“Another arrest shows why no one can hide from the genetic detectives”

[Lynn McGuire]

“Another arrest shows why no one can hide from the genetic detectives”

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/611172/another-arrest-shows-why-no-one-can-hide-from-the-genetic-detectives/

I was wondering when the DNA technology and databases were going to get
widespread. Looks like we are there now.

Another scifi prediction comes to the masses.

Hat tip to:
http://drudgereport.com/

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

What crosses my mind:

1. "They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may
not mean to, buy they do."

2. "The criminal's vanity always makes them make one
tiny but fatal mistake. Theirs was to have their entire conspiracy printed and published in plain manuscript."

We haven't had YASID for a couple of days... but I suppose
that if you don't know these, you just don't.

3. Don't have any kids yourself. (see 1)

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:df9fd063-8771-457a...@googlegroups.com:

Familial matches go in more directions than from kids to parents.
If you have siblings, they may have submitted samples. Your own
parents may have. Cousins can work, too. And so on. It's a pretty
comprehensive system.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/18/2018 11:06 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:df9fd063-8771-457a...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Saturday, 19 May 2018 00:30:45 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>>> “Another arrest shows why no one can hide from the genetic
>>> detect
>> ivesâ€

>>>
>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/611172/another-arr
>>> est-shows
>> -why-no-one-can-hide-from-the-genetic-detectives/
>>>
>>> I was wondering when the DNA technology and databases were
>>> going to get
>>
>>> widespread. Looks like we are there now.
>>>
>>> Another scifi prediction comes to the masses.
>>>
>>> Hat tip to:
>>> http://drudgereport.com/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> What crosses my mind:
>>
>> 1. "They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may
>> not mean to, buy they do."
>>
>> 2. "The criminal's vanity always makes them make one
>> tiny but fatal mistake. Theirs was to have their entire
>> conspiracy printed and published in plain manuscript."
>>
>> We haven't had YASID for a couple of days... but I suppose
>> that if you don't know these, you just don't.
>>
>> 3. Don't have any kids yourself. (see 1)
>>
> Familial matches go in more directions than from kids to parents.
> If you have siblings, they may have submitted samples. Your own
> parents may have. Cousins can work, too. And so on. It's a pretty
> comprehensive system.

My son had to submit a DNA sample when he was in the Marine Corps.

Lynn

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pdqnfn$b50$1...@dont-email.me:

So far, military DNA records aren't included in CODIS, nor it is
currently legal for law enforcement to use them without some sort
of warrant that is generally hard to get.

[a425couple]

On 5/18/2018 9:06 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:df9fd063-8771-457a...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Saturday, 19 May 2018 00:30:45 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>>> “Another arrest shows why no one can hide from the genetic
>>> detect
>> ivesâ€

>>>
>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/611172/another-arr
>>> est-shows
>> -why-no-one-can-hide-from-the-genetic-detectives/
>>>
>>> I was wondering when the DNA technology and databases were
>>> going to get
>>
>>> widespread. Looks like we are there now.
>>>
>>> Another scifi prediction comes to the masses.
>>>
>>> Hat tip to:
>>> http://drudgereport.com/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> What crosses my mind:
>>
>> 1. "They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may
>> not mean to, buy they do."
>>
>> 2. "The criminal's vanity always makes them make one
>> tiny but fatal mistake. Theirs was to have their entire
>> conspiracy printed and published in plain manuscript."
>>
>> We haven't had YASID for a couple of days... but I suppose
>> that if you don't know these, you just don't.
>>
>> 3. Don't have any kids yourself. (see 1)
>>
> Familial matches go in more directions than from kids to parents.
> If you have siblings, they may have submitted samples. Your own
> parents may have. Cousins can work, too. And so on. It's a pretty
> comprehensive system.
>

Yep!

"Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized."

The authors never even considered!

One can be secure inside your body, but when your sister
blabs her DNA out, "bamb". They can get a search warrant.

[Kevrob]

It occurs to me that the only way to be safe from your DNA
being searchable is to only provide it in situations where
the data is protected by something like attorney-client
privilege or the seal of the confessional, and the ancestry
sites are nothing like that.

Police depts take DNA swabs upon arrest nowadays. I say,
if the charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted,
they should have to destroy or return that evidence: all
copies of it.

But, IANAL.

Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pdupt...@news2.newsguy.com:

Two thoughts occur: People have been narced out to the cops for
centuries.

And you might, you know, possibly just consider not committing
crimes.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:2062780e-e406-441e...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 11:51:32 AM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
>> On 5/18/2018 9:06 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> > news:df9fd063-8771-457a...@googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >> On Saturday, 19 May 2018 00:30:45 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> “Another arrest shows why no one can hide from th
> e genetic

>> >>> detect
>> >> ivesâ€
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/611172/another

It's not *your* DNA that we're talking about, it's the DNA of
pretty much anyone you're related to out to at least first cousins.

And a familial match is sufficient probable cause for a warrant, at
which point *your* DNA can be taken forcibly, if necessary.

>
> Police depts take DNA swabs upon arrest nowadays. I say,
> if the charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted,
> they should have to destroy or return that evidence: all
> copies of it.
>
> But, IANAL.
>

I tend to agree, but that's not at all what we're talking about
here.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Kevrob]

So, if you have a close relative who is profligate with his
or her DNA, you might want to:

Convince them not to be.
a) In which case, good luck. Because...
b) By the time you find out he or she might do this,
it may already have been done. AND/OR

Don't leave biological markers at crime scenes.
a) Preferably by not committing crimes. Now, if
you do something the police interpret as a crime
[justifiable homicide, for example] you are probably
not going to plan ahead to not leave trace evidence, unless....
b) You are a professional criminal or premeditated murderer,
in which case any idea I have on not leaving trace I'll
keep to my self.

> And a familial match is sufficient probable cause for a warrant, at
> which point *your* DNA can be taken forcibly, if necessary.
> >

True.

> > Police depts take DNA swabs upon arrest nowadays. I say,
> > if the charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted,
> > they should have to destroy or return that evidence: all
> > copies of it.
> >
> > But, IANAL.
> >
> I tend to agree, but that's not at all what we're talking about
> here.

Unfortunately, the default for fingerprint records in the US
is that they stay on file. I notice on the web that's not the
rule in several other countries. Back when most adult males went into
the service at least for two years as conscripts, almost all men
were fingerprinted. The LEAs collect more prints from the "stranger
danger" hysteria. The Panopticon doesn't run on air, people!

Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:d5fd89d8-0197-4237...@googlegroups.com:

Indeed. That is the subject of the conversation.

>
> Don't leave biological markers at crime scenes.
> a) Preferably by not committing crimes. Now, if
> you do something the police interpret as a crime
> [justifiable homicide, for example] you are probably
> not going to plan ahead to not leave trace evidence,
> unless....

If it's justifiable homicide, or anything else that can be
misinterpreted by the police until all the facts are known, acting
guilty isn't going to help you any.

> b) You are a professional criminal or premeditated murderer,
> in which case any idea I have on not leaving trace I'll
> keep to my self.
>
>> And a familial match is sufficient probable cause for a
>> warrant, at which point *your* DNA can be taken forcibly, if
>> necessary.
>> >
>
> True.
>
>> > Police depts take DNA swabs upon arrest nowadays. I say,
>> > if the charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted,
>> > they should have to destroy or return that evidence: all
>> > copies of it.
>> >
>> > But, IANAL.
>> >
>> I tend to agree, but that's not at all what we're talking about
>> here.
>
> Unfortunately, the default for fingerprint records in the US
> is that they stay on file.

If I'm not mistaken, there are just as many people with
fingerprints on file for reasons other than being convicted of a
crime as not.

And you leave them everywhere anyway, including in public places.

> I notice on the web that's not the
> rule in several other countries.

The illusion of privacy is very popular, yes, espcially in areas
where it is inherently impossible to have the real thing.

> Back when most adult males went
> into the service at least for two years as conscripts, almost
> all men were fingerprinted. The LEAs collect more prints from
> the "stranger danger" hysteria. The Panopticon doesn't run on
> air, people!
>

No, it runs on gullibility. And stupidity. And business is booming.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

In the recent arrest of the Golden State Killer, even that would not
have been good enough. They went from DNA collected at the crime scenes
to the geneology sites; cross-referencing the hits they got there got
them overlapping family trees they could prune. That got them to
something like three suspects; I forget how they weeded two of them
out. Once they were down to one they got the warrant to go through his
trash to find something to match. And arrested him.

> Police depts take DNA swabs upon arrest nowadays. I say,
> if the charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted,
> they should have to destroy or return that evidence: all
> copies of it.

Far, far too much precedent for saving things like fingerprints
forever.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
news:1btvr0y...@pfeifferfamily.net:

Tracking who was where at the right times.

> That got them to something like three suspects; I forget
> how they weeded two of them out. Once they were down to one
> they got the warrant to go through his trash to find something
> to match. And arrested him.
>
>> Police depts take DNA swabs upon arrest nowadays. I say,
>> if the charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted,
>> they should have to destroy or return that evidence: all
>> copies of it.
>
> Far, far too much precedent for saving things like fingerprints
> forever.
>

And a realistic understanding that fingerprints aren't private
information anyway.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:23:50 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>news:d5fd89d8-0197-4237...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>> news:2062780e-e406-441e...@googlegroups.com:
>>>

>> Unfortunately, the default for fingerprint records in the US
>> is that they stay on file.
>
>If I'm not mistaken, there are just as many people with
>fingerprints on file for reasons other than being convicted of a
>crime as not.

Yeah. My fingerprints are on file because I got a peddler's license
in Pittsburgh in 1974.

My wife's are on file because she works for the Treasury Department in
a secured area.

My parents' were on file because they got security clearances to work
on the Manhattan Project.

None of us were ever arrested (though my mother came close once or
twice), let alone convicted of anything.

Hell, my kids were fingerprinted in elementary school as part of a
program to help locate missing children.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[Greg Goss]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <misencha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>If I'm not mistaken, there are just as many people with
>>fingerprints on file for reasons other than being convicted of a
>>crime as not.
>
>Yeah. My fingerprints are on file because I got a peddler's license
>in Pittsburgh in 1974.
>
>My wife's are on file because she works for the Treasury Department in
>a secured area.
>
>My parents' were on file because they got security clearances to work
>on the Manhattan Project.
>
>None of us were ever arrested (though my mother came close once or
>twice), let alone convicted of anything.

I was fingerprinted for my PI licence in 1978. (If I'd known that
[name], PI was going to be such a popular show, I'd never have
surrendered my PI licence. I wouldn't get my vac pay till I gave up
the licence, but there was very little in that fund.) PI meant
"licenced security guard." and the licence was actually owned by my
employer, even though I carried the card.

I was printed again as a "random sampling" of people temp-hired for a
money handling position. I was hired for two weeks each year for five
years. The background check was in year three - 2014.

I've been convicted many times, generally either for speeding or for
owning a car that sped through a camera. Even was surprised by a
warrant once for an unpaid parking ticket.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <misencha...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qb26gddi67t2id7ps...@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

> On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:23:50 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>news:d5fd89d8-0197-4237...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>>> news:2062780e-e406-441e...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the default for fingerprint records in the US
>>> is that they stay on file.
>>
>>If I'm not mistaken, there are just as many people with
>>fingerprints on file for reasons other than being convicted of a
>>crime as not.
>
> Yeah. My fingerprints are on file because I got a peddler's
> license in Pittsburgh in 1974.

I have a vague recollection that California requires a thumb print
for a driver's license.

>
> My wife's are on file because she works for the Treasury
> Department in a secured area.
>
> My parents' were on file because they got security clearances to
> work on the Manhattan Project.

Certainly, all security clearances require it.

>
> None of us were ever arrested (though my mother came close once
> or twice), let alone convicted of anything.
>
> Hell, my kids were fingerprinted in elementary school as part of
> a program to help locate missing children.
>

Many private companies (that have nothing to do with security
clearances) do background checks that require fingerprints these
days, too. Whether or not these end up in AFIS or other databases
available to the police is a big question mark, depending on which
background check company they use.

But the geneology databases are another story, and are readily
available to the cops - and everybody else - for a nominal fee.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:fmgghr...@mid.individual.net:

> Lawrence Watt-Evans <misencha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>If I'm not mistaken, there are just as many people with
>>>fingerprints on file for reasons other than being convicted of
>>>a crime as not.
>>
>>Yeah. My fingerprints are on file because I got a peddler's
>>license in Pittsburgh in 1974.
>>
>>My wife's are on file because she works for the Treasury
>>Department in a secured area.
>>
>>My parents' were on file because they got security clearances to
>>work on the Manhattan Project.
>>
>>None of us were ever arrested (though my mother came close once
>>or twice), let alone convicted of anything.
>
> I was fingerprinted for my PI licence in 1978. (If I'd known
> that [name], PI was going to be such a popular show, I'd never
> have surrendered my PI licence. I wouldn't get my vac pay till
> I gave up the licence, but there was very little in that fund.)
> PI meant "licenced security guard." and the licence was actually
> owned by my employer, even though I carried the card.

My mom had a PI license in Kansas some time in the 50s. Her job was
counting people going into movie theaters, and the license was
required by the state. No idea if she was fingerprinted, but I'd
guess probably so.

>
> I was printed again as a "random sampling" of people temp-hired
> for a money handling position. I was hired for two weeks each
> year for five years. The background check was in year three -
> 2014.
>
> I've been convicted many times, generally either for speeding or
> for owning a car that sped through a camera. Even was surprised
> by a warrant once for an unpaid parking ticket.

I'm sure you had it coming. You must have done *something* wrong.

[Scott Lurndal]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <misencha...@gmail.com> writes:

>
>Hell, my kids were fingerprinted in elementary school as part of a
>program to help locate missing children.
>

And foot prints were commonly collected from infants at birth.

OBSF _Citizen of the Galaxy_.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:Q7EMC.76386
$nT1....@fx20.iad:

> Lawrence Watt-Evans <misencha...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>>Hell, my kids were fingerprinted in elementary school as part of a
>>program to help locate missing children.
>>
>
> And foot prints were commonly collected from infants at birth.
>

They are not, however, commonly left at crime scenes, so they're not
all that useful to a criminal investigation.

Unless you commit your crime at the beach, but prints are notoriously
hard to recover from sand.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Oh, if you count traffic tickets, I have half a dozen convictions and
my wife has one or two.

But we weren't arrested or fingerprinted for those.

[lal_truckee]

On 5/21/18 11:22 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> And foot prints were commonly collected from infants at birth.
>
> OBSF _Citizen of the Galaxy_.

Don't you just love the process of physically shipping 3 by 5
fingerprint cards across the galaxy to a central repository.
I envision Wells Fargo stagecoaches. Pony Express riders is a little
exotic even for Heinlein.

[Dan Tilque]

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>
> In the recent arrest of the Golden State Killer, even that would not
> have been good enough. They went from DNA collected at the crime scenes
> to the geneology sites; cross-referencing the hits they got there got
> them overlapping family trees they could prune. That got them to
> something like three suspects; I forget how they weeded two of them
> out. Once they were down to one they got the warrant to go through his
> trash to find something to match. And arrested him.

One of those suspects is in a rehabilitation center here in Oregon. They
got a warrant to get a DNA sample from him. But he wasn't from the
family of the guy they arrested; he just shared a rare genetic marker.


--
Dan Tilque

[a425couple]

In many places the courts have decided those DNA samples
should be destroyed, but the results are decidedly uneven.
Here is a sampling of citations:

The Myth of Arrestee DNA Expungement - Penn Law: Legal ...
scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=penn...
by EE Joh - ‎2015 - ‎Related articles
police collect DNA samples upon arrest, the process of expungement is
.... law if he is never charged or if the charges against him are
dismissed.19 But ..... that DNA samples must be “destroyed” if the
criminal charges are not brought or do not ...

Just a quick swab for DNA? Not so fast, California courts say –
https://www.ocregister.com/.../just-a-quick-swab-for-dna-not-so-fast-california-courts-...
Dec 10, 2014 - As a result, even if the state law is ultimately upheld,
local officials ... collection practices could lead to DNA samples being
destroyed. ... “The history of DNA testing in the criminal justice
system has been ... to get their charges dropped in return for providing
a DNA sample, remains unaffected, officials said.

Don't delay: Delete your DNA today • The Register
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/17/david_mery_reclaim_your_dna/
Dec 17, 2008 - Mr Michael Marper was arrested and charged with
harassment of his partner. ... If you are among the estimated 573,639 to
857,366 innocents whose ... to argue for the police to remove your
records and destroy your DNA samples in ... Any record of a DNA profile
will also be removed from all back-up media ...

DNA Database Expungement - County of San Diego
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/public.../dna_database_expungement.ht...
If there is no legal basis for the DOJ to keep your DNA sample and your
DNA ... that the sample be destroyed and your DNA profile be erased from
the database. ... or a Court of Appeal overturned your conviction and
the case was dismissed;.

Police Can Now Take Your DNA After Any Arrest | Smart News ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../police-can-now-take-your-dna-after-any-arrest-9...
Jun 4, 2013 - The samples must be destroyed if the charges are dropped
or the person is acquitted. And they can only be taken from those
suspected of ...

When Can My DNA Be Taken By The Police and W - Guides - Avvo
https://www.avvo.com › Legal Advice › Criminal defense › Advice
Jul 4, 2013 - The Court also held that if the defendant is found not
guilty, or the felony case dismissed, then the sample moist be destroyed
and its ...

[David Johnston]

Even if you don't give up your DNA if your family does...

[a425couple]

On 5/21/2018 11:01 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:23:50 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:d5fd89d8-0197-4237...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>>> news:2062780e-e406-441e...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the default for fingerprint records in the US
>>> is that they stay on file.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, there are just as many people with
>> fingerprints on file for reasons other than being convicted of a
>> crime as not.
>

> Yeah. My fingerprints are on file ----
>
> My wife's are on file ----
>
> My parents' were on file ----

>
> Hell, my kids were fingerprinted in elementary school as part of a
> program to help locate missing children.

The odds are extremely likely that the print cards were
made, then kept at either the local LEA Crime Prevention
Units office (or similar) or at the school.
To be accessed, and used, if a child went missing.
It is extremely unlikely they were submitted to the state
or federal data bases.
Or, at least that is how we were doing it 1980 to 2001.

[Quadibloc]

Well, he also wrote "Starman Jones", where star pilots used books of
mathematical tables to pilot their spaceships.

I can't blame SF authors either for:

- failing to predict the pace of future improvements in computing, _or_

- deciding that they would write a story that centers around one innovation
(i.e. FTL travel) without making the society unrecognizable by also including
vast technical advances in every other area as well.

However, even so, I would have expected the index cards with people's
fingerprints... say they couldn't be faxed by interstellar radio because they
didn't have anisibles, so an FTL spacehip was faster... to be at least
_microfilmed_ (no doubt by a "molecular emulsion" so that the resolution
wouldn't be limited by grain size) if one accepts that the author can't
reasonably have been expected to have predicted terabyte hard disks and JPEG
file compression.

And a "molecular emulsion" isn't that much of a stretch, because IIRC,
*blueprints* qualify as an example of that kind of tech.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Blueprints are not particularly high res--if you think they are you
haven't actually worked with them.

No fancy technology is needed, just a very slow emulsion--there is a
relation between grain size and "speed", smaller grain size all else
being equal takes longer to expose. If you're trying to capture
something that moves you need fast response, if you are trying to
capture a fingerprint card you can expose it for a week if you need
to.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 10:00:58 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Blueprints are not particularly high res--if you think they are you
> haven't actually worked with them.

No, but they do involve exposing a photosensitive substance that reacts on the
molecule level instead of the grain level. Possibly it could be used with an
alternative methodology for microfilming; if not, I think some other
photosensitive dyes were used for the "microdots" that spies used at one time.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Looked it up; aniline dye was used for microdots, although that may not have
been to avoid grain issues, but that it was harder to distinguish chemically
from ink than something with silver in it, for censors to spot.

John Savard