Australian McDonald's Now Spraying Thieves With DNA

[josh4president]

Which is more awkward:

This happening to you, or having to return home and tell everyone that the guy at McDonald's just sprayed genetic material all over your body?

 

[Eggsnham]

So... we can ID tag thieves with created DNA... but we still haven't cured Cancer or even found out why people get things like MS?

Why?

I'm not a doctor, chemist, biologist, or anything of the sort; but I imagine it has to do with the fact that throwing together some chromosomes and packing the product into a container is a lot easier than taking somebody's DNA and figuring out what makes it tick/figuring out what makes the viruses and bacteria tick.

It's also probably got something to do with the fact that Pharmaceutical companies would make a lot less money if there were widely available cures to the most wide-spread and crippling diseases. It's fucked up, but I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

How about we just spray the robber from head to toe in human blood? Police shouldn't have any trouble finding the guy screaming his head off in terror!

 

[punipunipyo]

Um.... what about exit number2; the window?

Oh i know, bullet proof... LOL see the con ran in to the window and knocked out!~

 

[Griffolion]

Excellent news regarding keeping people safe from robberies, but I wonder if this would be better used in places of real interest like banks?

 

[Baresark]

I love how the majority of comments in this thread is to come up with ways to defeat the security system.

Personally, I'd be more worried of being incorrectly ID'd as collateral damage. What if you're walking out as the robber is running out? Hell, I'd get misted running out because the robber would be there and I don't want him shooting me over a till of money.

That was my thought at the beginning... but it had gotten lost among other thoughts. The issue here is that a jury has an overwhelming urge to trust DNA in the face of other evidence that proves innocence. The public at large seems to think it's infallible, which it is not. There was one instance where a guy went to jail for 4 years when he was innocent. He was a suspect in the crime in question, but he was out of state at the time and had 14 witnesses to testify that he was nowhere near the crime scene when it had happened. But, based on the DNA evidence he was convicted. Then 4 years later it came out that the lab had improperly separated the DNA from other DNA. The combination gave him the 99.9% matchup. You see, DNA is very unique, so much so that there is a one in one billion chance of a matchup happening like that, so there are rough 6.5 people in the world with your DNA. But, the statistic that defense attorneys are not allowed to bring up is that the error rate of DNA labs is one in twenty. So the real statistic the jury was not allowed to consider was that there was only a 1:20 chance of it actually being his DNA, not the 1:1Billion chance they were told the odds were.

I know this doesn't involve DNA testing. My point is that since it uses DNA, someone may not get a fair shake in a trial. Jurors hear DNA and their brain shuts off, a decision is already made when that enters the equation. Thanks to awesome shows such as CSI and all those other bullshit science cop shows. At least here in America.

 

[minuialear]

--snip--

They're probably (I'm assuming) using fluorescent tags, which wouldn't be attached to normal DNA. But why would one need to make a DNA mixture of 60 chromosomes for this kind of thing? It's not like if you took cell samples from a glowing robber and stared at the DNA, it would be hard to separate the glowing chromosomes from the normal ones (or, at least, it's not like having sixty kinds of glowing chromosomes is going to make the job a lot easier than having, say, ten glowing chromosomes). So why not just shoot a concentrated amount of 1-10 chromosomes?

Admittedly I've been out of genetics for awhile, so I could be forgetting something that would explain the reason. But so far it seems unnecessary.

From what I can tell:
UV-Fluorescent Adhesive: Used to identify that the person may have been involved in the robbery
DNA Tag: Used to figure out who they robbed

I'm guessing there's either something very easy involved in producing entire chromosomes, or that they're saying "chromosome" because very few people know what "plasmid" means.

They'd probably be better off using chromosomes because the structure would preserve the DNA better than just launching strands of the DNA at people.

My question was more about why they'd need 60 different chromosomes, rather than why they need chromosomes at all. If they're different chromosomes, then that means (assuming they use the same genome for each location and aren't using multiple genomes per location, which would seem even crazier) they've got the same DNA, just activated differently. So I don't get why you'd need 60 versions of the same DNA in this mix. Why not 5 or 10?

I assume, because it wouldn't glow under UV light otherwise, also it would make comparative analysis that much more accurate, one chromosome might not be very good evidence, but 60 might be.

But since the chromosome's going to be different from the person's actual DNA (or at least it's probably safe to assume that, even ignoring the fact that the person's actual DNA won't glow like the samples, the samples will still have a different composition than that found in the person's cells)... is 60 really necessary?

Plus, in all likelihood, the 60 chromosomes are from the same genome the company's assigned to the particular location, so besides attempting to stare at the chromosomes in order to determine where they came from (which seems to be a very strange way of identifying the sample and sounds like something that wouldn't hold up in court), what good would seeing 60 different representations of the same genome do, that seeing, say, 10 wouldn't?

Or are you saying that maybe it's more of a PR thing/something to make people not familiar with forensics feel more assured about the procedure? Cause that could be a possibility.

 

[Strazdas]

Counter: Wear a raincoat and something to protect the eyes, face and hands.

Or just go out through the window when available.

Since robberies are less likely in big departments I am assuming that single building MacDonalds are being targeted for easy getaways.

Edit: Ninja'd, still it is really obvious how to get around their silly level of high tech security.

you msut remmeber that thieves arent smart to begin with. thats why they are thieves.

 

[ssgt splatter]

That is awesome! Why not just install this system into every store on the planet? Crime would go down significantly.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

After a string of recent robberies at its franchises across Australia, McDonald's has chosen to partner with security firm SelectaDNA to equip its restaurants with "DNA Spray." Now, if someone shows up who wants a handful of cash instead of a handful of french fries, a small device above the exit will activate during his or her getaway, covering the bandit's skin and clothing with a synthetic DNA strand made up of sixty separate chromosomes. The newly introduced DNA will then seep harmlessly into his or her skin for two weeks (and clothes for six months) allowing the police to reveal the culprit using UV light.

Wait...how is it triggered, exactly? Don't employees still have to hit a button, switch, etc beforehand? That problem is fixed if it's 'easy' to trigger, but that generates the problem of having an easy-to-accidentally-trigger security system.

The spray is both invisible and odorless, but even if the hapless highwayman notices the deoxyribonucleic acid rain cloud, SelectaDNA assures that its chemical concoction is "virtually impossible to remove." Making matters worse for the offender is that each DNA sequence is unique to the location to which it was installed, meaning a successful forensic identification is 100% admissible in court. Basically, if you get caught in this stuff, you're screwed.

...I've already come up with a way to beat this. All you need is for a McDonalds employee to 'accidentally' (or actually by accident) trigger it and expose you, and within clear view of witnesses.

Congratulations! You now have a free alibi for why you have the DNA spray on you after you rob that same McDonalds. And since it's "virtually impossible to remove," you can probably get a nice settlement for your unfair exposure to a security measure, even more if the police harass you for it.

According to SelectaDNA, individuals, police, and corporations are showing an average 85% reduction in crime due to what it describes as the "DNA Fear Factor." No, that's not a SyFy channel spin-off of the popular reality show; it's the idea that this process is so effective and/or bizarrely horrifying that criminals probably figure it's easier to make money by simply getting a job at McDonald's instead (or perhaps just by robbing somewhere that doesn't squirt you with forged genetic blueprints).

For now, McDonald's is giving this new security system a trial run at seven locations across The Land Down Under, including one unfortunate franchise in Merryland that was recently robbed twice within one week. If things go well, the corporation will be installing DNA squirt cannons on the exits of all 780 locations across the continent.

Still, good on 'em. This sounds like a legitimately viable security measure. My previous statement was a hypothetical that I sincerely doubt anyone will ever be able to execute, and if its mere presence causes a reduction in crime, even better.

 

[RaNDM G]

If they only install the device on the front door, what's stopping robbers from leaving through the back door? And what about breaking through the windows?

It just raises too many questions.

 

[Asehujiko]

So... we can ID tag thieves with created DNA... but we still haven't cured Cancer or even found out why people get things like MS?

Why?

Because copyright laws.

Several enzymes and proteins required to effectively fight cellular dysfunctions like cancer have been copyrighted by different pharmaceutical companies who will never co-operate with one another.

 

[Therumancer]

It's interesting, but this seems to be an exercise in elaborate stupidity that is bound to backfire horribly.

For this thing to work the DNA squirt cannons have to be activated during or after the robbery. This is a very complicated version of numerous active security systems that already exist. Things like triggerable cameras, paint based marking systems, and other assorted things. The idea of putting something in doorways or in a parking lot to activate from inside to nab thieves is old and has taken plenty of forms over the years.

The thing is that this encourages more violent crime in the long run. Now, someone wanting to rob a Mcdonalds is likely to be nastier about it and shoot (or bludgeon to death) the workers figuring they are going to be caught anyway, or tie everyone up. Basically your
going to get more hardcore criminals and crimes.

This might have worked for a little while if they didn't tell anyone about it, but now with it known, it also means robbers are going to plan ahead and be nastier. It's not that difficult to circumvent... and we're already dealing with armed robbers by definition here.

This will sound odd, but I'll be blunt, the best way to deal with problems like armed robbery are to keep very little cash on hand. If there is a rash of robberies of Mcdonalds in Australia then the company should invest in getting security runners to pick up the excess cash a few times a day and take it to the bank, keeping the minimum needed on hand at any given time. Hiring a security company to do that is probably going to be cheaper and more effective than buying, installing, and maintaining bloody DNA squirt guns.

See, those after money aren't going to go after a place they know won't have much cash, and if they do it's easier to just let them have it and take a minimal loss than to try and turn your business into Fort Knox.

I also await the inevitable lawsuit when one of these dispensers leaks and someone claims wierd side effects from the DNA. Not to mention urban legends involving this stuff leaking into the burgers.

 

[Kinguendo]

They employed a spitter at the register too?

Oh wait, no... I see. Who steals from McDonalds? You can get one of their burgers for what? 99p? If you like McDonalds rubber-dressed-as-beef stle of burgers, which I dont, just pay to eat the stuff... jeez.

 

[Endocrom]

I can't help but imagine that "paint bomb" scene from Raising Arizona. Only with Australian accents.

P.S. to everyone making comments like "Who would bother stealing from McDonalds?". It must be nice to be so oblivious to the idea of desperation and opportunism. You also have to realize that even though they sell cheap things, they sell a LOT of cheap things. It adds up.

 

[Do4600]

I assume, because it wouldn't glow under UV light otherwise, also it would make comparative analysis that much more accurate, one chromosome might not be very good evidence, but 60 might be.

what good would seeing 60 different representations of the same genome do, that seeing, say, 10 wouldn't?

"a synthetic DNA strand made up of sixty separate chromosomes."

It's not sixty genomes, it's sixty chromosomes which may or may not make up a complete genome.

The only way to prove something with DNA is though earmarked loci(usually in organisms it's polymorphic loci), and DNA degrades and is easy to contaminate, especially when you're attempting to remove the sample from synthetic DNA that's somehow bound with a suspects skin. Having more chromosomes allows you to have a greater chance that the earmarked loci you created will survive to the testing process and allows you to show that the DNA isn't contaminated. You don't just have to prove that it's not the suspects DNA, you have to prove that it's specifically the synthetic DNA.

 

[minuialear]

--snip--

"a synthetic DNA strand made up of sixty separate chromosomes."

It's not sixty genomes, it's sixty chromosomes which may or may not make up a complete genome.

That's what I missed, then.