6-8-2008 National:
Another PROPOSED RULE under the Adam Walsh Act, covering USC 2257A, in summary:
This rule proposes to amend record-keeping, labeling, and inspection requirements to implement provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 that require producers of depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct to maintain records documenting that performers in those depictions are at least 18 years of age. The rule also implements provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that create a certification regime for the exemption of producers, in certain circumstances, from those requirements and from similar requirements for producers of visual depictions of the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
The PROPOSED RULE was posted in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008. The Department of Justice is asking for public comments BEFORE August 5, 2008. The PROPOSED RULE can be found HERE.
Note: The rule seems to define "simulated sexually explicit conduct" which apparently was not defined before. This could mean that, following public comment and publishing of the final rule, we could see state activity amending any state statutes that may be in conflict with this rule, when final.
While there may be a reason for this rule I can see, down the road, a whole new group of sex offenders being CREATED as the result of this rule.
I wonder if "simulated" also includes cartoonish like pictures that are often found on walls of bathrooms, and would the owners of such establishments be held accountable for it?
eAdvocate
June 8, 2008
Another U.S. Department of Justice PROPOSED Rule - for USC 2257A
May 16, 2008
More Aggressive DNA Collection Protocol Coming?
5-16-2008 National:
DNA collection from suspects may shift into high gear now that the Attorney General is directing all law enforcement agencies to begin taking samples during all arrests and detentions.
The Chicago Tribune's political blog, The Swamp, reports that the proposed rule popped up in a Federal Register notice regarding the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
"This rule directs agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals, or that supervise individuals facing charges, to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States," the proposed rule states in part. The Attorney General could, according to the rule, limit DNA collection to those individuals who are fingerprinted.
Those agencies that collect DNA will feed the data to the FBI. The Tribune's Mark Silva opines that, "This is an intriguing new data base for the government to control. And, so long as you don't get arrested, the government won't have your DNA." ..more.. by Criminal Justice
April 26, 2008
CA- California takes lead on DNA crime-fighting technique
A few days ago I mentioned how DNA can be used in new evolving ways, well here we go! So if you have not yet entered your "Public Comment" to the DOJ request it is time to think about it.
4-26-2008 California:
The state will search its database for relatives of unidentified suspects in hopes of developing leads. Critics voice privacy concerns.
California will adopt the most aggressive approach in the nation to a controversial crime-fighting technique that uses DNA to try to identify elusive criminals through their relatives, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown announced Friday.
Employing what is known as familial or "partial match" searching, the policy is aimed at identifying a suspect through DNA collected at a crime scene by looking for potential relatives in the state's genetic database of about a million felons. Once a relative is identified, police can use that person as a lead to trace the suspect.
The new plan makes California a leader in such searches, which several states permit but do not vigorously pursue. Colorado has recently begun to examine its database for relatives of unknown criminals as part of a research project.
Brown said the new approach was justified by violent crime plaguing the state. He emphasized that it would be used only when all other leads had been exhausted.
"We have 2,000 murders a year in California -- that is 10,000 since the Iraq war started -- and that is a lot of killing," Brown said. "When you see it and see the victims and have to go to funerals, it is pretty serious stuff."
But Tania Simoncelli, science advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union, called Brown's decision a disappointment and said the organization is exploring its legality. The group has not decided whether to challenge the policy in court.
"The fact that my brother committed a crime doesn't mean I should have to give up my privacy," she said.
At a recent FBI conference on familial searching, Jeffrey Rosen, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, warned: "I can guarantee if familial searching proceeds, it will create a political firestorm."
The policy, which takes effect immediately, is designed to work like this: The state's crime lab will tell police about DNA profiles that come up during routine searches of California's offender database and closely resemble, but do not match, the DNA left at a crime scene. (Previously, the state refused to tell police about these partial matches.)
The lab will then perform calculations and tests to determine the likelihood of a biological relationship between the person found in the database and the unknown offender believed to have left DNA at the crime scene.
When such partial matches do not surface or fail to produce a lead, a more customized familial search can be done in which computer software scans the database proactively for possible relatives. The software measures the chance of two people being related based on the rarity of the markers they share.
California appears to be the first state in the nation to use this second technique as a matter of policy. Drafted with the heavy involvement of lawyers, the new policy requires a series of meetings with police and prosecutors to ensure that the relative's name is vital to the investigation and that all other leads have been exhausted.
Once a relative has been identified, police can interview him or construct a family tree based on existing records. If a suspect is identified, police can obtain a warrant for his DNA, or even gather it surreptiously from an abandoned drink or cigarette butt. The suspect's DNA sample would then be compared to the crime scene sample and possibly used as evidence.
"The people of California will know that we are using the database to try to solve as many crimes as we can, unlike virtually every other state in the country," said retired Alameda County Dist. Atty. Rockne P. Harmon, who consulted with the state on the policy.
Civil libertarians oppose using DNA databases to search for relatives of unknown offenders, saying it puts family members under "genetic surveillance" for crimes they did not commit. For now, all the people in the state's database are convicted offenders, but the state plans to expand the database next year to include arrestees, heightening concerns over privacy.
Critics say familial searching could expose sensitive and secret genetic relationships. A son, for example, could learn that his father was not his biological parent. DNA databases also reflect the racial and ethnic biases of the justice system, exposing minority communities to more surveillance than others, critics maintain.
FBI officials in charge of the national database network have also expressed concerns, making them unlikely allies of civil libertarians on familial searching. They urge a cautious approach, worrying that the courts will balk at this type of sleuthing. No law specifically authorizes it, and some legal scholars consider it unconstitutional because they say it amounts to an unreasonable search.
Brown called such objections hypothetical. The policy forbids the release of the names of relatives until genetic tests and analysis convince the state that the person is indeed a relative.
"It is still not going to be a fail-safe system, and we are going to make mistakes," said Simoncelli, the ACLU science advisor. "We are opening the door to using the database in such a fundamentally different way than the purpose for which it was established."
No one knows how well the state's plan will work. Harmon said he was absolutely convinced that it would provide at least some new leads for police.
Lance Gima, the state's top forensic scientist, agreed. But he conceded that the search for relatives would be a longshot because many unrelated people share genetic markers. He said he hoped the state's decision would spur technology to improve the accuracy of such searches.
Britain has done familial searching for years, using more sophisticated software. With a 10% to 14% rate of identifying perpetrators, Britain's searches have had limited but dramatic results, cracking some sensational crimes.
A serial rapist whose DNA was not in Britain's national database was caught because he was genetically similar to his sister, whose DNA was taken after a drunk-driving arrest. The so-called shoe rapist had a fetish for stiletto heels. When police captured him, they discovered scores of high heels he had stolen from his victims.
Police in the U.S. have used genetic relationships to help catch criminals in a different way, and on a much smaller scale.
After Kansas police zeroed in on the serial killer who dubbed himself BTK -- initials for bind, torture, kill -- they obtained a court order for the pap smear of his daughter. Without her knowledge, police performed a DNA analysis of the specimen, obtained from a medical laboratory.
The genetic similarities indicated they had the right man, Dennis Radar. ..more.. by Maura Dolan and Jason Felch, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 25, 2008
The Department of Justice is asking for "Public Comments" on a Proposed Rule concerning DNA
4-25-2008 National:
On Friday April 18, 2008 the Department of Justice posted the following in the Federal Register: The Department of Justice is publishing this proposed rule to implement amendments made by section 1004 of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and section 155 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
It might be a good idea to print the PROPOSED RULE from the Federal Register so you can read it before posting your comments: CLICK (it is a PDF file)
This rule directs agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals, or that supervise individuals facing charges, to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.
Unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, the collection of DNA samples may be limited to individuals from whom an agency collects fingerprints. The Attorney General also may approve other limitations or exceptions.
Agencies collecting DNA samples are directed to furnish the samples to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or to other agencies or entities as authorized by the Attorney General, for purposes of analysis and entry into the Combined DNA Index System.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David J. Karp, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509, Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference OAG Docket No. 119 on your correspondence.
In addition: You may submit comments electronically (That is done from the Regulations.gov website) . Here is the procedure to get you to the proper document on the Regulations.gov website:
1) Click on this link: http://www.regulations.gov/
2) In the SEARCH box enter: DOJ-OAG-2008-0009-0001
3) Near the bottom of the page you will see "View this document" and just above that is this Docket ID: DOJ-OAG-2008-0009 CLICK on that link
4) Now you will see a full page, where you can "add your comment," or see the comments that others have already entered.
Note: To add your comment click on the yellow balloon
which is on the PROPOSED RULE line over to the right side.
CAUTION: BEFORE ENTERING YOUR COMMENTS read the following which explains how to stop your PERSONAL or BUSINESS INFORMATION from appearing online, although your comment will still appear.
Posting of Public Comments:
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit a comment, the public posting will include voluntarily submitted personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.).
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted (not printed online).
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must identify prominently any confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be redacted effectively, all or part of that comment might not be posted on http:// www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency’s public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency’s public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
Please remember that DNA is an ever evolving science. The articles I have recently posted here here and here show that more and more information can be learned from a person's DNA.
Another major point, where can DNA be collected from, the articles above show that when a person gives a blood sample or other body fluids for medical reasons, can the government obtain those to add to CODIS. Far fetched today, but ask any registered sex offender how those rules have evolved since their inception. Many questions remain.
Today this rule basically covers COLLECTING DNA but I see nothing in the rule that prevents lawmakers -in the future- from doing anything they want with the CODIS data base where all DNA information is stored.
This is a complicated proposed rule and honestly I don't have answers to many questions that my own mind conjures up. I am not sure that I can even take in the Acts that are involved here in time to enter an intelligent comment before the DEADLINE of May 19, 2008.
I suggest that, since multiple comments are permitted, when you think of something, make it a comment by itself.
Good luck, and I'll try my best to answer questions, but I am not an authority on this Proposed Rule.
Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
