Remember Maryland, Democrats are for a Police State!

[MKSheppard]

Link

Oh, by the way, this guy has approval ratings LOWER than Bush's. I guess people realized what he was for when the taxes on their cigarettes went up.

Link

O'Malley Wants DNA Database Expanded

Samples Would Be Taken From Those Arrested for, Not Just Convicted of, Crimes

By John Wagner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 11, 2008; Page B06

Gov. Martin O'Malley proposed yesterday that Maryland collect DNA samples from those arrested for violent crimes and burglaries, significantly expanding a state database that currently includes only genetic information about people who have been convicted.

The proposal, which the legislature will consider during its 90-day session, was praised by law-enforcement officials as an important tool for helping resolve unsolved crimes. But the initiative drew strong objections from civil libertarians and public defenders, who said it would infringe on the rights of people who are ultimately found innocent of crimes.

O'Malley (D) said the proposal, which would cost $1.7 million a year, is modeled after a law in Virginia, one of 11 states that have started taking DNA samples from arrestees in recent years.

"We are going to catch up with the vanguard of other states in the country," the governor said at a news conference at the state's forensics lab in Pikesville, where he was flanked by technicians in white lab coats. "It will be a huge help to increasing the reservoir that law enforcement will have."

The proposal was the first to be formally unveiled in a planned two-week rollout of O'Malley's legislative agenda and budget priorities for the session, aides said. He has scheduled an appearance today in Baltimore to talk about juvenile justice, including a new program to monitor 200 at-risk youths.

The state collects DNA samples from convicted criminals by swabbing the inside of their cheek. Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D), who appeared with O'Malley yesterday, said the process is not painful and is less intrusive than putting ink on the fingers of someone who has been arrested to take fingerprints.

He noted that when he was a state's prosecutor in Montgomery County, a DNA sample taken from someone arrested for burglary in Virginia had helped convict a rapist in Montgomery.

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which will have jurisdiction over O'Malley's proposal, said similar legislation has failed in the past because of concerns about violating civil liberties. Frosh said "it is hard to handicap" how the initiative will fare now that it has the high-profile backing of O'Malley.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) supports the measure, his aides said.

Among those voicing strong objections yesterday was Sen. Lisa A. Gladden (D-Baltimore), the Senate panel's vice chairwoman, who is a public defender.

"I can't believe that we're going to do this," Gladden said. "The mere fact that you've been arrested is not dispositive of criminal activity. . . . Good policing involves shoe leather and smarts to get the job done. You don't just use technology to ensnare people."

Cindy Boersma, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, said the proposal would essentially create "a dragnet" that violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Gansler sought to allay such concerns during the news conference, suggesting that the bill could withstand a legal challenge.

O'Malley also announced yesterday that the forensics lab had cleared a backlog of samples that had grown to more than 24,000 at the end of 2006.

--------------

By the way; I know Duggy Gansler in a roundabout way; the guy was all shithot for keeping me incarcerated; and for a stiff as fuck sentence back in 99-00, so I must warn you I am a bit...biased towards him.

[HemlockGrey]

Why don't we just require everyone to donate a DNA sample, and then when DNA evidence is found at a crime scene its matched against the national database, and anyone who matches is brought in for questioning? That seems like it would be effective and I can't particulary see how it infringes anyone's rights.

[General Zod]

Why don't we just require everyone to donate a DNA sample, and then when DNA evidence is found at a crime scene its matched against the national database, and anyone who matches is brought in for questioning? That seems like it would be effective and I can't particulary see how it infringes anyone's rights.

Have fun trying to come up with a competent database system to manage all that data.

[Havok]

Taking DNA from people that are arrested seems reasonable to me. If you are arrested you are at least in the position of being under suspicion of a crime. They finger print you already when you are arrested so you are already a part of that registry. Taking DNA seems like a logical extension of that process.

Besides, if you are truly innocent and have not and never will commit a crime, why does it matter if you are in a database that will never have any bearing on your life.

[Dartzap]

Is the US government known to be more reliable with large databases than the nitwits at Whitehall?

[General Zod]

Is the US government known to be more reliable with large databases than the nitwits at Whitehall?

Terror watch-list fiascos come to mind.

[SirNitram]

Remember: A genetics database is a POLICE STATE. Unconstitutional, unchecked wiretapping is PATRIOTIC.

[HemlockGrey]

Terror watch-list fiascos come to mind.

I'm not sure why you think this is a valid comparison, given that thousands of people can share the same name but DNA is unique to the individual. There is also haphazard placement of names on the watchlist, whereas a national DNA database would by definition include everyone. And of course the database would only be consulted when an actual crime has been committed, not merely when a "red flag" is flown at some checkpoint.

[General Zod]

I'm not sure why you think this is a valid comparison, given that thousands of people can share the same name but DNA is unique to the individual. There is also haphazard placement of names on the watchlist, whereas a national DNA database would by definition include everyone. And of course the database would only be consulted when an actual crime has been committed, not merely when a "red flag" is flown at some checkpoint.

How would including everyone be even remotely useful though? Not all crimes are going to necessarily leave behind DNA evidence that can be tested for. Plus having all that excess data is going to make searching through it highly inefficient and make it a general bitch to maintain. I'd be in favor of including anyone who's been arrested, but 'everyone' seems grossly inefficient, like how some knuckleheads are in favor of screening anyone coming through an airport who looks even remotely Arab. You'd have to come up with a whole new bureau and find money to fund it just to maintain all that information and make sure it's accurate.

[Enforcer Talen]

IIRC, they already DNA database the military. I see no reason not to database convicts as well.

[CaptainChewbacca]

IIRC, they already DNA database the military. I see no reason not to database convicts as well.

They do.

[Havok]

IIRC, they already DNA database the military. I see no reason not to database convicts as well.

Convicts are not the issue. It is people who have merely been arrested. Being arrested in no way indicates that they are in fact guilty, only that there is a strong suspicion and/or plausible evidence that they are. These people that may get arrested but later released with no charges filed, is what the the issue is about.

[Aaron]

IIRC, they already DNA database the military. I see no reason not to database convicts as well.

Both of these groups forfeit certain rights upon joing up or being convicted. I can imagine that this proposed DNA database falls under the "search and siezure" bit in the Constitution. I don't think it's a bad idea but they'll be alot of resistance to the idea because of that.

[Durandal]

Terror watch-list fiascos come to mind.

I'm not sure why you think this is a valid comparison, given that thousands of people can share the same name but DNA is unique to the individual. There is also haphazard placement of names on the watchlist, whereas a national DNA database would by definition include everyone. And of course the database would only be consulted when an actual crime has been committed, not merely when a "red flag" is flown at some checkpoint.

The point is that the No Fly List was incompetently implemented. There were no problems that could have possibly arisen during its implementation that weren't already solved. Just keying off a person's name is so incredibly stupid that it defies description.

And these are the morons we'd trust with a nation-wide database of DNA? I don't think so.

[Havok]

Terror watch-list fiascos come to mind.

I'm not sure why you think this is a valid comparison, given that thousands of people can share the same name but DNA is unique to the individual. There is also haphazard placement of names on the watchlist, whereas a national DNA database would by definition include everyone. And of course the database would only be consulted when an actual crime has been committed, not merely when a "red flag" is flown at some checkpoint.

The point is that the No Fly List was incompetently implemented. There were no problems that could have possibly arisen during its implementation that weren't already solved. Just keying off a person's name is so incredibly stupid that it defies description.

And these are the morons we'd trust with a nation-wide database of DNA? I don't think so.

What's to administer incompetently. EVERYONE goes on the list. It's not like someone has to pick and choose who goes on the list. When you are born, you go on the list. If you are alive now, you go on the list. It's pretty straightforward. The only problem I imagine arising would be security concerns about the info and who has access to it, but really, aside from the Feds and Cops, who can really make use of a DNA record in this form.

[General Zod]

What's to administer incompetently. EVERYONE goes on the list. It's not like someone has to pick and choose who goes on the list. When you are born, you go on the list. If you are alive now, you go on the list. It's pretty straightforward. The only problem I imagine arising would be security concerns about the info and who has access to it, but really, aside from the Feds and Cops, who can really make use of a DNA record in this form.

You still have to have people administer the tests, process the results, and submit them to a database, and make sure everybody is using the same standards and format. It's not as straight-forward as you'd think. That's a lot of work for several million people and mistakes will happen. And yet you'd trust a government to run this who can't even get a relatively small list of people they don't want flying correct?

[Wyrm]

Why don't we just require everyone to donate a DNA sample, and then when DNA evidence is found at a crime scene its matched against the national database, and anyone who matches is brought in for questioning? That seems like it would be effective and I can't particulary see how it infringes anyone's rights.

Have fun trying to come up with a competent database system to manage all that data.

And there would be a ~300-person-per-sample false positive rate. That's a lot of people to interview. You might want to narrow down the suspect pool by quite a bit before moving on to the DNA registry, Hemlock.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is the US government known to be more reliable with large databases than the nitwits at Whitehall?

Terror watch-list fiascos come to mind.

No different from a Finger print database.

Sequence the DNA at one loci and put it a computer system as a nucleotide sequence. Use the same loci for all individuals.

Submit the sequence to something like Genebank (or in this case Crimbank) and have this database in one centralized location, with a few backup servers.

When a suspect as apprehended, take a sample of his DNA (as simple as a cheek swab) and sequence that same loci. Query the sequence against Crimbank for a match using single nucleotide polymorphisms. Because the same loci was submitted, you can just look for a 100% match and you have your guy. We ALREADY do something similar to this with fingerprints, with fingerprints querried against a database and possible matches checked by analysists. This is easier because no human error is involved.

In this case, we already have a competently run database for gene sequences called Genbank, all that would be needed is to copy the programs used onto a central server for Crimbank and set up a fucking website.

You can take samples of all people at birth like we they do kiddy fingerprints with a cheek swab, submit it to the database and we never have to worry about identifying a corpse using forensic anthropology again. Shit, screw databasing suspects... put everyone in. You hardly have a right to conceal your identity. This is no different from making sure everyone has some form of ID. Only this one is error free.

I'm not sure why you think this is a valid comparison, given that thousands of people can share the same name but DNA is unique to the individual. There is also haphazard placement of names on the watchlist, whereas a national DNA database would by definition include everyone. And of course the database would only be consulted when an actual crime has been committed, not merely when a "red flag" is flown at some checkpoint.

We can use a system identical to genebank. Problem solved

How would including everyone be even remotely useful though? Not all crimes are going to necessarily leave behind DNA evidence that can be tested for. Plus having all that excess data is going to make searching through it highly inefficient and make it a general bitch to maintain. I'd be in favor of including anyone who's been arrested, but 'everyone' seems grossly inefficient, like how some knuckleheads are in favor of screening anyone coming through an airport who looks even remotely Arab. You'd have to come up with a whole new bureau and find money to fund it just to maintain all that information and make sure it's accurate.

All manner of things. Not just identifying perps, but victims as well. We find a charred skeleton. It is really difficult to completely burn a body, and you can find DNA in the bones. Query it against the database, problems solved. We wont have to rely on a forensic anthropologist ever again. Makes me kinda sad that they will be out of jobs though. We can identify blood spatter when no body is present, etc etc etc etc.

As for the efficiency, we already have a high traffic system which holds every sequence of every organism made since we had the ability to sequence DNA. It is called Genebank. It works really well. I've used it.

Convicts are not the issue. It is people who have merely been arrested. Being arrested in no way indicates that they are in fact guilty, only that there is a strong suspicion and/or plausible evidence that they are. These people that may get arrested but later released with no charges filed, is what the the issue is about.

We fingerprint those who are arrested and never convicted. No more invasive.

Both of these groups forfeit certain rights upon joing up or being convicted. I can imagine that this proposed DNA database falls under the "search and siezure" bit in the Constitution. I don't think it's a bad idea but they'll be alot of resistance to the idea because of that.

Provided it is done across the board, there are no constitutional problems(sort of like how the random screenings at airports pass constitutional muster). We dont actually need a court order to check fingerprints against a database. We need one to individually compel a DNA sample. However, it is part of post-birth screening there are few problems. hell, we can even make it an issue of parental consent, and really avoid constitutional problems.

And these are the morons we'd trust with a nation-wide database of DNA? I don't think so.

One word: Genebank.

The program already exists. It is already pretty error proof.

What's to administer incompetently. EVERYONE goes on the list. It's not like someone has to pick and choose who goes on the list. When you are born, you go on the list. If you are alive now, you go on the list. It's pretty straightforward. The only problem I imagine arising would be security concerns about the info and who has access to it, but really, aside from the Feds and Cops, who can really make use of a DNA record in this form.

No one. How useful is it really for someone to have a copy of the sequence for a large non-coding region?

I suppose a scientist could use it for a few things if they had everyone's but that is about it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why don't we just require everyone to donate a DNA sample, and then when DNA evidence is found at a crime scene its matched against the national database, and anyone who matches is brought in for questioning? That seems like it would be effective and I can't particulary see how it infringes anyone's rights.

Have fun trying to come up with a competent database system to manage all that data.

And there would be a ~300-person-per-sample false positive rate. That's a lot of people to interview. You might want to narrow down the suspect pool by quite a bit before moving on to the DNA registry, Hemlock.

Where did you get that number?

[MKSheppard]

There's a new article today about O'Malley's latest scheme

Link

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) announced yesterday an initiative to use Global Positioning System technology to track 200 juvenile offenders on probation or in aftercare programs, saying heightened supervision could help break the grip that drug dealers have on many troubled youths.

Starting in July, GPS-connected ankle bracelets will be used in Baltimore, administration officials said, and the program could be expanded into Prince George's County if it proved successful.

The $1 million initiative was put forward on the second day of a two-week rollout of O'Malley's agenda for the legislative session that started this week. Aides said the GPS proposal will be included in the fiscal 2009 budget that O'Malley is scheduled to present to lawmakers next week. The initiative does not require separate legislation, they said.

The state currently uses less-sophisticated electronic monitoring devices for some juveniles awaiting trial. The new devices would allow the Department of Juvenile Services to track youths using technology similar to that in cars equipped with GPS navigation systems.

Several other states have started using GPS technology in a similar manner, department officials said.

Speaking at a news conference at a state-run juvenile detention center in Baltimore, O'Malley said the initiative would allow officials to intervene, for example, when monitored youths are frequenting corners known for drug activity.

"Drug dealers have been trying to steal the lives of our children from us," O'Malley said.

Donald W. DeVore, O'Malley's secretary of juvenile services, said the system would "enable the department to know the exact location of our youth, which will help ensure youth are not only where they should be but not where they shouldn't be. This greatly improves our ability to protect victims as well as the community."

The monitored youths would be part of a newly created Violence Prevention Unit, which is intended to provide stepped-up services to young people in Baltimore who are deemed "most at risk of committing crimes of violence." Gang membership, gun crimes, drug activity and auto theft would be among the reasons for enrolling a juvenile offender.

Angela Conyers Johnese, juvenile justice director for Advocates for Children and Youth, said she understands the need for heightened monitoring. But Johnese, who attended the announcement, said she was disappointed not to hear more about other services to benefit youths, such as educational opportunities, job placement services and drug treatment.

"Monitoring alone is not going to do it," she said.

Earlier this week, O'Malley unveiled a plan to expand the state's DNA database to include samples from people arrested for violent crimes. Under current law, samples are only taken from those who have been convicted.

On Monday, the governor has scheduled two news conferences: one to announce initiatives to address the wave of home foreclosures in Maryland and the other to freeze tuition at public universities for another year.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What's to administer incompetently. EVERYONE goes on the list. It's not like someone has to pick and choose who goes on the list. When you are born, you go on the list. If you are alive now, you go on the list. It's pretty straightforward. The only problem I imagine arising would be security concerns about the info and who has access to it, but really, aside from the Feds and Cops, who can really make use of a DNA record in this form.

You still have to have people administer the tests, process the results, and submit them to a database, and make sure everybody is using the same standards and format. It's not as straight-forward as you'd think. That's a lot of work for several million people and mistakes will happen. And yet you'd trust a government to run this who can't even get a relatively small list of people they don't want flying correct?

No different than a fingerprint database that already exists

[General Zod]

No different than a fingerprint database that already exists

I wasn't aware we had a national fingerprint database for every American alive. I was under the impression that DNA samples left a wider margin for error than finger-printing, though. Especially given the likeliness of contamination and that most crimes won't leave testable DNA evidence. This hardly seems like an efficient method to me.

[Havok]

Convicts are not the issue. It is people who have merely been arrested. Being arrested in no way indicates that they are in fact guilty, only that there is a strong suspicion and/or plausible evidence that they are. These people that may get arrested but later released with no charges filed, is what the the issue is about.

We fingerprint those who are arrested and never convicted. No more invasive.

Which was my point from earlier, I was just clarifying the group of people that the civil rights people are claiming will be violated and such.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No different than a fingerprint database that already exists

I wasn't aware we had a national fingerprint database for every American alive. I was under the impression that DNA samples left a wider margin for error than finger-printing, though. Especially given the likeliness of contamination and that most crimes won't leave testable DNA evidence. This hardly seems like an efficient method to me.

We have a fingerprint database for everyone arrested, and at least when I was born, I was fingerprited. These are not final fingerprints, the patterns change after infancy, but it would have been usefull for ID if I was lost or something.

Most crimes do not leave good DNA. But once you get it, BAM. There is practically no margin of error if you are using a large non-coding region. With fingerprints, you need to have an analyst manually go over the fingerprint because almost no two impressions, even with the same person, are exactly the same due to surface, the way the finger was depressed on said surface. With DNA, you are literally checked against a Database of ATCG sequences (or if you use RNA AUGC) for which there is little room for error.

Even if you use images of an electrophoresis gel you will have better ID than with fingerprints.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I should make a slight correction. One thing that would need to be looked for are single base pair mutations that might creep into an individual during their lifetime. But these should be relatively rare.