Was reading this article about the convicted hacker Adrian Lamo, who seems like quite a decent fellow:
Lamo’s modus operandi differed from other convicted hackers.
When he successfully broke into computer networks, Lamo would
notify the operators, offering to work with the companies to remedy
the bugs that granted him access. He was responsible for hacks on
Yahoo!, Microsoft, AOL, MCI WorldCom, broadband provider
Excite@Home and more.
And his refusal to give blood for a DNA sample:
But it won’t be long before Lamo fronts court again. He’s
fighting a government demand to take a blood sample for DNA
profiling. Lamo opposes the “spilling of blood” on religious
grounds. “Let me be clear, I’m not refusing DNA. I’m asking to give
it via a buccal (cheek) swab,” he says. “I oppose the needless
spilling of blood, something that every human being, really, should
be against. I’m not a religious kook, I just think the Bible is
very clear on this issue.”
Apart from the weirdness of not accepting an alternative means (maybe blood contains better DNA?), I thought the fact that they were wanting to enforce collection of DNA somewhat worrying. After all, he didn’t commit a violent crime. I wouldn’t have even characterised it as malicious. Shouldn’t there be some sort of sliding scale for this?
Should one non-violent infraction mean that the State has the right to profile your DNA?
Article quoted:
Cybercrime leads to a sense of security - Sydney Morning Herald (6 Feb 07)
3 comments ↓
Hey,
A friend forwarded me a link to your blog. I try to occasionally respond to these things personally, to reinforce that I’m a real person, that news is not just another program on the TV with no connection to real life, or something that happens to other people.
There is absolutely no difference between the DNA collected by buccal swab and that which is collected via the needless spilling of human blood. Once it’s in the database, the 1’s and 0’s that make up the record are no different.
CODIS, in fact, already contains thousands of records collected via buccal swab by states (including California) and uploaded to the federal DB. There is a less burdensome means of collection readily available, and I cannot speculate on why the federal government would not choose the inexpensive, reasonable alternative — in fact, the defense has offered to pay for buccal swab collection if expense is an issue.
Thank you for taking the time to highlight this important issue. Cheers, and Godspeed : )
Adrian Lamo
Sacramento, CA
Thanks, Adrian for clarifying that in person.
That’s just incredible that they would insist on collecting it in blood. Terrifying actually, that the State would choose a method that causes potential pain and anguish to one that is doesn’t.
It reminds me of the Alan Moore line: “Who watches the Watchmen?”
Hello,
Almost a year later, it may interest you to know that (1) I won, and was able to avoid having to provide DNA via blood sample, and (2) the 9th Circuit is showing signs that it may oppose mandatory DNA collection in cases of religious objection (although this will not affect my case personally).
Cheers,
A
Leave a Comment