6 ms·

It only allows finding the suspect. A full DNA test is required to be conclusive. I think it is the case here.

by sedatk 9y ago

st26 9y ago
The Wikipedia notes the police acquired a sample of the suspect's DNA and confirmed a match to the crime samples
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- astura 9y ago
  Yes, and they even acquired a second sample after the first came back positive just to confirm.
  - fixermark 9y ago
    If anything, I'd expect people to have more concern about the fact that the police in California are allowed to steal your stuff and grab DNA off of it than the risks from them being allowed to submit your DNA to a privately-owned database full of voluntary DNA submissions.
    - haZard_OS 9y ago
      I agree that the use of a public genealogy database is problematic but the way in which the police obtained the genetic material is not. Once a person discards any material as trash in a public space, it's fair game. The police didn't begin doing this sort of thing when DNA tests were invented.
    - astura 9y ago
      "steal your stuff and grab DNA off of it" It's not stealing. First off, if you discard something in the trash you no longer are laying a claim to it and giving it up for the trash handlers. Secondly, it was established in California v. Greenwood that you don't have a privacy right to trash left out on the public curb for pickup; which obviously implies that you don't have a privacy right to trash placed in a public bin.
      - fixermark 9y ago
        Excellent; thank you for the clarification.
      - autokad 9y ago
        I dont think thats a good analogy. a better one is your neighbor discarded trash, and your trash is like your neighbors. I personally think privacy laws need to be set up right away. I think it should be illegal, even in cases of national security, to infer something from your DNA from others, such as relatives without the use of a warrant. you should not end up in what is effectively a police line up just because your brother submitted his dna to the public domain. people should not be able to use information about his dna, in any way imaginable to infer anything about you.
        fixermark 9y ago
        Why? That seems like a broad restriction that we don't apply to other things like "Your fingerprints partially match some prints at a crime scene" or "You drive the same car as a suspect." People can and do end up in a police lineup for being the same gender and living in the same apartment complex as a perpetrator; I think that's reasonable, because a lineup isn't a conviction. There's a world of difference between evidence submittable at a trial and evidence making someone worthy of suspicion and further investigation. I agree the bar on the former should be high; the bar on the latter being low on average leads to faster perpetrator identification and a safer community.
        autokad 9y ago
        our DNA is private. they should not be able to look at it without a warrant even if someone else slimier to you recklessly throws it in the public domain. Imagine I could read your mind by reading someone else mind. are you ok with me having access to your private thoughts just because someone gave me access to their mind?
        fixermark 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
z3t4 9y ago
Police, judges and lawyers probably don't know the difference between a DNA test and a DNA test. People used to go to jail because they had the same blood type as the criminal.
- lawlessone 9y ago
  Considering it's their job i'd say they no quite a bit.
- dx034 9y ago
  DNA-based evidence led to a lot of wrong convictions in the early stages but methods have improved significantly. No judge would send someone to jail because a sample at 23andme matches. But they could issue a warrant to allow a further DNA test of the suspect.
  - Retric 9y ago
    There is significant lag between false convictions and proof of innocence. So, it might seem like a huge improvement but it's far smaller difference than you might think.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  If things were that bad now, the relative whose DNA first came up as a a close match would now be in custody and on her way to a conviction. To see how things were actually done, RTFA.
- fixermark 9y ago
  Right, but the issues with using geneology-resolution DNA to match a specific individual are already understood---you yourself have highlighted them. A defendant is one expert witness away from undermining a case that relies on that low of a resolution of matching alone. In this case, that data was only used as a pointer to suggest to police that deeper scrutiny of the identified suspect was warranted.
  - cat199 9y ago

It only allows finding the suspect. A full DNA test is required to be conclusive. I think it is the case here.

by sedatk 9y ago

It only allows finding the suspect. A full DNA test is required to be conclusive. I think it is the case here.

st26 9y ago

The Wikipedia notes the police acquired a sample of the suspect's DNA and confirmed a match to the crime samples

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
astura 9y ago
Yes, and they even acquired a second sample after the first came back positive just to confirm.
- fixermark 9y ago
  If anything, I'd expect people to have more concern about the fact that the police in California are allowed to steal your stuff and grab DNA off of it than the risks from them being allowed to submit your DNA to a privately-owned database full of voluntary DNA submissions.
  - haZard_OS 9y ago
    I agree that the use of a public genealogy database is problematic but the way in which the police obtained the genetic material is not. Once a person discards any material as trash in a public space, it's fair game. The police didn't begin doing this sort of thing when DNA tests were invented.
  - astura 9y ago
    "steal your stuff and grab DNA off of it" It's not stealing. First off, if you discard something in the trash you no longer are laying a claim to it and giving it up for the trash handlers. Secondly, it was established in California v. Greenwood that you don't have a privacy right to trash left out on the public curb for pickup; which obviously implies that you don't have a privacy right to trash placed in a public bin.
    - fixermark 9y ago
      Excellent; thank you for the clarification.
    - autokad 9y ago
      I dont think thats a good analogy. a better one is your neighbor discarded trash, and your trash is like your neighbors. I personally think privacy laws need to be set up right away. I think it should be illegal, even in cases of national security, to infer something from your DNA from others, such as relatives without the use of a warrant. you should not end up in what is effectively a police line up just because your brother submitted his dna to the public domain. people should not be able to use information about his dna, in any way imaginable to infer anything about you.
      - fixermark 9y ago
        Why? That seems like a broad restriction that we don't apply to other things like "Your fingerprints partially match some prints at a crime scene" or "You drive the same car as a suspect." People can and do end up in a police lineup for being the same gender and living in the same apartment complex as a perpetrator; I think that's reasonable, because a lineup isn't a conviction. There's a world of difference between evidence submittable at a trial and evidence making someone worthy of suspicion and further investigation. I agree the bar on the former should be high; the bar on the latter being low on average leads to faster perpetrator identification and a safer community.
        autokad 9y ago
        our DNA is private. they should not be able to look at it without a warrant even if someone else slimier to you recklessly throws it in the public domain. Imagine I could read your mind by reading someone else mind. are you ok with me having access to your private thoughts just because someone gave me access to their mind?
        fixermark 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

z3t4 9y ago

Police, judges and lawyers probably don't know the difference between a DNA test and a DNA test. People used to go to jail because they had the same blood type as the criminal.

lawlessone 9y ago
Considering it's their job i'd say they no quite a bit.
dx034 9y ago
DNA-based evidence led to a lot of wrong convictions in the early stages but methods have improved significantly. No judge would send someone to jail because a sample at 23andme matches. But they could issue a warrant to allow a further DNA test of the suspect.
- Retric 9y ago
  There is significant lag between false convictions and proof of innocence. So, it might seem like a huge improvement but it's far smaller difference than you might think.
mannykannot 9y ago
If things were that bad now, the relative whose DNA first came up as a a close match would now be in custody and on her way to a conviction. To see how things were actually done, RTFA.
fixermark 9y ago
Right, but the issues with using geneology-resolution DNA to match a specific individual are already understood---you yourself have highlighted them. A defendant is one expert witness away from undermining a case that relies on that low of a resolution of matching alone. In this case, that data was only used as a pointer to suggest to police that deeper scrutiny of the identified suspect was warranted.
- cat199 9y ago