I mean, afaik DNA evidence is not the end all be all evidence it is often made out to be, right? It should be used together with other evidence. After all, if you find DNA of some person somewhere, what does that prove in and of itself? And then ofc there is the procedure itself that could go wrong like with anything, see the Phantom of Heilbronn for an example lol

Cyber espionage? Nope. White collar fraud or embezzlement via computers? Nope. Hate crimes over phone, social media etc? Nope. Sniper shots? Nope. War crimes for remote military leaders? Nope. Defamation? Nope. Drug importation? Nope. Phishing? Nope. IP theft? Nope. Traffic violations? Nah.

Nice idea, but criminals now know this and have used other people’s DNA at crime scenes to muddy the waters. Historically also DNA doesn’t last forever especially on exposed surfaces plus people handling the victim’s possessions had no protocols in place for chain of custody and taking care not to contaminate their items.

Pretty impressive though that the killer of those 4 college students is caught by DNA and genealogy. Without the DNA they had a car that witnesses identified that looked like his for evidence. At least that’s the info so far.

Murders will take an interesting turn of forensics can take a drop of blood from the bictim and "replay" what they saw before they die.

Lots of bodies will be going missing.

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

[removed]

Does it make sense to register the DNA of every newborn? Every baby has to be registered already (with a birth certificate), so now the technology is there surely that's the next step?