Off the hook...

[Steve]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/sc...8dna.html?_r=1

That's worrisome.

[kalniel]

I don't think it's worrying.

[Zak33]

I do

[Englander]

I'm fairly indifferent.

[peterb]

Difficult to judge on the basis of a newspaper article, but if the technique offers a credible defence to someone who may otherwise be guilty of a serious crime, it is worrying, and if the technique could be used to undermine an otherwise credible defence of someone accused of a crime, but otherwise innocent, that is even more worrying.

It could also open up a case for challenge convictions based in whole (or part) on DNA evidence, and again it raises the question the validity of retaining DNA profiles of people who have not been convicted of any crime.

[Salazaar]

I'm worried about teams of rogue biologist setting me up for crimes I didn't commit. I just don't have the same tenacity as the A-Team, I'm not sure I could deal with it!

[nightkhaos]

What worries me is all the appeals we are going to get for crimes based upon this new turn of events...

[kalniel]

What worries me is all the appeals we are going to get for crimes based upon this new turn of events...

If you were going to plant evidence that someone was somewhere then you'd just use actual hair or saliva from that person. The fact that you can create your own fake saliva is not going to change that. Evidence planting is already considered as part of the process.

[nightkhaos]

If you were going to plant evidence that someone was somewhere then you'd just use actual hair or saliva from that person. The fact that you can create your own fake saliva is not going to change that. Evidence planting is already considered as part of the process.

We know this, but it isn't gonna stop people with incompetent lawyers from trying now is it?

[TheAnimus]

Jury's are notoursouly bad at understanding statistics, then there is the legal concil which all too often is completely inept too.

Saying its a 1 in a Million chance. This is not like playing the lottery, its a LOT more probable. Its akin to saying there are 60 people in this country that this could possibly be, this type of understanding is often diliberately avoided, and the low end legal deffense have no idea how to construct their cases.

[Lucio]

It is worrying, if it didn't take a team of top biologists to be able to produce the results. If it gets to the point that a back street lab can produce the same results, it's at that point it becomes worrying.

It's like all "proof of concepts", once you can do something the hard way, eventually it'll be made easier but the worry shouldn't kick in on a "just because"

[Mblaster]

If you were going to plant evidence that someone was somewhere then you'd just use actual hair or saliva from that person. The fact that you can create your own fake saliva is not going to change that. Evidence planting is already considered as part of the process.

The difference here is that the DNA sample of blood or saliva can be created without ever having to meet that person, all you need is access to their DNA record and you manufacture a sample of saliva with their DNA.

It is worrying, if it didn't take a team of top biologists to be able to produce the results. If it gets to the point that a back street lab can produce the same results, it's at that point it becomes worrying.

It's like all "proof of concepts", once you can do something the hard way, eventually it'll be made easier but the worry shouldn't kick in on a "just because"

Well, the more simple method (requires a small sample, rather than just the DNA record) could be done by any biology undergraduate acording to the article, not exactly requiring a team of experts, I can think of 4 friends right away that fit this position.

[Dareos]

what worries me is all the crappy "whodunnit" "thriller" and "tech crime" novels and films based on this info that we will be forced to endure over the next few years now

Dan Brown : The DNA Code

"I can't believe Robert Langdon could possibly have murdered the popes boyfriend," exclaimed the impossibly lovely Ferisia Legaly "yet his DNA is all over the scene of the crime!".
"I know my dear, but look closely at this strand of hair," replied Langdons old DNA expert pathologist friend from the University where he spent 15 years studying cryptology before spending another 10 years studying religion and a further 15 studying cryogenics and hyperintense learning techniques so he could fit all this in, " If you put it under this handy microspectrometer i happened to have with me, you will see that this is quite clearly faked, and in fact the DNA is arranged in such a way that if you put it next to this car headlight, shows the location of the stolen Papal Mitre that the popes boyfriend was wearing at the time of the murder!".

CSI

Crime Scene of 2 guys found dead in a car, bullet holes in the windscreen. Investigators rewind the scene to see bullets exit the bodies, the windscreen reforming, the bullets shooting back into the gun, the gun being loaded and the fingers pushing the bullets into the cartridge holder. It then pans further back into a plane right, a lab in Tel Aviv and a doc faking saliva samples and imprinting them on the bullets in order to frame a high rolling gambler who just broke the bank in a Vegas casino.

The Seedier Side of Hollywood

"OH OOOOHH oOOHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHH FILL ME WITH YOUR.... eeww not the stuff from the lab"

[Nick]

Classic stuff Dareos... my sig needs that...

[kalniel]

The difference here is that the DNA sample of blood or saliva can be created without ever having to meet that person, all you need is access to their DNA record

It'd be easier to just meet them.

[sammyc]

It'd be easier to just meet them.

Although more difficult to then claim you have never met them/left the country/seen this man before in my life M'Lud.