy notion that the police were invested in him succeeding in committing another murder. Crazy. Is all I can say.
So, according to the Constitution we are not required to testify against ourselves, yet our very cells can be broken apart and tortured into testifying against us? Sounds like a technicality to me.
Also, once our complete DNA profile is in a database, any database, it becomes the property of anyone who hacks that system and can be sold to employers, insurers, private eyes, and some guy in Nigeria who wants to separate me from my bank account! Any semblance of privacy will be permanently lost when who we are becomes a commodity.
“I think what Phillip is saying is pretty clear, is it worth it in the long run to give up freedom for security.”
-P Mom
Do this apply to enemy combatants in Guantanamo as well?
What is strange in this whole thread is that the libs who argued earlier this week that the ‘law’ had the right, even the duty to enter a religious compound and take all of their children based on an ‘annonymous’ tip that proved to be fraudulent - think capturing a killer by looking at his daughters DNA is wrong.
Does anyone see a contradiction here. By the way they are now doing DNA tests to determine which child belongs to which parent.
Double standard?
Pmom where was the outrage when the children were taken? You said we had to protect the children.
Who is supposed to protect the future victims of Rader?
Grm,
I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
I did read where they are doing DNA testing to identify parents from the Texas compound. Did you see where there were a bunch of the kids who had the same first and last name. Is it called “differentiation” when members of a family are able to distinguish themselves from other family members? Might be hard to do in that group.
Can anyone explain to me the shared hairstyle of the women. Kind of reminded me of “the Fonz” in the front.
Actually last night someone explained that. This was done to make the women as unattractive as possible so they would not appeal to someone else’s husband.
On the DNA I still say that the reason for taking it should have no bearing on the legal right or wrong of it. How can you differintiate between the two.
We look at the reason for needing it and then say yes or no and in this case would have given more rights to a killer than to the children who were raised in an element some think is wrong.
Steven in the case of the compounds DNA search they might be able to prove that a 50 year old man impregnated a ‘younger than 16′ girl. He then could be convicted of a felony.
If they were in Kansas and this happened and the man convinced her to abort the ‘fetus’ then the evidence from that ‘assault’ would be secret from the law because ‘it is protected medical info’.
Felony in Texas - protected info in Kansas - something wrong here don’t you think.
When it comes to the abuse of children the threshold for investigating and acting in ways that might be contrary to the rights of adults, is lower. Justifiably so, in my mind. The risk to children who don’t have much power is greater than that of an adult who can much more easily access protections (via lawyers, firearms, etc.). Hence, I think the state is right in using more extraordinary powers when it comes to protecting children.
“If they were in Kansas and this happened and the man convinced her to abort the ‘fetus’ then the evidence from that ‘assault’ would be secret from the law because ‘it is protected medical info’.”
I am pretty sure that the adults/parents have to consent to having their own and their children’s DNA tested. Arguably, the state is in a position of unfair influence given that they have the custody of the couple’s children. A parent could still decline to participate, which would mean that they likely would not regain custody of their child.
How the above is different in the Rader case, is that Rader’s daughter had no opportunity to consent or decline the testing of her DNA. That was wrong.
In the scenario you were painting about the underage girl being forced to have an abortion by her adult perpetrator, I do understand that Phill Kline made that assertion, but to my knowledge he was never able to back up those claims. All abortion providers and nurses working in such a clinic would be mandatory reporters and I would assume that none of them would be stupid enough to risk their livelihood on the basis of one case. It just makes no sense.
“Felony in Texas - protected info in Kansas - something wrong here don’t you think.”
Bullshit, just more bullshit.
Damn.
“and the man convinced her to abort the ‘fetus’ ”
Apples and oranges. These are children after the fact. Maybe the man could convince her to put it back in. But you can’t abort a ten year old.
PS: Keep your filthy hands off my private medical records.
PSS: You want my medical records? You better have some very damn good “probable cause”.
No witchhunts. No fishing expeditions.
God Bless America!
Personally, I think there is something suspicious about all you libs posting for Wichita. When I’m elected Sheriff, I think we better pull all your medical records. And just to make it stick, we will pull the medical records of the editorial staff of the Eagle. No hiding behind another silly constitutional amendment like freedom of the press.
Not if we go after all of you!!!
Get it? Keep your paws off our private medical history.
How many of you libs laughed and thought it was funny when info from the private medical records of Rush Limbaugh was made public. I say you have selective rage syndrome.
Steven I might be wrong but if they need the DNA to prove who the parents are how then will they get an OK to take it before that fact is know?
How many of you libs laughed and thought it was funny when info from the private medical records of Rush Limbaugh was made public. I say you have selective rage syndrome.
Steven I might be wrong but if they need the DNA to prove who the parents are how then will they get an OK to take it before that fact is known?
How many of you libs laughed and thought it was funny when info from the private medical records of Rush Limbaugh was made public. I say you have selective rage syndrome.
Steven I might be wrong but if they need the DNA to prove who the parents are how then will they get an OK to take it before that fact is known?
Sorry for the triple post. Didn’t think it was that good!
What fact is known?
Is there probable cause a family resemblance?
Maybe jewish noses? Heh?
What fact is known?
Is the probable cause a family resemblance?
Maybe jewish noses? Heh?
It wasn’t……………………………….
This is still America, and one has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not have to prove him or herself to be innocent.
For the Tiller Haters - the man has been under incredible scrutiny for nearly two decades - do you honestly think that he would knowingly violate the law?
Really, I am serious.
For the past two decades, the anti-choice folks have wanted to crawl up his ass to see what he had for lunch, and you think that he would be as stupid as to break the law?
Yeah, right.
Rage, could they not get a court order directing Rader to provide a DNA sample. They had other evidence tying him to the responses to the police. Certainly there was adequate evidence to ask for a DNA sample.
This was the correct approach. And after they caught him on camera dropping the package off, they had probably cause.
Instead, they chose a fishing expedition.
This is still America, and one has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not have to prove him or herself to be innocent.
Tell that to the IRS when they audit you.
Grm, you’re off your rocker again. First, there were cases of abuse that needed to be investigated, they got a court order, they have done everything right.
And SCOTUS just ruled today on a case that may have very similar consequences on the FLDS case.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search
Now, when I had my daughter the father contested whether or not she was his, so I was forced to submit to a DNA test. Not a big deal to me at the time, I wanted to do it. From what I understand that sample was destroyed after the fact and only the paternity paperwork was kept.
Kline found out that yes, every case of suspected child abuse was reported per law. And we’ve discussed this so many times over and over on here there is no possible way that you didn’t know that- so you just intentionally twisted and lied that fact. How do you expect me to even have a conversation with you when you are going to lie? Heck it was even a topic if I remember right with its own heading.
They coudl have gotten evidence from Rader. Anytime you discard an item, it can be tested for DNA. All someone would have had to done was follow him around from restaurant to restaurant, dig thru his trash…anything. They should have left the daughter’s DNA alone.
When it comes to criminals, like fingerprints, they should be able to keep a database for certain crimes. I’d also like it if they get rid of the fingerprints after so long.
NOw, as to healthcare- just because it may be government run at some point doesn’t mean that data will be able to be transferable to other departments. And it shouldn’t be. Just as there have to be certain criteria met before information can be shared NOW- the same should exist in govt care.
By the way Linda, I agree with you, Nixon totally screwed us all by making healthcare a for profit business in the first place. Leave it to a criminal republican to use American lives for profit.
Will start tomorrow… Night all…