Hacker News Reader

Comment by fargle | Hacker News Reader

As potentially upsetting this all may be,

Isn't the truth, the truth?

I mean, did she do the property crime or not? If she did why do we have a problem with the way we got to the truth?

In this world, or the world of the last 10,000 years, you should live life as if everybody can see everything. If you don't like that, well too badsy. Be nicer.

View on HN

> If she did why do we have a problem with the way we got to the truth?

Do you think in the future people will decline rape exams knowing their info will be put into a database that could be used against them indefinitely?

Do you think that people that have given their DNA for a rape-kit or some other reason would think twice about later committing a property crime, knowing that info was put into a database that could be used against them indefinitely?

The point is that a) when you voluntarily give information, you've given it - and can have no reasonable expectation that the cat can be put back into the bag. and b) it's wrong to worry about a guilty person being caught because the truth was just too darn easy to find. Justice is a search for truth. Liberty is in a way the choice of what to share, but it doesn't matter why you shared - you did, it's out.

I'd say only someone who has done something so horrible that they fear getting caught worse than they want their rapists caught.

It's a trap of their own doing.

You never know what will be illegal later. Especially when you are in a vulnerable class (i.e. already a target), you can be fairly certain you will be found already "guilty" of something once someone powerful enough starts to dislike you. As such, providing such things and cooperating with the police is essentially assisting your own oppression. It's a stupid idea, regardless of your own conscience.

You did not answer the questions though. Answer whether you think if people will decline a rape kit exam, knowing the DNA from that could be used against them in the future. I.e. crimes or whatever circumstances that have not happened yet.

Sorry, you're right. I'll now reply directly.

I think it depends. If the person in question knows they are guilty of some crime that carries a heavy penalty, then they may decline the rape kit.

If the person in question does not know they are guilty of some crime that carries a heavy penalty, then they likely will not decline a rape kit.

I think people who commit crimes cause damage to society, so I tend to have little sympathy for schemes to let them escape justice, FWIW.

That sounds a lot like, "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you need privacy?" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (feel free to clarify if you feel its needed), but I feel like I hear the kind of thing you're saying fairly often.

"Never talk to the cops." Isn't just for people who are guilty. Same with talking to a lawyer. I would hesitate to hand over my personal information, moreso if I don't have faith in the institution it goes to. I hear so many stories about rape kits never getting processed and how difficult it is to convict on rape because it's mostly he-said she-said. I also think putting someone in the position of getting caught so they can maybe catch their rapist isn't a great way to reduce overall crime.

There are a bunch of examples where this plays out poorly and nobody has a fear of getting caught. Black people had higher vaccine hesitancy because of historical distrust[1]. The CIA used a Hepatitis B vaccination program as cover to collect DNA to find Bin Laden[2].

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/understan...

[2] https://news.yahoo.com/cia-bin-laden-vaccine-ruse-010004824....

In this case, the person DID have something to hide: The property crime she committed.

I guess if you include future crimes? The article says the DNA was collected years ago and the crime was recent.

One could use an argument much like this to argue for compelling other self-incriminating testimony.

There's nothing to argue - you definitely can be compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence including blood samples; the fifth amendment exemption is solely about actual testimony.

Right: you can be compelled to give blood, for example. But the fourth should apply.

That being said, we probably don't have too much time before we have to distinguish between the notions of 1) being compelled to testify and 2) having one's own account being taken without the need to actively testify.

I believe that they are fully distinguished already; taking over your accounts without the need to actively testify seems comparable to taking the contents of your safe or contents of your private correspondence or contents of your storage box at someone else's place - clearly permissible if (but only if) there's a warrant for that.

In this case it "worked" but what about the false positives, the cases where it didn't work. This is why we have rules against illegal searches and the right to remain silent.

That's such a privileged point of view. Do you not see how minorities will suffer from being exposed, unable to hide? Human society is not ready for your idea.

It is not clear to me how this is more detrimental to some groups more than others. Can you elaborate?

Scary opinion

I think it is a simple privacy issue.

Privacy is the idea that there should be intentional barriers between the government and "the truth". The government may catch more criminals if it has full access to "the truth", but there are also downsides. To avid the downsides, we limit the ways in which governments and individuals can access/obtain "the truth".

This is why we have search warrants opposed to universal surveillance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com