On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:31:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> supposed to be 100% accurate (or better than 99% accurate),
> 
> Read "better than 99% accurate" as "less than 3 million false positives"
> in a nation-wide DNA database.

True....

>> how exactly does one challenge that if it's supposed to be infallible?
> 
> To be fair, that's a pretty damn easy thing to challenge. "Here, take my
> DNA again."
> 
> Of course, every accused criminal will try this approach, at which
> point, what did you save by doing a giant collection in the first place.

Unless of course the problem is caused by contamination of the crime 
scene, planting of DNA evidence, or contamination of the evidence after 
it's collected.

>> but the law sets the police up so as
>> to be required to engage in racial profiling.
> 
> It's also a witch-trial law. If someone reports you as illegal, the
> police are required to come and make you prove you're not.

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message