8 ms·

Your DNA Is Out There. Do You Want Law Enforcement Using It?

89 points by Jerry2 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The creepiest bit is the GSK story: Where even if I've been careful to not use any genetic testing services, not granted anyone permission to access or use my medical data, etc., I'm still screwed because less privacy-oriented individuals in my family can effectively hand out "close enough" data for my genetic information. Though honestly, DNA is probably the least worst data law enforcement could be using against me. It's reasonably accurate, and it requires they have actual physical evidence in a case they're investigating to compare against. While it's true I could've touched an object shortly before a killer did, it's very far from the dragnet approach of say... querying the identities of all cell phone users in a geographic area at a given time. If my identity pops up in a DNA search, it's reasonable that I will, at the very least, have useful data about the incident at hand. I would like more protection though for search of these sorts of databases though. Searching a DNA database should require a warrant of some kind. For a judge to look at where the DNA was found and the circumstances of the case, and decide it's reasonable and warranted to conduct the search.
- gregmac 8y ago
  It's the combination that really scares me. Your cell phone located you in the area at about the right time, and your "close enough" dna was the only dna found on the murder weapon. Slam dunk case. Don't even really need people to put this evidence together: AI can do it! What can possibly go wrong?
DevX101 8y ago
Not sure if anyone's done this but I specifically put a fake name and email when I submitted my DNA test samples to maintain my privacy as much as possible. I suppose they could track me based on my mailing address, which I didn't spoof, but it's better than nothing.
- Leader2light 8y ago
  Who do you think would track you and for what purpose?
- endymi0n 8y ago
  The scary thing about DNA and all of its future use is that all of your "privacy" measures are completely irrelevant, as the DNA of whoever is genetically related to you and known will easily lead back to you. And the probability of someone in your extended family being registered in a genetic database will closely approach one within the next decade.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Specifically that's how they found a serial rapist. The rapist hadn't submitted his DNA, but enough of his family had.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      I was reading somewhere on a security website that the topsy-turvy thing about that was that the impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime, are the least likely to have DNA on file. (Of course he went on to point out that the poor are only more likely to commit property offenses, and property offenses statistically require less DNA evidence to solve than personal offenses. So it wouldn't matter much in practice.) It was an interesting take on the familial DNA issue with commercial DNA databases.
      - jolmg 8y ago
        > impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime Well if we're going to make overgeneralizations like that, I could guess that the impoverished on average are more honorable than the rich, and less likely to commit crimes. In fact, that honor might even be the cause of their impoverishment. Crime pays and when the richest are so because they're willing to take money from under the table, outright steal it, or "earn" it from selling to addicts, what chance do the people that are trying to earn a living through honest means have? You know there are cemeteries for drug lords where the each tomb is a little mansion? There's also studies where free money was given away to anyone that wanted to take it. Most looked well off and said they wanted it for purse or whatever taking a ton of bills. Homeless on the other hand would just take a few bucks to buy a hotdog or other necesity, too ashamed to take more. There's also videos online of people trying to steal packages (the homeowner set up a camera and trap). All looked well off. They didn't look homeless or sketchy in any way. Some were even driving good cars. Let's not judge people on the amount of money they have.
Leader2light 8y ago
People get so worked up over this stuff, for no good reason. DNA evidence has solved so many crimes and done so much good. I think every single US citizen should have their DNA on file. Period.
palisade 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...
vikingcaffiene 8y ago
I think the ability to solve a criminal act via the technique described is perfectly valid. It's quite ingenious in fact. What GREATLY concerns me is the thought of what happens when one of these companies gets down on their luck and sells all this data to an insurance company. Can you imagine what would happen to your rates and coverage if it comes back that your family has, say, a predisposition towards diabetes or cancer? There needs to be legislation enacted to strictly control how this information gets used. Furthermore an individual should be allowed to control how that information is shared and be able to opt out of any scenarios they are not comfortable with. Law enforcement scenarios could be exempt but tightly regulated to avoid abuse. [edit] - its been pointed out that insurance co's can't do what I am describing (which is awesome btw). I think my point stands about the implications of this data being monetized to our detriment.
- _pmf_ 8y ago
  > What GREATLY concerns me is the thought of what happens when one of these companies gets down on their luck and sells all this data to an insurance company. What reasons are there that a company has to go down on their luck to do this?
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Current US law is that the insurance company can consider age and tobacco use. That's it. Good chance it won't last though.
  - vikingcaffiene 8y ago
    I did not know that. :-) You get what I mean though. This is valuable data that can be exploited.
- sdrothrock 8y ago
  > Can you imagine what would happen to your rates and coverage if it comes back that your family has, say, a predisposition towards diabetes or cancer? There needs to be legislation enacted to strictly control how this information gets used. __Furthermore an individual should be allowed to control how that information is shared and be able to opt out of any scenarios they are not comfortable with.__ Emphasis mine... because I wonder, even if individuals opt into various things, what about their descendants? It's not too hard to imagine a family tree with people opted-in but a descendant who doesn't want their information to be available -- but the general risks/predispositions would be. I haven't seen anyone talking about the issue of privacy with respect to inheritance yet.
stephengillie 8y ago
This article is so FUD that it hurts. Honestly, yes, I want law enforcement to use DNA among other evidence they collect. I do not live in fear that law enforcement is secretly hunting me. If you do, speak to someone about your paranoia. My name and address have been on my public resume and my website WHOIS for over 5 years, and I haven't experienced any negative repercussions whatsoever. I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  DNA is vastly different from your name and address, which many would consider public information. DNA is much more identifying and private.
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    Yes, and? Do you expect police to come to your house because you're a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis? Please state your argument in full. Statements like this are just further FUD.
    - angersock 8y ago
      How would you feel about having a taser in a collar at the base of yours (and everyone's) neck? It only gets turned on by the authorities if they see a crime in progress. It's perfectly harmless otherwise, right? If you're not doing anything wrong, what's to fear? In the case of markers like this, it's pretty easy to correlate by race or other heritable factors criminal behavior. If there's no harm in it, when a crime goes down in an area it seems reasonable to go and just round up all the people with rough genetic markers matching, right? It might even make sense to keep them in groups organized by genetic markers and race, since that should speed up policework dramatically. And later, if you want to procreate with somebody, maybe you should make sure their genotype won't mark your kids for poor treatment by the authorities--after all, accidents _do_ happen, and the labwork is never 100%, so better safe than sorry. Can you see why this makes people antsy?
harimau777 8y ago
I took a course in college where we studied the basic process of DNA amplification. We were just learning at a theoretical level, but from what I understand almost anyone with access to a university biology lab and the associated training could easily create copies of a DNA sample. Doesn't that mean that it would be relatively easy for something like an intelligence organization to frame someone for a crime?
- robinwassen 8y ago
  I guess they could point the suspicion to someone innocent, but I would be surprised if law enforcement didn't validate the DNA before sentencing a crime.
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    The cops have no incentive to run confirmations, for leadership to be re-elected they must appear "tough on crime" or something. There are just no consequences for false positives. In Orlando the police arrested a fellow after a field test indicated that a box of donuts was coated in meth: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-krispy-kreme-glaze-orlando-police-20171012-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-krispy... In North Carolina the police arrested several men after a field test that identified sugar as fentanyl: https://wtkr.com/2018/08/29/2m-worth-of-fentanyl-seized-in-bust-turns-out-to-be-sugar-lab-finds/ https://wtkr.com/2018/08/29/2m-worth-of-fentanyl-seized-in-b... It's well known that that sort of test isn't specific for anything and merely gives law enforcement a pretext to arrest a nogoodnik they deem guilty. Why would anyone trust them to act different with DNA? The police's business is arrests, matches are good for arrests, confirmatory tests are bad for arrests, hence no checks.
    - User23 8y ago
      It's not impossible that it really was fentanyl and some dirty cops stole it.
partycoder 8y ago
Your DNA and fingerprints can also be extracted from your trash.
nickysielicki 8y ago
I'm more concerned about the impact on forensics, how these large banks of information will inevitably leak and compound upon developments in the creation of artificial DNA. DNA evidence is considered infallible within the justice system, should it be? Here's a paper from 2009. [1] Around the same time the paper was published, the author was quoted in a NYT article [2] (again, nearly a decade ago) saying, "“You can just engineer a crime scene, any biology undergraduate could perform this.”" Think about how much this field developed within the past decade. Here [3] is another paper from the end of last year about looking at methylation signatures on DNA to profile the person it belongs to. Imagine the possibility of finding badly degraded DNA at a crime scene and still being able to say, "whoever did this, they have this skin color, they're within this age range, they're a smoker, and they have frequent exposure to this particular industrial chemical." Minority report wasn't imaginative enough. I'm concerned about this being used politically, I think it's possible with enough money and motivation. I think our courts are too addicted to open-and-shut convictions to reevaluate the validity of DNA evidence going forward. [1]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.06.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.06.009 [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html [3]: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1373-1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1373-1
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > our courts are too addicted to open-and-shut convictions to reevaluate the validity of DNA evidence going forward Have you ever served on a jury? These questions are deeply contemplated in selection, presentation and deliberation. If the evidence could have been falsified, a jury neutral to that argument will hear the defense’s case.
  - mchannon 8y ago
    Having had a jury, there are way too many things wrong with that thought to know where to begin. Let's start with jury selection. If a venireman (that's somebody in the jury pool) has anything objectionable known about themselves to either side, one or both sides will strike them. This leaves juries with muppets (in the sense of people who will never themselves make the history books) and the occasional stealth. Juries aren't neutral to anything. The expert the state hires goes up and says, yup, DNA matches. Defendant probably doesn't get an expert even if he's certain he needs one. And that's only if the judge allows it, which is often not the case. Half of the jurors are already pissed off at the defendant because that's how people are- he decided to protest his innocence and now I have to miss a week of work for less than minimum wage. DNA unfortunately is all too often junk science, because in the instances where the forensic lab technician isn't adulterating the tests intentionally, they can be doing so unintentionally. The DNA you're not looking for can often get in the way. This is without Chimerism, and other recently discovered genetic oddities muddying things up further. One need only look at Milgram's experiment to know how most jury trials go.
paulgrant999 8y ago
No. DNA has already been shown to be bogus. Just look up any of the stories of "transfer". And when you're thinking, well what about rape? Consider that there are documented cases of women taking used condoms and shoving semen up their cunts (case was not a rape case; but fertility rights). DNA, doesn't prove shit. You should stop, treating it, like it does. Particularly when countless "law enforcement" labs have been proven to be falsifying evidence.

89 points by Jerry2 8y ago

The creepiest bit is the GSK story: Where even if I've been careful to not use any genetic testing services, not granted anyone permission to access or use my medical data, etc., I'm still screwed because less privacy-oriented individuals in my family can effectively hand out "close enough" data for my genetic information. Though honestly, DNA is probably the least worst data law enforcement could be using against me. It's reasonably accurate, and it requires they have actual physical evidence in a case they're investigating to compare against. While it's true I could've touched an object shortly before a killer did, it's very far from the dragnet approach of say... querying the identities of all cell phone users in a geographic area at a given time. If my identity pops up in a DNA search, it's reasonable that I will, at the very least, have useful data about the incident at hand. I would like more protection though for search of these sorts of databases though. Searching a DNA database should require a warrant of some kind. For a judge to look at where the DNA was found and the circumstances of the case, and decide it's reasonable and warranted to conduct the search.

gregmac 8y ago
It's the combination that really scares me. Your cell phone located you in the area at about the right time, and your "close enough" dna was the only dna found on the murder weapon. Slam dunk case. Don't even really need people to put this evidence together: AI can do it! What can possibly go wrong?

DevX101 8y ago

Not sure if anyone's done this but I specifically put a fake name and email when I submitted my DNA test samples to maintain my privacy as much as possible. I suppose they could track me based on my mailing address, which I didn't spoof, but it's better than nothing.

Leader2light 8y ago
Who do you think would track you and for what purpose?
endymi0n 8y ago
The scary thing about DNA and all of its future use is that all of your "privacy" measures are completely irrelevant, as the DNA of whoever is genetically related to you and known will easily lead back to you. And the probability of someone in your extended family being registered in a genetic database will closely approach one within the next decade.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Specifically that's how they found a serial rapist. The rapist hadn't submitted his DNA, but enough of his family had.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I was reading somewhere on a security website that the topsy-turvy thing about that was that the impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime, are the least likely to have DNA on file. (Of course he went on to point out that the poor are only more likely to commit property offenses, and property offenses statistically require less DNA evidence to solve than personal offenses. So it wouldn't matter much in practice.) It was an interesting take on the familial DNA issue with commercial DNA databases.
    - jolmg 8y ago
      > impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime Well if we're going to make overgeneralizations like that, I could guess that the impoverished on average are more honorable than the rich, and less likely to commit crimes. In fact, that honor might even be the cause of their impoverishment. Crime pays and when the richest are so because they're willing to take money from under the table, outright steal it, or "earn" it from selling to addicts, what chance do the people that are trying to earn a living through honest means have? You know there are cemeteries for drug lords where the each tomb is a little mansion? There's also studies where free money was given away to anyone that wanted to take it. Most looked well off and said they wanted it for purse or whatever taking a ton of bills. Homeless on the other hand would just take a few bucks to buy a hotdog or other necesity, too ashamed to take more. There's also videos online of people trying to steal packages (the homeowner set up a camera and trap). All looked well off. They didn't look homeless or sketchy in any way. Some were even driving good cars. Let's not judge people on the amount of money they have.

Leader2light 8y ago

People get so worked up over this stuff, for no good reason. DNA evidence has solved so many crimes and done so much good. I think every single US citizen should have their DNA on file. Period.

palisade 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...

vikingcaffiene 8y ago

I think the ability to solve a criminal act via the technique described is perfectly valid. It's quite ingenious in fact. What GREATLY concerns me is the thought of what happens when one of these companies gets down on their luck and sells all this data to an insurance company. Can you imagine what would happen to your rates and coverage if it comes back that your family has, say, a predisposition towards diabetes or cancer? There needs to be legislation enacted to strictly control how this information gets used. Furthermore an individual should be allowed to control how that information is shared and be able to opt out of any scenarios they are not comfortable with. Law enforcement scenarios could be exempt but tightly regulated to avoid abuse. [edit] - its been pointed out that insurance co's can't do what I am describing (which is awesome btw). I think my point stands about the implications of this data being monetized to our detriment.

_pmf_ 8y ago
> What GREATLY concerns me is the thought of what happens when one of these companies gets down on their luck and sells all this data to an insurance company. What reasons are there that a company has to go down on their luck to do this?
maxerickson 8y ago
Current US law is that the insurance company can consider age and tobacco use. That's it. Good chance it won't last though.
- vikingcaffiene 8y ago
  I did not know that. :-) You get what I mean though. This is valuable data that can be exploited.
sdrothrock 8y ago
> Can you imagine what would happen to your rates and coverage if it comes back that your family has, say, a predisposition towards diabetes or cancer? There needs to be legislation enacted to strictly control how this information gets used. __Furthermore an individual should be allowed to control how that information is shared and be able to opt out of any scenarios they are not comfortable with.__ Emphasis mine... because I wonder, even if individuals opt into various things, what about their descendants? It's not too hard to imagine a family tree with people opted-in but a descendant who doesn't want their information to be available -- but the general risks/predispositions would be. I haven't seen anyone talking about the issue of privacy with respect to inheritance yet.

stephengillie 8y ago

This article is so FUD that it hurts. Honestly, yes, I want law enforcement to use DNA among other evidence they collect. I do not live in fear that law enforcement is secretly hunting me. If you do, speak to someone about your paranoia. My name and address have been on my public resume and my website WHOIS for over 5 years, and I haven't experienced any negative repercussions whatsoever. I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

saagarjha 8y ago
DNA is vastly different from your name and address, which many would consider public information. DNA is much more identifying and private.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Yes, and? Do you expect police to come to your house because you're a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis? Please state your argument in full. Statements like this are just further FUD.
  - angersock 8y ago
    How would you feel about having a taser in a collar at the base of yours (and everyone's) neck? It only gets turned on by the authorities if they see a crime in progress. It's perfectly harmless otherwise, right? If you're not doing anything wrong, what's to fear? In the case of markers like this, it's pretty easy to correlate by race or other heritable factors criminal behavior. If there's no harm in it, when a crime goes down in an area it seems reasonable to go and just round up all the people with rough genetic markers matching, right? It might even make sense to keep them in groups organized by genetic markers and race, since that should speed up policework dramatically. And later, if you want to procreate with somebody, maybe you should make sure their genotype won't mark your kids for poor treatment by the authorities--after all, accidents _do_ happen, and the labwork is never 100%, so better safe than sorry. Can you see why this makes people antsy?

harimau777 8y ago

I took a course in college where we studied the basic process of DNA amplification. We were just learning at a theoretical level, but from what I understand almost anyone with access to a university biology lab and the associated training could easily create copies of a DNA sample. Doesn't that mean that it would be relatively easy for something like an intelligence organization to frame someone for a crime?

robinwassen 8y ago
I guess they could point the suspicion to someone innocent, but I would be surprised if law enforcement didn't validate the DNA before sentencing a crime.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  The cops have no incentive to run confirmations, for leadership to be re-elected they must appear "tough on crime" or something. There are just no consequences for false positives. In Orlando the police arrested a fellow after a field test indicated that a box of donuts was coated in meth: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-krispy-kreme-glaze-orlando-police-20171012-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-krispy... In North Carolina the police arrested several men after a field test that identified sugar as fentanyl: https://wtkr.com/2018/08/29/2m-worth-of-fentanyl-seized-in-bust-turns-out-to-be-sugar-lab-finds/ https://wtkr.com/2018/08/29/2m-worth-of-fentanyl-seized-in-b... It's well known that that sort of test isn't specific for anything and merely gives law enforcement a pretext to arrest a nogoodnik they deem guilty. Why would anyone trust them to act different with DNA? The police's business is arrests, matches are good for arrests, confirmatory tests are bad for arrests, hence no checks.
  - User23 8y ago
    It's not impossible that it really was fentanyl and some dirty cops stole it.

partycoder 8y ago

Your DNA and fingerprints can also be extracted from your trash.

nickysielicki 8y ago

I'm more concerned about the impact on forensics, how these large banks of information will inevitably leak and compound upon developments in the creation of artificial DNA. DNA evidence is considered infallible within the justice system, should it be? Here's a paper from 2009. [1] Around the same time the paper was published, the author was quoted in a NYT article [2] (again, nearly a decade ago) saying, "“You can just engineer a crime scene, any biology undergraduate could perform this.”" Think about how much this field developed within the past decade. Here [3] is another paper from the end of last year about looking at methylation signatures on DNA to profile the person it belongs to. Imagine the possibility of finding badly degraded DNA at a crime scene and still being able to say, "whoever did this, they have this skin color, they're within this age range, they're a smoker, and they have frequent exposure to this particular industrial chemical." Minority report wasn't imaginative enough. I'm concerned about this being used politically, I think it's possible with enough money and motivation. I think our courts are too addicted to open-and-shut convictions to reevaluate the validity of DNA evidence going forward. [1]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.06.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.06.009 [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html [3]: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1373-1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1373-1

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> our courts are too addicted to open-and-shut convictions to reevaluate the validity of DNA evidence going forward Have you ever served on a jury? These questions are deeply contemplated in selection, presentation and deliberation. If the evidence could have been falsified, a jury neutral to that argument will hear the defense’s case.
- mchannon 8y ago
  Having had a jury, there are way too many things wrong with that thought to know where to begin. Let's start with jury selection. If a venireman (that's somebody in the jury pool) has anything objectionable known about themselves to either side, one or both sides will strike them. This leaves juries with muppets (in the sense of people who will never themselves make the history books) and the occasional stealth. Juries aren't neutral to anything. The expert the state hires goes up and says, yup, DNA matches. Defendant probably doesn't get an expert even if he's certain he needs one. And that's only if the judge allows it, which is often not the case. Half of the jurors are already pissed off at the defendant because that's how people are- he decided to protest his innocence and now I have to miss a week of work for less than minimum wage. DNA unfortunately is all too often junk science, because in the instances where the forensic lab technician isn't adulterating the tests intentionally, they can be doing so unintentionally. The DNA you're not looking for can often get in the way. This is without Chimerism, and other recently discovered genetic oddities muddying things up further. One need only look at Milgram's experiment to know how most jury trials go.

paulgrant999 8y ago

No. DNA has already been shown to be bogus. Just look up any of the stories of "transfer". And when you're thinking, well what about rape? Consider that there are documented cases of women taking used condoms and shoving semen up their cunts (case was not a rape case; but fertility rights). DNA, doesn't prove shit. You should stop, treating it, like it does. Particularly when countless "law enforcement" labs have been proven to be falsifying evidence.