November 10, 2009 • 28 mins
The US and England have databases containing DNA from millions of citizens. Originally only criminals were included, but as the programs expanded many more people were added. Learn how these databases work -- and why they were built -- in this episode.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
It's ready. Are you welcome to Stuff you should know
from house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to
the podcast. I'm Josh Clark with me as always is
Charles W. Bryant. Now you, Chuck, I'm here, Josh. Oh wait,
(00:23):
this isn't the Halloween episode. No, No, that already, that
already came out. That was good, though. I appreciate that. Yeah,
that was really good. Well, truthfully, it's almost Halloween's I'm
just in a spirit, are you? Yeah? In the spirit? Yes, dude,
I have been punning lately left and right, and it's
just it makes me sick. You have the stomach punkin though?
Have you good one, Chuck? That reminds me that we've
(00:46):
been We've been talking about this punk and chunking thing
pretty hard. Let's do it again, Yeah time, let's we'll
say it again. Okay, So the mothership of Discovery Channel
has asked us to mention a show that's coming out
a special, actually the pair of specials. It's coming out
on Thanksgiving night, um on the Science Channel eight p
(01:06):
m uh you got there's two shows, Like you said,
the Road to punk and checking and punkin checking, punkin
chunking itself and again that's that begins at eight p m.
Eastern Time, because I believe it takes place in the
Town in the East, which is appropriated no on Science Channel. Yeah,
so Chuck, yes you want a podcast, Yeah, let's do it. Okay, So, Chuck,
(01:28):
have you ever seen Minority Report? I have? Uh, sure,
Steven Spielberg and the Yeah, yeah I knew. I knew
Tom Cruise is in it. Didn't know Spielberg directed? Yeah,
I thought it was okay, it kind of lost me
in the third act, didn't, Yeah, big time. You know
it's based on Philip K. Dick. Um, I think novel
short story wasn't. Yeah, it was called the Minority Report.
(01:50):
Oh yeah, that's Hollywood for you. They're always changing things. Yeah.
But okay, so you you know, um that it's about
a uh I guess, a crime section, anti crime section,
law enforcement some people call it um that arrests people
based on information given to them by this group of
people who have precognition, and that would be the Office
(02:13):
of pre Crime. Appropriately, the Cruise was a pre crime officer, right. Um,
we have a real dearth of um people with genuine precognition.
It's kind of tough to find three that you know,
you can really reliably count on who can serve you
images from their brain crimes that are about to happen. Yeah.
They had a bad off in that movie too, they
(02:35):
really did. They were Yeah, um we are. However, it
seems like working on a database that will be able
to predict crime and if so, humanity is screwed personal rights?
Is that what you're getting in. Yeah, there's a lot
of problems with this, but yeah, so there's a there's um,
(02:56):
there's a database that there's several databases already um around right,
there's all kinds of databases, sir. When I was a kid, um, uh,
my dad took me to get my fingers printed, uh huh,
just in case I was abducted. And I wouldn't talk
to him on the way home. I was all, like,
you redded me out, dad, just in case you got arrested.
(03:18):
Your dad would just afford that, and so here you go,
no no ready for him, you know, like it was
put into this database. So yeah, ostensibly, so if I
ever was kidnapped, and you know, was my brain was
washed and I lost my identity. They'd be able to
fingerprint me if I ever wandered up onto the to
the street and they'd be like, oh, it's Josh Clark.
(03:38):
The chances of that are slim to nune. The chances
of meet committee a crime, We're talking like near percent. See.
I was a kid during the Atlantic child murders, the
famous murders Wayne Williams, remember that. So my mom was like, go,
you know, go play by done of the Creek. Don't
worry about fingerprinting. Yeah, go go get the mail down
by the street, get the neighbor's mail, right, get all
(03:59):
the name urs mail. Jeez, like you know where your
children are? My mom never knew where I was. Yeah,
well I survived. Well, yes, clearly you did. But so
fingerprinting is just one database, right, Yeah, that's one. Uh,
there's another one that's a little more advanced, a little
more sophisticated. Um that is called the National Crime Information Center. Right.
(04:24):
You ever watched the movie or the show the first
forty eight? No, dude, it is good. Um. I sleep
with a hammer next to my bed now because of
that shows what's the concept there. Within the first two
days is when all the evidence is like hot and
yeah if they don't, if they don't close a homicide
within the first forty eight hours, the chances of them
ever closing it dropped dramatically. Yeah. So they sometimes they do,
(04:48):
sometimes they don't. But it's a real life, um, real
life uh show. Uh. And it follows like real life cops,
like on the beat, like after a homicide, and like
the stuff that people will do each other's just chilling.
My favorite is this ball guy who works in Memphis.
He's awesome Squidy It's not Squibby, Um, he's he would
bust Squibby though I can tell you that. But um,
(05:11):
they're this they they often access on the show, the
National Crime Information Center. So it's got like all this
information on people who are who have committed crimes. Um.
But it's more than just their fingerprints. It could be
like their street name that they're they're always using it
to look up like somebody's street name. Um. It also
has you know, people who are members or suspective members
(05:32):
of like gangs organization. Yeah what else? You? Umi has
this iPhone app that's disturbing. It's a locate a sex offender. Yeah,
I've seen the website. They well they have an iPhone
app for it now and like sure enough. There's a
lot of sex offenders around our placed. And the weird
(05:53):
thing is they aggregate like you'll you'll look at uh
several of them and they'll all have the same address
except like number six or number thirteen or whatever. So
it's clearly an apartment building that's been designated like a
sex offender can live here because it's not by a
school or anything like that. Remember that article set recently
about the they told the ones in Georgia to camp
out that they quickly once it hit the news there
(06:15):
or you can come back inside. Yeah, we'll find a
place for you. Yeah. So okay, so we've got those
two databases. There's another one and here's where we start
to reach the crux of this podcast finally, after like
seventy minutes, the one in England and here, Oh, well
you're talking about the National DNA Database. Yeah. Yes, that
started in uh England in and initially it was just
(06:39):
people who had been uh convicted of crimes that they
would get their DNA and keep that on file. Yeah,
but that changed, didn't it. It did change, and I
think two thousand three they expanded it UM to include
anyone who's ever been arrested. So basically, if a cop
goes I'm gonna take they can rescue and let you
(07:01):
go on the spot. But if the cop can collect
a sample right there, if he's got a mobile sample kit,
they can take your blood even if you didn't do anything. Yeah,
even if they're like, oh sorry, buddy, I had yeah exactly,
and you can't say can I get that swab back?
And they'll you know, they'll break your arms. And before
two thousand six, I think they that that was still
(07:23):
most people weren't getting arrested. But that year UM Britain
expanded the the list of arrestable offenses, including wearing a
seatbelt or more of the point, not wearing it. You're
under arrest for wearing a seat bit into this speetree, right,
so I mean that's uh yeah, and I imagine that's
how they do it too, right as a swab. I
(07:45):
don't know about the mobile kits. Probably I can imagine
somebody going like, you're not breaking me yeah? So um
but but yes, so now in England, if you jay walker,
if you are not wearing a seatbelt, they can collect
a sample of your DNA that they intend to keep
on file indefinitely and four millions strong. Yeah, which makes
it the second largest database in the world. DNA database
(08:08):
in the world, second second to ours, I would imagine,
of course. Uh. That was in two thousand seven, by
the way, the four million entries UH that same year.
In the US, we have a National DNA Index system
in d I S that's maintained by the FBI. UH,
and we had four point five million profiles that year.
I looked and all I could find where estimates like
(08:30):
FBI funding estimates. So these things are probably these numbers
are probably high. But for two thousand nine, they estimated
that this thing would have fourteen million samples. Now ours
isn't just if you're arrested, right, isn't it if if
you're a felon? Or does it state? That's how that's
how it started out. Um. And then in two thousand
(08:52):
and four, California, always on the leading edge of whatever
is going on, they passed Prop. Sixty nine controversial it's
to say the least. Yeah. Um. Basically, what it says
is that law enforcement can take your DNA if you've
been arrested for a felony. And some misdemeanors and it's
just arrested. Yeah, and illegal immigrants, which they kind of
(09:15):
just tossed in there. I'm sure, I'm sure. And let's see,
how can we fairly target illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, we'll
just take their DNA for no reason. Well there's kids
in there too, Yeah, that's that's causing a huge stir
is kids are being when they're arrested, they can have
their DNA take. I'm sure. So you can imagine that
(09:36):
just having your DNA taken, just having a swab stuck
in your mouth by a police officer is enough to
really raise the ire of some people. Yeah. Obviously a
lot of human rights advocates have problems with this, which
we'll get into in a second. Unless we're getting into
that now. Uh, we can if you want. I mean, yeah, Well,
the first thing that kind of got besides the implementation
(09:59):
of the program in England, was last year in two
thousand and eight, when it was revealed that half a
million names in the database are just flat out wrong,
and that was that caused a big stir Yeah, either
just incorrect or misspelled, it might have been type of
but some of them are just wrong. Yeah, that's clearly.
I mean just having DNA samples of four and a
half four million people in England and then saying oh,
(10:21):
and by the way, half a million of them are
are wrong. We don't know who's they are. We think
they're yours, but they're not. That's a problem. But I mean,
is there really a problem with just maintaining a database
at d NA? What are they doing with it? Well,
it depends because DNA it's not like a fingerprint. There's
a lot of information contained in your DNA that's not
(10:42):
just identified the person, right, your genetic code, your family history.
There's a there's a program called d N a witness
made by a company called DNA print Genomics UM, and
it can locate ancestry markers and basically say, oh, you
found some DNA, we can narrow it down to this
person is probably being Hispanic. Well yeah, it's all to
(11:05):
deal with racial racial breakdown, right, So I mean, there's
racial profiling is about as hot button an issue as
anything else, you know, because the problem is, as it
stands now, racial profiling is based on past statistics. If
you include DNA into the mix, does it become more
(11:26):
finely honed or even more egregious, right or does it
open itself up? Who knows. Here's the problem with DNA profiling, Chuck.
We have not in this country or the UK, from
what I can imagine, um, had any real discussion about
doing it right we So we've never really come together
(11:48):
and said, Okay, do we want a crime free society
or as close to a crime free society as we
can get. If so, then yes, everybody needs to turn
in a DNA sample. If we all agreed that's what
we want. If we decide that we would rather live
with crime in combating crime under the techniques that we
have now to maintain our privacy, then DNA sampling has
(12:12):
to stop. DNA profiling has to stop. And the problem
is we've never had that conversation either way, right, Well,
the public certainly hasn't had so, but it's been continuing along.
And then when you talk about the half a million
names wrong, it's like, well, you're doing this without our consenter,
even asking us, and you're not even doing it right right.
The thing is, though they I don't even know, even
(12:34):
if they hone this down, can you really prevent crime?
I mean, even cops will tell you there's no such
thing as preventing crime. Cops go after criminals after they've
committed a crime. But unless it's just dumb luck, how
many times has a cop come upon a crime before
it happens and stopped it? Well that's there. There's there
are two different um groups, one in the UK and
(12:56):
one in America, which apparently are the two leading trees
in DNA profiling for crime prevention. Um that are that
that say no, we we do need to do that
and we're trying to is that the homicide prevention unit
in London think about the name of that homicide prevention
unit and they're doing it by forecasting crime. Yeah, well,
(13:16):
psychological profiling to which they've done for a while, and
that's a little less hinky and invasive than obviously DNA profiling. Right,
But what about when you combine the two. Why would
you combine DNA with a psychological profile to catch the
bad guys? I guess to an extent. But at the
same time, what we're talking about is looking at DNA
(13:38):
to find out if we can find a genetic defect
in somebody that we suggest that maybe they have a
short temper, or that they're sociopathic or whatever. If you
combine that with a psychological profile. But where does that
profile come from? Maybe records from mental health workers, or
maybe your insurance records, or your doctor or dental records.
(13:59):
I mean, and then doing that now, but who knows
what could happen that. That's the point. If this database
gets big enough, or I should say, if it gets
accurate enough, then yeah, people will probably start getting leaned
on to provide information to be contributed to this database
for use by law enforce. Yeah. Once you have enough
(14:20):
information and you are confident enough that you can prevent
a crime, or if you can say this person is
probably going to kill somebody, what do they do though?
That's what I want to know. Did they just start
It's obviously not gonna happen like Minority Report in that
film and the story Tom Cruise knocks on your door
and says you're under arrest for the future murder of
(14:41):
your wife. They're clearly not talking about that. That's impossible
in the stuff of science fiction. But what they just
monitor someone or tail someone, so basically potentially dangerous people
just be under surveillance at all times, I guess so.
But what if you've never committed a crime in your
entire life and don't intend to. But you've the cops
breathing down your neck every night. Anywhere you go, there's
(15:04):
a cop following you. You go on a date, there's
a cop following you. You take your mother out for dinner,
there's a cop following you. I mean, if you've never
committed a crime in your life, how fair is that? Well? Right?
And plus if someone's tailing you, and I don't know,
I could I could see a scenario where some renegade
cop um trumps up a traffic violation and pulls you
(15:24):
over and shakes you down. And you know, it's not
like police. I mean, trust me, I'm not dragging on
the police, who do a great job. But there are
cases where people are framed and weapons are planted. And
if some guy they think is a really bad person
waiting to happen, what's to stop a cop from trailing
him and doing just that. So, not only that, but
what happens if um, somebody gets access to this, if
(15:47):
this information in the database is disseminated, and then you've
got somebody who's like, well, you know what, I'm going
to take it upon myself to rid society of these people.
Who may commit a crime. You know, most I can't
say most, but there's a lot serial killers out there who,
once caught say that they were doing a service to society.
Ever seen that. I haven't yet, but I am aware
(16:07):
of same scenario. I love six ft under and he
dies by the way. Um the the the killer John
Wayne Gacy expected that he was going to get a
rap on the knuckles because what he'd done is just
rid society and some bad kids. That's what he said,
Bernie gets I remember, and I guess was that the
New York Yeah, he went Charlie Bronson on everyone, and
(16:30):
he was the subway vigilantia. He definitely was. But he's
a serial killer, is what he is. I thought he
I thought he just killed some guys once. Did he
kill more than one time? Yeah? I think so wow,
I might be wrong. We'll hear from it. But um okay,
so yes, there's a possibility of vigilantism. There's a possibility
of police harassment. There's also another possibility called well self
(16:52):
fulfilling prophecy. Um. Remember we talked about kids getting their
DNA taken, Miners getting their DNA taken if they're ever
arrested for anything UM. And there's also a push I
guess to make to round this database out as much
as possible for any kid who has a behavioral problem
(17:12):
or maybe gets in trouble at school, for the school
to provide information about that kid so that they can say,
we're going to keep an eye on you for the
rest of your life because you're starting to fit this
profile with somebody who might kill somebody later, or maybe
he just has a d D or maybe the teacher
doesn't like him. Who knows. The problem is is if
you know that if you're six and somebody's like, you
(17:35):
might kill somebody someday, what is it like to grow
up for the next thirty years or so thinking that
people assume that you're gonna kill somebody one day? Well
they tell you, though I I don't know, there's got
to be something that it might not be that explicit.
Both children parents are probably notified at the very least,
right and if the parents say you're a bad kid,
(17:55):
that's why they're watching you, well, why wouldn't the kid
go be a bad kid? There's a lot of concern
is here right in in the US UM we talked
about the homicide prevention unit in the UK. By the way,
the senior criminal psychologist Laura Richards has said that her
vision is to know who the top one people most
(18:16):
potentially violent people in London are at any given time.
You know, Squibby's on that list. Sure, and you know
when they keep like most wanted lists, gangs especially love
getting at the top. And I should probably take the
opportunity right here to save our lives. Uh, it's MS thirteen,
I understand, not MS twelve. Right. Yeah, we've referred to
a gang as MS twelve in the Witness Protection show
(18:38):
and it is MS thirteen and we got that wrong. Agreed. Um.
Over here in the U S there's a guy named
Richard Burke who's the University of Pennsylvania sociologists and statistician. Yeah.
I don't mind this one as much. No, it's much
much more innocuous. Yeah, well, it's not an invasive because
they're not actually taking your DNA or fingerprints. He uh
was he a University of Pennsylvania. He's a cry I'm
(19:00):
a criminology professor, and he has actually developed an algorithm
using thirty different variables from you know, when a kid
was young and as they grow up, if they have
offenses or if they were abused, and he determines a
lethality score, which I don't know, it's it's a little
more I can I can accept this in a way
(19:22):
I can't too. But at the same time, I was
a little well, I'm still put off by the idea
of forecasting crime and an effort to prevent it from
ever happening. Um. But I did go on and check
out some of this guy's stuff and he has another
thing UM called crime regimes where he's taking into account
see that that lethality score is all uh centered around
(19:45):
the individual. And there's a movement of foot where sociology
is making a huge move to take crime completely away
from psychology. I talked to a sociologists who's like, psychology
is completely failed at explaining serial murder. Sociology is time
to explain it. Right. So this guy's taking into account
like time of day, day of the weak area, UM,
(20:08):
like like the location, uh is the drug trade there stable?
If so, then there's probably gonna be less crime because
there's not gonna be tur force things like that, UM.
And even larger stuff needs to be taken into account
to like the economic situation that always creates more crimes,
but for a group or an area and not an
individuals that what you mean. I imagine that this guy
(20:28):
will probably eventually try to put both together. So if
you've got a lethality score, guy with the lethality score,
and he's living in a high risk area, then all
of a sudden, the cops might want to go, we
should really keep an eye on that guy, you know.
So it makes it a little more honed. The problem
is is this would probably be eventually compiled with the
nd I S here in the States. Yeah, if it
(20:50):
turned out to be a pretty good algorithm and it
was pretty accurate, I'm sure the government would get their
mits on it soon enough. So yeah, and it's not like, um,
it's we were talking about health mental health workers being
leaned on to to give up information, or doctors disclosing
their met records. Insurance companies, UH and Census Information did
(21:11):
not know this. I didn't either, which is funny because
we're about to talk about population in about five minutes. Yeah,
apparently the census records, the public doesn't have access to
those for seventy two years after it's taken. I I guess,
I guess some aspects of it, because it's I've definitely
accessed census statistics that are a lot less than seventy
two years old, right, I think you can access the numbers,
(21:33):
but I think all of the information. Yeah, yeah, but
the FBI routinely gets that information if they wanted. The
Japanese Japanese Americans were identified using census statistics or sensus
information during World War Two for the internment camp, right, Um,
And uh, that that was I guess kind of against
(21:53):
the grain. Maybe usually we don't usually do that, I understand.
I think we do it done in Texas these days
with UM Hispanics trying to make it across the border interesting.
So writes violations all over the place, then, right, yes,
but apparently it's having an effect on crime, Yeah, I
guess so. UM supporters in England will say that more
(22:14):
than twice as many crimes have been solved using the
DNA samples in the year two thousand five as we're
solved six years before that, and so you know, maybe
it has an effect. It does. So they had the
cameras over there too. Oh yeah, did you see those uh,
those thugs and whales that got beat up? It was
a cross stressing cage fighters. Yeah. Yeah, it's the best
(22:36):
thing I've ever seen. Yeah, if you haven't seen, yeah,
I guess typing, cross dressing, cage fighters, thugs, whales and
it should bring up the video. These English thugs were
just drunk and walking down the street, really just causing
trouble and they were picking on this cross stresser and
it turned out that it was a m M a
cage fighter and the dude just kill them, wasted him.
It was great. It's it's inspiring and I'll prevent the
(22:59):
reader mail right now. Chuck meant Welsh and he knows it.
So um, I guess everybody in the future look for
a crime database that includes uh, psychological profile, uh hopefully
your correct name or unless you're a criminal then not
your real name, retinal scans, facial scans, medical history, pretty
(23:21):
much anything. I got one more thing, okay, I saw.
The United States has a project that was originally called
Project Hostile Intent. They've since renamed it Future Attribute Screening Technologies,
and it's one of these deals where they're gonna make
it a mobile unit like a trailer truck that you
walk through before you go into the football game and
(23:43):
it reads your your pulse, your breathing rate, your your
eye people dilation, and supposedly to predict if you're you know,
like shifty or angry. Think about that. Um, yeah, I
heard they're using uh we fit boards now to make
people standard. They're talking about they were going to make
people stand on because they think that. Um, terrorists are
(24:06):
literally shiftier than other people, so like they would be
shifting their weight more because they know something is about
to go down. Um. Things like that don't take into
account fear of flying. Well all, there's a lot of
problems and stuff like that. Just what kind of mood
urine that day if you and your wife just had
a fight on the way to the airport, because Emily
and I have a long standing tradition of fighting before
any plane flight. Oh yeah, oh yeah, it's it's it's
(24:27):
a good thing. Um. And then of course, once this
is in place, one of the guys called what we
would see a security theater, which is not being shifty
or acting like you know, you're going to Hawaii on
a vacation, so trying to trip up the machine. So
look forward to that too. Yeah, the end, the end.
(24:48):
So if you want to learn more about our colleague,
Shanna Freeman's um predictions for future crime databases. You can
probably get away with just typing in future crime in
the certain far at how stuff works dot Com. Also
try typing in Unicorn. See what comes up. I think
you'll be pleasantly surprised. And Chuck I said, Uh, search
(25:10):
bar right, which means it's time for listener mail. Josh,
I'm gonna call this. Uh, I had no idea that
we had a official listening club. That's what I'm gonna
call it. This is on the blog, but I'm gonna
read this, and this is kind of blew me away.
The there are some U. S Americans living in South Korea,
(25:32):
and they actually formed a little listening club and they
get together and they listen to our show. And they said,
during the assemblies, we listened to you to ponder various
interesting topics and then discuss them further by offering our
own thoughts and experiences, and complement our sessions with libations
of the alcoholic variety. So they formed a drinking game
(25:52):
to our show. Let me tell you what they drink too.
And they're listening now, so we're going to really get
them hammered at this point. Every time there's a new
statistic quoted, which I believe we do on four out
of five shows at least. And when we refer to
our producer Jerry. Over here, there's Jerry. Hey, Jerry. So
we've said Jerry like four times since probably about four shots.
(26:12):
You said Jerry, I said Jerry. We refer to our
producer Jerry when someone shares any of our first names.
So if they're in the club and we say their
first name, by happenstance, they drink And I know who
wrote this was Richard, So we're gonna say Richard like
four more times Richard, Yeah, and Jerry and uh, also, um,
when chuckers, when you say chuckers, I don't know that
(26:35):
I said that in this one, did I You could
say now chuckers. And the final thing, Josh, they drink too.
I think we're gonna like this is they're getting your back, dude.
The whole I'm me thing that we've been hearing about
for the past a hundred and sixty shows. Whenever you
actually correct yourself now with the IMI is when they drink,
so he writes and says, uh, they drink soju, by
(26:57):
the way, which is a rice wine they say on
Soju josh a say siped casually, the rice wine is
not without its merits, but done our way. It all
but guarantees a regrettable late night phone called to a
coworker or former lover, fearful platitudes, mutual admiration, or some
form of public nudity later in the evenings. So Josh, Sir,
I beseech you stop hyper correcting. Let it fly pleadingly.
(27:20):
Richard tired of being hungover in Korea, Richard, Richard, Well,
thanks Richard for sending that in. Chuckers like Jerry liked it,
Richard clearly liked Charle like it. And I and me
and I'm sorry I shouldn't say that, I should correct myself. Well,
if you want to send chuck in I and email,
I'm sorry, chucking me an email or Chuckers chuckers an
(27:43):
email and me uh, you can send that to stuff
podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on
this and thousands of other topics, is that how stuff
works dot com. Want more house stuff works, check out
our blogs on the house stuff works dot com home page.
(28:05):
M HM brought to you by the reinvented two thousand
twelve camera it's ready. Are you
Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
It's ready. Are you welcome to Stuff you should know
from house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to
the podcast. I'm Josh Clark with me as always is
Charles W. Bryant. Now you, Chuck, I'm here, Josh. Oh wait,
(00:23):
this isn't the Halloween episode. No, No, that already, that
already came out. That was good, though. I appreciate that. Yeah,
that was really good. Well, truthfully, it's almost Halloween's I'm
just in a spirit, are you? Yeah? In the spirit? Yes, dude,
I have been punning lately left and right, and it's
just it makes me sick. You have the stomach punkin though?
Have you good one, Chuck? That reminds me that we've
(00:46):
been We've been talking about this punk and chunking thing
pretty hard. Let's do it again, Yeah time, let's we'll
say it again. Okay, So the mothership of Discovery Channel
has asked us to mention a show that's coming out
a special, actually the pair of specials. It's coming out
on Thanksgiving night, um on the Science Channel eight p
(01:06):
m uh you got there's two shows, Like you said,
the Road to punk and checking and punkin checking, punkin
chunking itself and again that's that begins at eight p m.
Eastern Time, because I believe it takes place in the
Town in the East, which is appropriated no on Science Channel. Yeah,
so Chuck, yes you want a podcast, Yeah, let's do it. Okay, So, Chuck,
(01:28):
have you ever seen Minority Report? I have? Uh, sure,
Steven Spielberg and the Yeah, yeah I knew. I knew
Tom Cruise is in it. Didn't know Spielberg directed? Yeah,
I thought it was okay, it kind of lost me
in the third act, didn't, Yeah, big time. You know
it's based on Philip K. Dick. Um, I think novel
short story wasn't. Yeah, it was called the Minority Report.
(01:50):
Oh yeah, that's Hollywood for you. They're always changing things. Yeah.
But okay, so you you know, um that it's about
a uh I guess, a crime section, anti crime section,
law enforcement some people call it um that arrests people
based on information given to them by this group of
people who have precognition, and that would be the Office
(02:13):
of pre Crime. Appropriately, the Cruise was a pre crime officer, right. Um,
we have a real dearth of um people with genuine precognition.
It's kind of tough to find three that you know,
you can really reliably count on who can serve you
images from their brain crimes that are about to happen. Yeah.
They had a bad off in that movie too, they
(02:35):
really did. They were Yeah, um we are. However, it
seems like working on a database that will be able
to predict crime and if so, humanity is screwed personal rights?
Is that what you're getting in. Yeah, there's a lot
of problems with this, but yeah, so there's a there's um,
(02:56):
there's a database that there's several databases already um around right,
there's all kinds of databases, sir. When I was a kid, um, uh,
my dad took me to get my fingers printed, uh huh,
just in case I was abducted. And I wouldn't talk
to him on the way home. I was all, like,
you redded me out, dad, just in case you got arrested.
(03:18):
Your dad would just afford that, and so here you go,
no no ready for him, you know, like it was
put into this database. So yeah, ostensibly, so if I
ever was kidnapped, and you know, was my brain was
washed and I lost my identity. They'd be able to
fingerprint me if I ever wandered up onto the to
the street and they'd be like, oh, it's Josh Clark.
(03:38):
The chances of that are slim to nune. The chances
of meet committee a crime, We're talking like near percent. See.
I was a kid during the Atlantic child murders, the
famous murders Wayne Williams, remember that. So my mom was like, go,
you know, go play by done of the Creek. Don't
worry about fingerprinting. Yeah, go go get the mail down
by the street, get the neighbor's mail, right, get all
(03:59):
the name urs mail. Jeez, like you know where your
children are? My mom never knew where I was. Yeah,
well I survived. Well, yes, clearly you did. But so
fingerprinting is just one database, right, Yeah, that's one. Uh,
there's another one that's a little more advanced, a little
more sophisticated. Um that is called the National Crime Information Center. Right.
(04:24):
You ever watched the movie or the show the first
forty eight? No, dude, it is good. Um. I sleep
with a hammer next to my bed now because of
that shows what's the concept there. Within the first two
days is when all the evidence is like hot and
yeah if they don't, if they don't close a homicide
within the first forty eight hours, the chances of them
ever closing it dropped dramatically. Yeah. So they sometimes they do,
(04:48):
sometimes they don't. But it's a real life, um, real
life uh show. Uh. And it follows like real life cops,
like on the beat, like after a homicide, and like
the stuff that people will do each other's just chilling.
My favorite is this ball guy who works in Memphis.
He's awesome Squidy It's not Squibby, Um, he's he would
bust Squibby though I can tell you that. But um,
(05:11):
they're this they they often access on the show, the
National Crime Information Center. So it's got like all this
information on people who are who have committed crimes. Um.
But it's more than just their fingerprints. It could be
like their street name that they're they're always using it
to look up like somebody's street name. Um. It also
has you know, people who are members or suspective members
(05:32):
of like gangs organization. Yeah what else? You? Umi has
this iPhone app that's disturbing. It's a locate a sex offender. Yeah,
I've seen the website. They well they have an iPhone
app for it now and like sure enough. There's a
lot of sex offenders around our placed. And the weird
(05:53):
thing is they aggregate like you'll you'll look at uh
several of them and they'll all have the same address
except like number six or number thirteen or whatever. So
it's clearly an apartment building that's been designated like a
sex offender can live here because it's not by a
school or anything like that. Remember that article set recently
about the they told the ones in Georgia to camp
out that they quickly once it hit the news there
(06:15):
or you can come back inside. Yeah, we'll find a
place for you. Yeah. So okay, so we've got those
two databases. There's another one and here's where we start
to reach the crux of this podcast finally, after like
seventy minutes, the one in England and here, Oh, well
you're talking about the National DNA Database. Yeah. Yes, that
started in uh England in and initially it was just
(06:39):
people who had been uh convicted of crimes that they
would get their DNA and keep that on file. Yeah,
but that changed, didn't it. It did change, and I
think two thousand three they expanded it UM to include
anyone who's ever been arrested. So basically, if a cop
goes I'm gonna take they can rescue and let you
(07:01):
go on the spot. But if the cop can collect
a sample right there, if he's got a mobile sample kit,
they can take your blood even if you didn't do anything. Yeah,
even if they're like, oh sorry, buddy, I had yeah exactly,
and you can't say can I get that swab back?
And they'll you know, they'll break your arms. And before
two thousand six, I think they that that was still
(07:23):
most people weren't getting arrested. But that year UM Britain
expanded the the list of arrestable offenses, including wearing a
seatbelt or more of the point, not wearing it. You're
under arrest for wearing a seat bit into this speetree, right,
so I mean that's uh yeah, and I imagine that's
how they do it too, right as a swab. I
(07:45):
don't know about the mobile kits. Probably I can imagine
somebody going like, you're not breaking me yeah? So um
but but yes, so now in England, if you jay walker,
if you are not wearing a seatbelt, they can collect
a sample of your DNA that they intend to keep
on file indefinitely and four millions strong. Yeah, which makes
it the second largest database in the world. DNA database
(08:08):
in the world, second second to ours, I would imagine,
of course. Uh. That was in two thousand seven, by
the way, the four million entries UH that same year.
In the US, we have a National DNA Index system
in d I S that's maintained by the FBI. UH,
and we had four point five million profiles that year.
I looked and all I could find where estimates like
(08:30):
FBI funding estimates. So these things are probably these numbers
are probably high. But for two thousand nine, they estimated
that this thing would have fourteen million samples. Now ours
isn't just if you're arrested, right, isn't it if if
you're a felon? Or does it state? That's how that's
how it started out. Um. And then in two thousand
(08:52):
and four, California, always on the leading edge of whatever
is going on, they passed Prop. Sixty nine controversial it's
to say the least. Yeah. Um. Basically, what it says
is that law enforcement can take your DNA if you've
been arrested for a felony. And some misdemeanors and it's
just arrested. Yeah, and illegal immigrants, which they kind of
(09:15):
just tossed in there. I'm sure, I'm sure. And let's see,
how can we fairly target illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, we'll
just take their DNA for no reason. Well there's kids
in there too, Yeah, that's that's causing a huge stir
is kids are being when they're arrested, they can have
their DNA take. I'm sure. So you can imagine that
(09:36):
just having your DNA taken, just having a swab stuck
in your mouth by a police officer is enough to
really raise the ire of some people. Yeah. Obviously a
lot of human rights advocates have problems with this, which
we'll get into in a second. Unless we're getting into
that now. Uh, we can if you want. I mean, yeah, Well,
the first thing that kind of got besides the implementation
(09:59):
of the program in England, was last year in two
thousand and eight, when it was revealed that half a
million names in the database are just flat out wrong,
and that was that caused a big stir Yeah, either
just incorrect or misspelled, it might have been type of
but some of them are just wrong. Yeah, that's clearly.
I mean just having DNA samples of four and a
half four million people in England and then saying oh,
(10:21):
and by the way, half a million of them are
are wrong. We don't know who's they are. We think
they're yours, but they're not. That's a problem. But I mean,
is there really a problem with just maintaining a database
at d NA? What are they doing with it? Well,
it depends because DNA it's not like a fingerprint. There's
a lot of information contained in your DNA that's not
(10:42):
just identified the person, right, your genetic code, your family history.
There's a there's a program called d N a witness
made by a company called DNA print Genomics UM, and
it can locate ancestry markers and basically say, oh, you
found some DNA, we can narrow it down to this
person is probably being Hispanic. Well yeah, it's all to
(11:05):
deal with racial racial breakdown, right, So I mean, there's
racial profiling is about as hot button an issue as
anything else, you know, because the problem is, as it
stands now, racial profiling is based on past statistics. If
you include DNA into the mix, does it become more
(11:26):
finely honed or even more egregious, right or does it
open itself up? Who knows. Here's the problem with DNA profiling, Chuck.
We have not in this country or the UK, from
what I can imagine, um, had any real discussion about
doing it right we So we've never really come together
(11:48):
and said, Okay, do we want a crime free society
or as close to a crime free society as we
can get. If so, then yes, everybody needs to turn
in a DNA sample. If we all agreed that's what
we want. If we decide that we would rather live
with crime in combating crime under the techniques that we
have now to maintain our privacy, then DNA sampling has
(12:12):
to stop. DNA profiling has to stop. And the problem
is we've never had that conversation either way, right, Well,
the public certainly hasn't had so, but it's been continuing along.
And then when you talk about the half a million
names wrong, it's like, well, you're doing this without our consenter,
even asking us, and you're not even doing it right right.
The thing is, though they I don't even know, even
(12:34):
if they hone this down, can you really prevent crime?
I mean, even cops will tell you there's no such
thing as preventing crime. Cops go after criminals after they've
committed a crime. But unless it's just dumb luck, how
many times has a cop come upon a crime before
it happens and stopped it? Well that's there. There's there
are two different um groups, one in the UK and
(12:56):
one in America, which apparently are the two leading trees
in DNA profiling for crime prevention. Um that are that
that say no, we we do need to do that
and we're trying to is that the homicide prevention unit
in London think about the name of that homicide prevention
unit and they're doing it by forecasting crime. Yeah, well,
(13:16):
psychological profiling to which they've done for a while, and
that's a little less hinky and invasive than obviously DNA profiling. Right,
But what about when you combine the two. Why would
you combine DNA with a psychological profile to catch the
bad guys? I guess to an extent. But at the
same time, what we're talking about is looking at DNA
(13:38):
to find out if we can find a genetic defect
in somebody that we suggest that maybe they have a
short temper, or that they're sociopathic or whatever. If you
combine that with a psychological profile. But where does that
profile come from? Maybe records from mental health workers, or
maybe your insurance records, or your doctor or dental records.
(13:59):
I mean, and then doing that now, but who knows
what could happen that. That's the point. If this database
gets big enough, or I should say, if it gets
accurate enough, then yeah, people will probably start getting leaned
on to provide information to be contributed to this database
for use by law enforce. Yeah. Once you have enough
(14:20):
information and you are confident enough that you can prevent
a crime, or if you can say this person is
probably going to kill somebody, what do they do though?
That's what I want to know. Did they just start
It's obviously not gonna happen like Minority Report in that
film and the story Tom Cruise knocks on your door
and says you're under arrest for the future murder of
(14:41):
your wife. They're clearly not talking about that. That's impossible
in the stuff of science fiction. But what they just
monitor someone or tail someone, so basically potentially dangerous people
just be under surveillance at all times, I guess so.
But what if you've never committed a crime in your
entire life and don't intend to. But you've the cops
breathing down your neck every night. Anywhere you go, there's
(15:04):
a cop following you. You go on a date, there's
a cop following you. You take your mother out for dinner,
there's a cop following you. I mean, if you've never
committed a crime in your life, how fair is that? Well? Right?
And plus if someone's tailing you, and I don't know,
I could I could see a scenario where some renegade
cop um trumps up a traffic violation and pulls you
(15:24):
over and shakes you down. And you know, it's not
like police. I mean, trust me, I'm not dragging on
the police, who do a great job. But there are
cases where people are framed and weapons are planted. And
if some guy they think is a really bad person
waiting to happen, what's to stop a cop from trailing
him and doing just that. So, not only that, but
what happens if um, somebody gets access to this, if
(15:47):
this information in the database is disseminated, and then you've
got somebody who's like, well, you know what, I'm going
to take it upon myself to rid society of these people.
Who may commit a crime. You know, most I can't
say most, but there's a lot serial killers out there who,
once caught say that they were doing a service to society.
Ever seen that. I haven't yet, but I am aware
(16:07):
of same scenario. I love six ft under and he
dies by the way. Um the the the killer John
Wayne Gacy expected that he was going to get a
rap on the knuckles because what he'd done is just
rid society and some bad kids. That's what he said,
Bernie gets I remember, and I guess was that the
New York Yeah, he went Charlie Bronson on everyone, and
(16:30):
he was the subway vigilantia. He definitely was. But he's
a serial killer, is what he is. I thought he
I thought he just killed some guys once. Did he
kill more than one time? Yeah? I think so wow,
I might be wrong. We'll hear from it. But um okay,
so yes, there's a possibility of vigilantism. There's a possibility
of police harassment. There's also another possibility called well self
(16:52):
fulfilling prophecy. Um. Remember we talked about kids getting their
DNA taken, Miners getting their DNA taken if they're ever
arrested for anything UM. And there's also a push I
guess to make to round this database out as much
as possible for any kid who has a behavioral problem
(17:12):
or maybe gets in trouble at school, for the school
to provide information about that kid so that they can say,
we're going to keep an eye on you for the
rest of your life because you're starting to fit this
profile with somebody who might kill somebody later, or maybe
he just has a d D or maybe the teacher
doesn't like him. Who knows. The problem is is if
you know that if you're six and somebody's like, you
(17:35):
might kill somebody someday, what is it like to grow
up for the next thirty years or so thinking that
people assume that you're gonna kill somebody one day? Well
they tell you, though I I don't know, there's got
to be something that it might not be that explicit.
Both children parents are probably notified at the very least,
right and if the parents say you're a bad kid,
(17:55):
that's why they're watching you, well, why wouldn't the kid
go be a bad kid? There's a lot of concern
is here right in in the US UM we talked
about the homicide prevention unit in the UK. By the way,
the senior criminal psychologist Laura Richards has said that her
vision is to know who the top one people most
(18:16):
potentially violent people in London are at any given time.
You know, Squibby's on that list. Sure, and you know
when they keep like most wanted lists, gangs especially love
getting at the top. And I should probably take the
opportunity right here to save our lives. Uh, it's MS thirteen,
I understand, not MS twelve. Right. Yeah, we've referred to
a gang as MS twelve in the Witness Protection show
(18:38):
and it is MS thirteen and we got that wrong. Agreed. Um.
Over here in the U S there's a guy named
Richard Burke who's the University of Pennsylvania sociologists and statistician. Yeah.
I don't mind this one as much. No, it's much
much more innocuous. Yeah, well, it's not an invasive because
they're not actually taking your DNA or fingerprints. He uh
was he a University of Pennsylvania. He's a cry I'm
(19:00):
a criminology professor, and he has actually developed an algorithm
using thirty different variables from you know, when a kid
was young and as they grow up, if they have
offenses or if they were abused, and he determines a
lethality score, which I don't know, it's it's a little
more I can I can accept this in a way
(19:22):
I can't too. But at the same time, I was
a little well, I'm still put off by the idea
of forecasting crime and an effort to prevent it from
ever happening. Um. But I did go on and check
out some of this guy's stuff and he has another
thing UM called crime regimes where he's taking into account
see that that lethality score is all uh centered around
(19:45):
the individual. And there's a movement of foot where sociology
is making a huge move to take crime completely away
from psychology. I talked to a sociologists who's like, psychology
is completely failed at explaining serial murder. Sociology is time
to explain it. Right. So this guy's taking into account
like time of day, day of the weak area, UM,
(20:08):
like like the location, uh is the drug trade there stable?
If so, then there's probably gonna be less crime because
there's not gonna be tur force things like that, UM.
And even larger stuff needs to be taken into account
to like the economic situation that always creates more crimes,
but for a group or an area and not an
individuals that what you mean. I imagine that this guy
(20:28):
will probably eventually try to put both together. So if
you've got a lethality score, guy with the lethality score,
and he's living in a high risk area, then all
of a sudden, the cops might want to go, we
should really keep an eye on that guy, you know.
So it makes it a little more honed. The problem
is is this would probably be eventually compiled with the
nd I S here in the States. Yeah, if it
(20:50):
turned out to be a pretty good algorithm and it
was pretty accurate, I'm sure the government would get their
mits on it soon enough. So yeah, and it's not like, um,
it's we were talking about health mental health workers being
leaned on to to give up information, or doctors disclosing
their met records. Insurance companies, UH and Census Information did
(21:11):
not know this. I didn't either, which is funny because
we're about to talk about population in about five minutes. Yeah,
apparently the census records, the public doesn't have access to
those for seventy two years after it's taken. I I guess,
I guess some aspects of it, because it's I've definitely
accessed census statistics that are a lot less than seventy
two years old, right, I think you can access the numbers,
(21:33):
but I think all of the information. Yeah, yeah, but
the FBI routinely gets that information if they wanted. The
Japanese Japanese Americans were identified using census statistics or sensus
information during World War Two for the internment camp, right, Um,
And uh, that that was I guess kind of against
(21:53):
the grain. Maybe usually we don't usually do that, I understand.
I think we do it done in Texas these days
with UM Hispanics trying to make it across the border interesting.
So writes violations all over the place, then, right, yes,
but apparently it's having an effect on crime, Yeah, I
guess so. UM supporters in England will say that more
(22:14):
than twice as many crimes have been solved using the
DNA samples in the year two thousand five as we're
solved six years before that, and so you know, maybe
it has an effect. It does. So they had the
cameras over there too. Oh yeah, did you see those uh,
those thugs and whales that got beat up? It was
a cross stressing cage fighters. Yeah. Yeah, it's the best
(22:36):
thing I've ever seen. Yeah, if you haven't seen, yeah,
I guess typing, cross dressing, cage fighters, thugs, whales and
it should bring up the video. These English thugs were
just drunk and walking down the street, really just causing
trouble and they were picking on this cross stresser and
it turned out that it was a m M a
cage fighter and the dude just kill them, wasted him.
It was great. It's it's inspiring and I'll prevent the
(22:59):
reader mail right now. Chuck meant Welsh and he knows it.
So um, I guess everybody in the future look for
a crime database that includes uh, psychological profile, uh hopefully
your correct name or unless you're a criminal then not
your real name, retinal scans, facial scans, medical history, pretty
(23:21):
much anything. I got one more thing, okay, I saw.
The United States has a project that was originally called
Project Hostile Intent. They've since renamed it Future Attribute Screening Technologies,
and it's one of these deals where they're gonna make
it a mobile unit like a trailer truck that you
walk through before you go into the football game and
(23:43):
it reads your your pulse, your breathing rate, your your
eye people dilation, and supposedly to predict if you're you know,
like shifty or angry. Think about that. Um, yeah, I
heard they're using uh we fit boards now to make
people standard. They're talking about they were going to make
people stand on because they think that. Um, terrorists are
(24:06):
literally shiftier than other people, so like they would be
shifting their weight more because they know something is about
to go down. Um. Things like that don't take into
account fear of flying. Well all, there's a lot of
problems and stuff like that. Just what kind of mood
urine that day if you and your wife just had
a fight on the way to the airport, because Emily
and I have a long standing tradition of fighting before
any plane flight. Oh yeah, oh yeah, it's it's it's
(24:27):
a good thing. Um. And then of course, once this
is in place, one of the guys called what we
would see a security theater, which is not being shifty
or acting like you know, you're going to Hawaii on
a vacation, so trying to trip up the machine. So
look forward to that too. Yeah, the end, the end.
(24:48):
So if you want to learn more about our colleague,
Shanna Freeman's um predictions for future crime databases. You can
probably get away with just typing in future crime in
the certain far at how stuff works dot Com. Also
try typing in Unicorn. See what comes up. I think
you'll be pleasantly surprised. And Chuck I said, Uh, search
(25:10):
bar right, which means it's time for listener mail. Josh,
I'm gonna call this. Uh, I had no idea that
we had a official listening club. That's what I'm gonna
call it. This is on the blog, but I'm gonna
read this, and this is kind of blew me away.
The there are some U. S Americans living in South Korea,
(25:32):
and they actually formed a little listening club and they
get together and they listen to our show. And they said,
during the assemblies, we listened to you to ponder various
interesting topics and then discuss them further by offering our
own thoughts and experiences, and complement our sessions with libations
of the alcoholic variety. So they formed a drinking game
(25:52):
to our show. Let me tell you what they drink too.
And they're listening now, so we're going to really get
them hammered at this point. Every time there's a new
statistic quoted, which I believe we do on four out
of five shows at least. And when we refer to
our producer Jerry. Over here, there's Jerry. Hey, Jerry. So
we've said Jerry like four times since probably about four shots.
(26:12):
You said Jerry, I said Jerry. We refer to our
producer Jerry when someone shares any of our first names.
So if they're in the club and we say their
first name, by happenstance, they drink And I know who
wrote this was Richard, So we're gonna say Richard like
four more times Richard, Yeah, and Jerry and uh, also, um,
when chuckers, when you say chuckers, I don't know that
(26:35):
I said that in this one, did I You could
say now chuckers. And the final thing, Josh, they drink too.
I think we're gonna like this is they're getting your back, dude.
The whole I'm me thing that we've been hearing about
for the past a hundred and sixty shows. Whenever you
actually correct yourself now with the IMI is when they drink,
so he writes and says, uh, they drink soju, by
(26:57):
the way, which is a rice wine they say on
Soju josh a say siped casually, the rice wine is
not without its merits, but done our way. It all
but guarantees a regrettable late night phone called to a
coworker or former lover, fearful platitudes, mutual admiration, or some
form of public nudity later in the evenings. So Josh, Sir,
I beseech you stop hyper correcting. Let it fly pleadingly.
(27:20):
Richard tired of being hungover in Korea, Richard, Richard, Well,
thanks Richard for sending that in. Chuckers like Jerry liked it,
Richard clearly liked Charle like it. And I and me
and I'm sorry I shouldn't say that, I should correct myself. Well,
if you want to send chuck in I and email,
I'm sorry, chucking me an email or Chuckers chuckers an
(27:43):
email and me uh, you can send that to stuff
podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on
this and thousands of other topics, is that how stuff
works dot com. Want more house stuff works, check out
our blogs on the house stuff works dot com home page.
(28:05):
M HM brought to you by the reinvented two thousand
twelve camera it's ready. Are you
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com