There will be. . . no graphics, here tonight.
I want you, gentle readers, to let that headline sink in.
The sitting President's most trusted (over 20 years worth!) personal lawyer -- his "fixer" -- on the heels of being felony grand jury raided by federal law enforcement, just took the fifth amendment, as to all civil litigation matters in the Stormy Daniels $130,000 payment -- one he clearly personally negotiated, and closed, for Mr. Trump.
This is. . . unprecedented in American presidential history. Completely unprecedented.
Back to life science -- on the 'morrow.
नमस्ते
4 comments:
In other breaking criminal justice news, it seems Bill Cosby will be joining Martin Shkreli in the clink pretty shortly... and that is probably ... justice.
Slightly off topic,but at least crime and science-related: curious what your thoughts are on use of DNA-based geneology services and their data in the identification of suspects in crimes, as appears to be the case with the so-called 'Golden State Killer'. A goldmine of crime-solving data and technology is out there, but what should the limits be?
This is an outstanding question!
And the law here will have to evolve a bit — as to sites like 23&me, I think (because if one checks the right boxes, 23&me will never voluntarily share DNA without a search warrant)...
But in the case you mention, it is now clear tgat his relatives uploaded DNA knowing it was public, and capable of search — by ANYONE, without restriction. And I think finding this killer and rapist in that way (via relatives’ DNA — offered in a very public way)... is appropriate.
I personally wondered whether the family members suspected him, given the wall to wall coverage in the late 1970s, and thought this might help catch him, without being accusatory (were they wrong).
In the next comment (or a new post) I’ll address the expectation of privacy — where privacy is offered (a la 23&me)...
The whole topic is both important and... fascinating! Thanks!
Now, where (as I personally have — at 23&me) I’ve selected my DNA only to be shared in trusted academic science research settings, and only in aggregated form, it strikes me that law enforcement should need a warrant from a judge.
And a judge won’t issue that warrant where (as in a doctor’s office) I seek treatment privately. So that is akin to pre-existing law, under the fourth amendment.
We also know that law enforcement may search your trash without a warrant, and discarded toothbrushes, floss or cotton swabs with blood on them — may be processed lawfully for DNA evidence without s warrant.
So be careful how you dump personal hygiene items, if you are a crook on the lam! [One cannot (more seriously) really assert a fourth amendment privacy right in something placed on the curb as garbage for public collection.]
I know victims of horrible crimes deserve closure, and this new field of science offers promise on perhaps thousands of cold cases, but we should be very wary of warrantless searches of private DNA databases. After all, what if employers and insurers begin discriminating based on what the service consumers assumed would remain entirely private?
And imagine that I am the entirely unknown love child of Charles Manson... should I be involuntarily outed, as the child of a mobster — and subject to taunts (or worse!), when for almost a half century... I never knew he was my father?!
Yes... the law will have to proscribe law enforcement searching Willy-Nilly, in those settings.
Great thought provoking question!
Namaste and goodnight!
Post a Comment