>Initially, the database contained only the DNA of sexual offenders. But, over the next five years, it grew to include people convicted — or merely suspected — of a much wider range of crimes, including murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, assault, theft and property damage.
>The process of being removed from the DNA database is so onerous that few pursue it, Mr. Poitevin said. Those who refuse to give a DNA sample face at least a year in prison and a fine of at least 15,000 euros, almost $17,400.
Yikes.
"We'll catch jewel theft suspects really fast; all we ask is that you let us create a giant surveillance database with your genetic material."
Let's not forget that each DNA sample also includes information about their relatives as well. I believe that's how the Golden State Killer was caught.
> The website identified 10 to 20 people who had the same great-great-great-grandparents as the Golden State Killer ...
So they can get DNA from someone suspected of “theft or property damage”??
So, in this case, the fact that persons were suspected of the crime meant that they could get their DNA? Turns out you don’t even need the database then! You can just get the DNA on-demand.
That's about the size of it. Oddly enough, whether police can collect DNA from arrestees was the main legal issue in a moot court competition that I participated in some years back. The Supreme Court eventually took up that issue (in case originating in Maryland) and found that a DNA swab at the time of arrest was constitutional (see here for a summary: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-207).
It's not clear to me from the original article here whether France's system requires an actual arrest before they can demand that a person give DNA.
Of course it also demonstrates the power of misuse something like this has. Because only the ignorant think that secret databases in the hands of government will never be misused.
If we want to build a database of DNA tied to individuals that should be public record. If we cannot trust the public with having this information then we absolutely should not trust the government.
“Among my clients, absolutely zero refuse [to give DNA], because for them, it’s an admission of guilt,” said Mr. Poitevin.
What an absolute load of garbage. America has problems but at least we still believe in the right to say “f—— off, I’m not helping you convict me” when self-incrimination is asked of the accused.
Not good, thanks for sharing. Also different, however. One is a routine part of criminal investigations in which over 4 million people are swept up, while around 2000 were swept up in the linked article at the border. I’m not okay with even the 2000, but it’s a different thing.
>Initially, the database contained only the DNA of sexual offenders. But, over the next five years, it grew to include people convicted — or merely suspected — of a much wider range of crimes, including murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, assault, theft and property damage.
>The process of being removed from the DNA database is so onerous that few pursue it, Mr. Poitevin said. Those who refuse to give a DNA sample face at least a year in prison and a fine of at least 15,000 euros, almost $17,400.
Yikes.
"We'll catch jewel theft suspects really fast; all we ask is that you let us create a giant surveillance database with your genetic material."
Let's not forget that each DNA sample also includes information about their relatives as well. I believe that's how the Golden State Killer was caught.
> The website identified 10 to 20 people who had the same great-great-great-grandparents as the Golden State Killer ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo#Investig...
So they can get DNA from someone suspected of “theft or property damage”??
So, in this case, the fact that persons were suspected of the crime meant that they could get their DNA? Turns out you don’t even need the database then! You can just get the DNA on-demand.
That's about the size of it. Oddly enough, whether police can collect DNA from arrestees was the main legal issue in a moot court competition that I participated in some years back. The Supreme Court eventually took up that issue (in case originating in Maryland) and found that a DNA swab at the time of arrest was constitutional (see here for a summary: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-207).
It's not clear to me from the original article here whether France's system requires an actual arrest before they can demand that a person give DNA.
“Merely suspected” of a crime? Yikes.
Of course it also demonstrates the power of misuse something like this has. Because only the ignorant think that secret databases in the hands of government will never be misused.
If we want to build a database of DNA tied to individuals that should be public record. If we cannot trust the public with having this information then we absolutely should not trust the government.
“Among my clients, absolutely zero refuse [to give DNA], because for them, it’s an admission of guilt,” said Mr. Poitevin.
What an absolute load of garbage. America has problems but at least we still believe in the right to say “f—— off, I’m not helping you convict me” when self-incrimination is asked of the accused.
What are you raving about? In the US you can get your DNA taken by authorities without possibility of refusing as well: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/23/us-border...
Not good, thanks for sharing. Also different, however. One is a routine part of criminal investigations in which over 4 million people are swept up, while around 2000 were swept up in the linked article at the border. I’m not okay with even the 2000, but it’s a different thing.