DDEIRDRE Case Study
Mr. Jeffrey Goines was caught by the New York police officers spreading DNA liquid on the seats of the subway. Goines confessed to breaking the DNA drive and spreading its content in public. In addition, he confessed that he was paid by an animal rights organization and was spreading the organization’s message. While the practice of spreading DNA in the public is not directly harmful to health, medical and home security professionals are concerned with the possibility of this scenario. Mr. Goines is charged under a newly passed law (Sections of 1-2 of DDEIRDRE) which states that - 1) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a biological data storage device, and that 2) Any person who violates Section
…show more content…
DDEIRDRE aims to ban the breaking of the DNA drive to access the information present. However, the interests that DDEIRDRE seeks in this goal have not proved to be substantial. Whereas, the interests of the First Amendment are served by allowing the users to break open the drive and access the information in them.
The most important function of the DNA drive is to store,access, and distribute information. The minor annoyances that people face using these devices when coming in contact with the DNA should not suppress the the drive’s functional purpose is information dissemination. Hence, those of the traditional rationales for the prior restraint doctrine that relate to inhibiting the transmission and receipt of ideas are of attenuated relevance here.
The above arguments can be used to argue that the rules under Sections 1-2 are excessive in nature, do not serve the Government's interests (failure of O’Brien test) and are unconstitutional.
Policy …show more content…
Can the information present in the DNA drives used to infiltrate machines to establish control over these devices?
Can the leakage from a DNA drive be identified back to it’s source to stop the leakage causing any harm?
How can minors be protected from any inappropriate information leak from these DNA drives?
Recommendations to balance
DDEIRDRE aims to ban the breaking of the DNA drive to access the information present. However, the interests that DDEIRDRE seeks in this goal have not proved to be substantial. Whereas, the interests of the First Amendment are served by allowing the users to break open the drive and access the information in them.
The most important function of the DNA drive is to store,access, and distribute information. The minor annoyances that people face using these devices when coming in contact with the DNA should not suppress the the drive’s functional purpose is information dissemination. Hence, those of the traditional rationales for the prior restraint doctrine that relate to inhibiting the transmission and receipt of ideas are of attenuated relevance here.
The above arguments can be used to argue that the rules under Sections 1-2 are excessive in nature, do not serve the Government's interests (failure of O’Brien test) and are unconstitutional.
Policy …show more content…
Can the information present in the DNA drives used to infiltrate machines to establish control over these devices?
Can the leakage from a DNA drive be identified back to it’s source to stop the leakage causing any harm?
How can minors be protected from any inappropriate information leak from these DNA drives?
Recommendations to balance