There’s an interesting editorial in the New York Times this morning from a former prosecutor, warning about overusing DNA collection. Normally, I would just read this and agree. However, a few days ago, I was having lunch with my CIS colleagues, and Larry was asking what would be so wrong with having, for example, a device in the car that measures how fast you are going, or what your blood alcohol level is. You could let people speed, or drive drunk, in case there were emergencies, but if there was an accident or other need for proof, society would have it. Lauren countered that this was a slippery slope, that would result in all kinds of surveillance for all sorts of minor activities. Larry responded that we could agree to gather evidence only of the most serious types of crimes, and only use it after one of those crimes had occurred, to both deter and catch/convict. Harlan Levy’s op-ed identifies several reasons that Larry’s idea is dangerous.