Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Many of the comments here seem to assume that the use of DNA tests without the accused's consent is a bad thing. I fail to see why. We use facial features and eyewitness-testimony to ID criminal dependents all the time. No one argues that consent/warrant is needed in order to ID someone using their facial features. More generally speaking, I fail to see the harm that can arise from using DNA to identify suspects, whereas the benefits are so much more compelling.


DNA is only circumstantial. Being a suspect is harmful. Hence DNA testing could make innocent people suspects and thus harm them.

Since harming innocents is bad, there is a downside to wide usage of DNA tests. Whether tgat downside weighs up against the upside is a debate. But we need to acknowledge there is a debate to be had.


Sure, but I think it's also worth acknowledging that suspects get identified all the time on the basis of circumstantial evidence far flimsier than DNA traces. The "burden of proof" needed for the police to investigate someone as a suspect is extremely low, for good reasons.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: