Classic case of letting perfect be the enemy of good. Try harder next time, jj999.
DNA would be significantly harder to fake over 35 years when you're still walking around with your own DNA. Is it perfect? No, but it's a lot more trustworthy in this case than an SSN or driver's license were.
The danger is that a contaminated sample is recorded under your name and the other person commits a crime. Your freedom is contingent on the diligence of an underpaid lab tech.
But you don't need DNA to prove it though. You have interacted with other people in the past. Parents, siblings, relatives, school mates, teachers, bosses, medical records, taxes etc.
If imperfect is fine then all of these are options too.
I did read the article, which clearly stated that after they had sent an innocent man into a mental institution against his will a detective decided to track down the man's father. And a DNA test proved that what the innocent man said was true.
Which begs the question: why was the judge/court so incompetent/malicious that they didn't do that in the first place?
The fight against encryption continue to this day and while https is now ubiquitous, large-scale cdns makes it somewhat a moot point and emails are still largely plaintext.
But people's private digital communications have largely moved to platforms like WhatsApp and Messenger which enjoy end-to-end encryption. Email, at least between major providers, today enjoys TLS over the wire while being sent.
I'm sure there are various flaws and weaknesses and maybe even backdoors, but trying to make it sound like we lost the fight for encryption because emails are in plaintext is rather disingenuous.
I'm not sure Facebook and a now Facebook owned platform are good examples for private communications. There was an article posted here a week or two ago detailing how Facebook sold access to the contents of users private messages to advertisers.
It represents a step forward from the 90s for the vast majority of people. E2E in messenger and WhatsApp is still painful for LEO.
The article last week (assuming you're referring to this [1]) involved users consenting for Netflix to see their messages. A user from the 90s could have made the same mistake sharing plaintext emails.
No one care about your constitution outside your borders while the concept of Free Speech is universal and isn't defined by a geographicaly limited piece of paper. I'll never let your regressive law colonize my thoughts.
Why can't we agree there are differences between other human beings learning from other people and a multinational corporation learning from everyone at industrial scale, with industrial means?
I watch tv on my 720p non-smart tv and it still feels like I'm living in the future. Nobody needs 4k. Hell, nobody needs 720p. A lot of people lives in a luxury bubble.
I’m also perfectly content with my 1025x768 non-smart plasma TV.
I also didn’t notice that my wife had bought Succession and The Outsider on DVD instead of Blu-Ray. The picture quality for TV box-sets on DVD seems to have somehow improved over recent years – or maybe my visual acuity is getting worse as I get older. :(
