6 ms·

I know that we're pretty pro-privacy around here, but I'm gonna just go ahead and suggest that everyone not rape or kill someone.

dmm 8y ago
DNA evidence is often collected from fingerprints and it has been shown in many experiments that people can pick up and deposit DNA from other people. As a result your DNA can be found at a location you have never been to. If DNA evidence is being used to narrow down a small group of suspects this is less of a problem than if you are searching a population scale group.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > As a result your DNA can be found at a location you have never been to. Sure, but how could it possibly be linked to you?
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Through the implication of samples collected from others, at locations you have never been to.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      How could that be linked to you? Suppose my DNA is on the person I brushed on the street today. How would a government agent be able to prove that whatever DNA they extract from his coat sleeve is mine? In order to do so, they would have to have a sample of my own DNA. It is unlikely a judge would sign a warrant for my DNA, given that I am not even suspected of any crime. You argue that a judge could issue a warrant on an innocent person. However, warrants are only issued if there is enough plausibility that a person could be guilty of a crime. At the point the warrant is issued, the government can now force you to give your DNA. But that could happen right now. Ultimately, in this case, the FBI barely exercised any of their authority. They didn't do any backroom dealings or use 'secret' laws. They just signed up to a genealogy website where people freely share their DNA information with the DNA sample voluntarily given to them by a rapist and murderer. The rapist has no right to any kind of privacy after giving his DNA away. Moreover, no one has any right to prevent a person who shares their genetic information from not disclosing it.
      - fenwick67 8y ago
        You can easily get somebody's DNA without their explicit consent btw. Just go through their trash.
      - ggg9990 8y ago
        > How would a government agent be able to prove that whatever DNA they extract from his coat sleeve is mine? Because your cousin was arrested in 1999 for burglary and held for 30 hours until they realized they had the wrong guy.
      - microcolonel 8y ago
        > Suppose my DNA is on the person I brushed on the street today. How would a government agent be able to prove that whatever DNA they extract from his coat sleeve is mine? In order to do so, they would have to have a sample of my own DNA. That is exactly what the article is about: using large genetic databases to find DNA they have never collected in connection to an investigation.
        tathougies 8y ago
        They never collected the rapist's family's DNA. All the FBI has ever had access to was the rapists DNA (from his semen). They matched it using a service that his relative opted into. The rapist has no right to control relative's DNA.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        And I believe it wasn't even a close relative. DNA matching can identify relatives many generations separated from someone, by finding stretches of DNA with the same set of specific mutations (haplotype) that have not yet been broken by recombination. What this means is that getting just a small fraction of the population into this database will enable it to provide leads for any DNA sample.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        > The rapist has no right to any kind of privacy after giving his DNA away. Umm... The person who shared their DNA was neither a rapist or murderer but was simply related to one.
  - nowarninglabel 8y ago
    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/19/framed-for-murder-by-his-own-dna https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/19/framed-for-mur... You already exist in a criminal database, comes up as a hit, police create a narrative to fit it, even though it is a false narrative.
dannypgh 8y ago
The issue with this use of technology is it creates an air of science to investigating large groups of people. It's easy to imagine a world where if they find someone that's likely a first (or second!) cousin of a rapist, that they then surveil the entire family and use that as evidence for warrants or other investigative tactics. In this case they cross referenced the familial identification with other factors, but imagine if they hadn't? They might have put a tail on everyone who shares a common grandparent or great-grandparent.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  How high should the bar be for doing some surveillance?
  - dannypgh 8y ago
    Legally: This depends on the type of surveillance. Reading someone's first class mail requires a warrant. Posting a car on public streets to observe them requires nothing. Ethically: law enforcement finds most violations of the law in places they look, so if it's unfair where they're looking, it's easy for that to translate into unfair outcomes. A society where police are watching every Capulet but not investigating the Montagues is one where most of the arrests will be of Capulets, regardless of who is actually committing crimes. Therefore, when talking in populations, surveillance approximates punishment and familial surveillance approximates collective punishment of an extended family.
vkou 8y ago
The problem is not for the rapist or killer, the problem is for someone innocent getting matched as one. If you run a 99.99% accurate match against a database with 100,000 people, one of whom is the criminal, you are going to get 10 false positives. If you're one of those false positives, good luck convincing a jury that the 99.99% accurate test is wrong in your case. There's a reason for why general warrants, and most kinds of fishing expeditions are illegal.
- tathougies 8y ago
  The prosecution has this mans DNA. His relative's DNA likely matched a lot of people. Obviously, they didn't arrest the entire family. It seems likely that they will collect his DNA and attempt to match it to the DNA in his semen. If they get a match, then there is a high likelihood he is the suspect. More likely, though, they will get a full confession. Serial killers often love to explain their work and take a lot of pride in confessing, because they're really messed up people.
  - cat199 8y ago
    parent is talking about the false positive cases - not the actual matches..
- pfdietz 8y ago
  This procedure was used to identify leads, not conclusively prove someone was the killer. For that, they use DNA from the suspect himself. In this case, an man in Oregon was earlier a suspect, but direct DNA comparison ruled him out.
joering2 8y ago
Your statement doesnt make sense. as a male, you are naturally capable of rape.
otakucode 8y ago
There is a chance, admittedly probably not a good one, that my DNA could be in a database associated with a rape or murder. Maybe yours might be as well. When I was in high school, I found a bit of cloth in the woods. No idea where it came from. But it got used to clean up after some coital fun and then discarded (I think in a parking garage?). Who knows where it eventually landed and whether it was taken as concrete physical evidence of my involvement in something? If only not being found guilty of things was as easy as not hurting anyone...
sametmax 8y ago
But a lot of us like freedom and democracy. And given than my grandpa stilll has a number tatooed on his wrist, I really wish people would start taking human database as a threat. The potential for abuse is way too great to be ignored.

dmm 8y ago

DNA evidence is often collected from fingerprints and it has been shown in many experiments that people can pick up and deposit DNA from other people. As a result your DNA can be found at a location you have never been to. If DNA evidence is being used to narrow down a small group of suspects this is less of a problem than if you are searching a population scale group.

tathougies 8y ago
> As a result your DNA can be found at a location you have never been to. Sure, but how could it possibly be linked to you?
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Through the implication of samples collected from others, at locations you have never been to.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    How could that be linked to you? Suppose my DNA is on the person I brushed on the street today. How would a government agent be able to prove that whatever DNA they extract from his coat sleeve is mine? In order to do so, they would have to have a sample of my own DNA. It is unlikely a judge would sign a warrant for my DNA, given that I am not even suspected of any crime. You argue that a judge could issue a warrant on an innocent person. However, warrants are only issued if there is enough plausibility that a person could be guilty of a crime. At the point the warrant is issued, the government can now force you to give your DNA. But that could happen right now. Ultimately, in this case, the FBI barely exercised any of their authority. They didn't do any backroom dealings or use 'secret' laws. They just signed up to a genealogy website where people freely share their DNA information with the DNA sample voluntarily given to them by a rapist and murderer. The rapist has no right to any kind of privacy after giving his DNA away. Moreover, no one has any right to prevent a person who shares their genetic information from not disclosing it.
    - fenwick67 8y ago
      You can easily get somebody's DNA without their explicit consent btw. Just go through their trash.
    - ggg9990 8y ago
      > How would a government agent be able to prove that whatever DNA they extract from his coat sleeve is mine? Because your cousin was arrested in 1999 for burglary and held for 30 hours until they realized they had the wrong guy.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      > Suppose my DNA is on the person I brushed on the street today. How would a government agent be able to prove that whatever DNA they extract from his coat sleeve is mine? In order to do so, they would have to have a sample of my own DNA. That is exactly what the article is about: using large genetic databases to find DNA they have never collected in connection to an investigation.
      - tathougies 8y ago
        They never collected the rapist's family's DNA. All the FBI has ever had access to was the rapists DNA (from his semen). They matched it using a service that his relative opted into. The rapist has no right to control relative's DNA.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        And I believe it wasn't even a close relative. DNA matching can identify relatives many generations separated from someone, by finding stretches of DNA with the same set of specific mutations (haplotype) that have not yet been broken by recombination. What this means is that getting just a small fraction of the population into this database will enable it to provide leads for any DNA sample.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > The rapist has no right to any kind of privacy after giving his DNA away. Umm... The person who shared their DNA was neither a rapist or murderer but was simply related to one.
- nowarninglabel 8y ago
  https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/19/framed-for-murder-by-his-own-dna https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/19/framed-for-mur... You already exist in a criminal database, comes up as a hit, police create a narrative to fit it, even though it is a false narrative.

dannypgh 8y ago

The issue with this use of technology is it creates an air of science to investigating large groups of people. It's easy to imagine a world where if they find someone that's likely a first (or second!) cousin of a rapist, that they then surveil the entire family and use that as evidence for warrants or other investigative tactics. In this case they cross referenced the familial identification with other factors, but imagine if they hadn't? They might have put a tail on everyone who shares a common grandparent or great-grandparent.

maxerickson 8y ago
How high should the bar be for doing some surveillance?
- dannypgh 8y ago
  Legally: This depends on the type of surveillance. Reading someone's first class mail requires a warrant. Posting a car on public streets to observe them requires nothing. Ethically: law enforcement finds most violations of the law in places they look, so if it's unfair where they're looking, it's easy for that to translate into unfair outcomes. A society where police are watching every Capulet but not investigating the Montagues is one where most of the arrests will be of Capulets, regardless of who is actually committing crimes. Therefore, when talking in populations, surveillance approximates punishment and familial surveillance approximates collective punishment of an extended family.

vkou 8y ago

The problem is not for the rapist or killer, the problem is for someone innocent getting matched as one. If you run a 99.99% accurate match against a database with 100,000 people, one of whom is the criminal, you are going to get 10 false positives. If you're one of those false positives, good luck convincing a jury that the 99.99% accurate test is wrong in your case. There's a reason for why general warrants, and most kinds of fishing expeditions are illegal.

tathougies 8y ago
The prosecution has this mans DNA. His relative's DNA likely matched a lot of people. Obviously, they didn't arrest the entire family. It seems likely that they will collect his DNA and attempt to match it to the DNA in his semen. If they get a match, then there is a high likelihood he is the suspect. More likely, though, they will get a full confession. Serial killers often love to explain their work and take a lot of pride in confessing, because they're really messed up people.
- cat199 8y ago
  parent is talking about the false positive cases - not the actual matches..
pfdietz 8y ago
This procedure was used to identify leads, not conclusively prove someone was the killer. For that, they use DNA from the suspect himself. In this case, an man in Oregon was earlier a suspect, but direct DNA comparison ruled him out.

joering2 8y ago

Your statement doesnt make sense. as a male, you are naturally capable of rape.

otakucode 8y ago

There is a chance, admittedly probably not a good one, that my DNA could be in a database associated with a rape or murder. Maybe yours might be as well. When I was in high school, I found a bit of cloth in the woods. No idea where it came from. But it got used to clean up after some coital fun and then discarded (I think in a parking garage?). Who knows where it eventually landed and whether it was taken as concrete physical evidence of my involvement in something? If only not being found guilty of things was as easy as not hurting anyone...

sametmax 8y ago

But a lot of us like freedom and democracy. And given than my grandpa stilll has a number tatooed on his wrist, I really wish people would start taking human database as a threat. The potential for abuse is way too great to be ignored.