Now the Techno-Snoopers Want to Get Into Our Genes

Move over Buck Rogers, Dick Tracy and Mr. Spock. Space-age technology has come to the criminal justice system. Recent developments in forensic molecular biology have brought us DNA "fingerprinting," a technique that its advocates claim offers certainty in the matching of genetic material found at a crime scene with that taken from a suspect. More than half the states are exploring plans to create computerized genetic databases, and the FBI is seeking to build a national computerized DNA index, for which those convicted of serious crimes will be required to provide blood and saliva samples.

This week, in California's first DNA conviction, a Ventura County woman was found guilty of murder in a case that rested largely on 15 hairs found at the scene of the crime that matched her DNA patterns. "Without the DNA test results," said the judge in the case, "there's not enough evidence."

In this euphoria of quick techno-fixes, it is possible to overlook short- and long-range problems. There are questions about the validity of DNA testing and about the standards that should be required for court use. An accurate match is no guarantee of legal guilt, and the tactic raises Fourth Amendment search and property ownership questions: Under what conditions should a DNA sample have to be provided, and who should control the findings?

But there is another problem--the danger of "surveillance creep," in which an invasive technology, benignly introduced for limited purposes, silently extends beyond those borders. Examples are everywhere: the Social Security number that Congress intended only for tax purposes has become a de facto national ID number; video cameras, once restricted to prisons and high-security areas, are found in offices and shopping malls; the polygraph, once limited to national-security violations, is now routinely applied to government employees and contractors; drug testing, once restricted to those working in nuclear-power facilities, is now required of bank tellers and even junior high school students; a congressional restriction on matching computer databases only for purposes consistent with the original data collection has given way to widespread matching of databases for any reason government chooses; the FBI's records of criminal histories, created as a crime-fighting tool, are now most frequently used to investigate job applicants, not crime.