DNA: US Law, DNA and the Fourth Amendment

As the US prepares to expand its DNA collection program, an interesting document has been passed to WikiLeaks from the Congressional Research Service

The US fourth amendment relates to the issue of  “unreasonable searches and seizures” has been considered for its implications for DNA collection

Abstract. Despite relying on different legal standards, courts have generally upheld laws authorizing law enforcement’s compulsory collection of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, several developments might call this judicial consensus into question. Despite relying on different legal standards, courts have generally upheld laws authorizing law enforcement’s compulsory collection of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, several developments might call this judicial consensus into question.

Full Article.

DNA: US follows UK

In a controversial move the US is following the UK in creation of laws to acquire DNA from suspects (i.e innocent and guilty people), rather than only the guilty.

Currently the US laws are mixed, with some states allowing collection of DNA prior to conviction or charge, but others allowing it on arrest.

The current laws are set to allow the US federal agents (e.g FBI, DEA, ATF, etc) to collect DNA on arrest of any person committing a “felon”, and any non-US citizen connecting any crime.

The UK laws have followed similar changes, though are around 5 years ahead of the US.

The laws in the UK initially allowed the DNA to be taken only from those charged and kept only if they were convicted. Then it was change so that the DNA could be kept even if the person was later found not guilty.

Then it was changed again, allowing the police to take DNA from any person, regardless of the crime upon arrest. There was no longer a requirement to convict or even charge people to obtain, or retain, the DNA.

However the UK has now gone through the cycle and these laws have been tested in the European Court of Human Rights – the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.

In the case of S and Marper v United Kingdom, it was found that the UK had over stepped its remit and breached the basic rights of the individuals “S” and “Marper” whose DNA had been retained, despite not being convicted of any crime.

In addition to this it is well known that there are errors with DNA databases, and that mass DNA databases do not work as effectively as politicians imply.

It should be remembered that as laws change, so do the goal posts of what is an is not acceptable.

Originally DNA was only taken from the guilty, then it was only retained from the guilty, now it can be taken from anyone.It used to be that the DNA would only be used for law enforcement purposes, but in the UK that has already changed as DNA samples have been sold onto other companies.

Laws change, and once the DNA data exists it can be used or misused, as much as the government allows.

No doubt the US will follow suit on this as well.

Data Theft: Social Security Numbers

In the US case after case of data theft and data loss relate to social security numbers being stolen or misused.

Because it is the social security numbers that are are often “gate keeps” to personal identity, the FTC has taken an important decision: To stop making social security numbers so critical as a form of identification.

Hats off to the FTC, as it has  effectively admited that data theft will always occur, all you can do is try and limit the effects.

US Law: Non-Compete Enforced

In 2008 a  federal judge stopped an Apple Employee working at Apple after an application by IBM.

The employee, a Mark Papermaster the new Vice President of Device Hardware for Apple, only started work a week after the application

Mark had previously worked at IBM, and had signed an “non compete” agreement in 2006. The agreement stated that when he left IBM he would not work at a competitor for at least a year.

Data Privacy: FTC Guidelines

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued revised guidelines on how online advertisers should protect consumers’ privacy when collecting information about their web activities.

The guidelines were originally proposed in December 2007, as self-regulatory principles for organizations such as Google, AT&T, Facebook, or eBay.

Under the revised guidelines issued Thursday, the FTC calls for every website to have a clear statement that data is being collected. It says consumers should be allowed to choose whether to have information collected, and when data collection occurs outside the traditional website context, companies should develop alternative methods of disclosure.

Source