Re:EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Col...
by snowwrestler on Thursday February 19, 2015 @04:16PM
(#9077115)
I don't think one can expect privacy in a public place; the police can photograph you walking through a public park without a warrant. In fact, anyone has the right to photograph you in a public place.
It seems to me that there is at least an argument that dropping your DNA in a public park is not very different.
Re:EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Col...
by Retra on Thursday February 19, 2015 @09:37PM
(#9078587)
You can absolutely expect certain kinds of privacy in a public space. (Like with up-skirt photos, for instance?) The question that needs to be resolved is if collecting DNA violates people's privacy in an unreasonable manner. I think this really falls back on the question of what harm you can do to someone with their DNA.
The EFF apparently feels that you could do quite a bit of harm with it, if not today, then very soon. To me, it seems just about as bad as stalking someone.
Re:EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Col...
by snowwrestler on Saturday February 21, 2015 @10:37PM
(#9088117)
> You can absolutely expect certain kinds of privacy in a public space. (Like with up-skirt photos, for instance?)
I upvoted you, but I'll say for the record: this is an excellent point.
Re:EFF to Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Col...
by wickedlogic on Thursday February 19, 2015 @04:32PM
(#9077223)
Thats why we are proposing a non-profit group to collect dna samples 'left' in public places by politicians... right?
Because it is unreasonable to avoid. A reasonable person who wants to maintain privacy has the ability to avoid throwing things they don't want to be found out. A reasonable person who wants to maintain privacy must be unreasonable in order to prevent his or her DNA from being all over the place.
IANAL, but I feel like the 4th amendment needs to be interpreted in light of the difficulty of obtaining private information on a person at the time, and the ease of obtaining it now. At the time, the 4th amendment pretty much prevented law enforcement from getting any information on you that you didn't broadcast (absent a warrant). I think it is reasonable to use that standard.
> (2) Unreasonable search and seizure is relative...invading a persons time/space/property/anything.
But it is invading a persons privacy. Their DNA contains information that is as private to them as what they do in their home with the blinds drawn.