9 ms·

I am torn on this, as on the one hand it does violate privacy to a very large degree and provide massive power to the government. Things I am very much against.

I am torn on this, as on the one hand it does violate privacy to a very large degree and provide massive power to the government. Things I am very much against. On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits as opposed to the contents of their mind such as forcing someone to unlock a phone which I am very against. Assuming DNA technology is advanced enough to provide few false positives (which I am not sure it is) and prosecution is based on additional concrete evidence as well I think I am fine with this. I am not ok with this being accepted as all that is needed to bring charges but as a means to narrow the suspect pool. If the company did not disclose this in massive font to potential customers ahead of time, then I do think this company should very quickly go out of business. The slippery slope though is a near Gattaca situation where now law enforcement and government can screen people for genetics flaws and make hiring decisions etc. based on them. Private companies should absolutely have no access to this data unless it is for scientific research and highly anonymized and customers have agreed to allow it.

kokokokoko 8y ago
I think if anything it points to the fallacy that not allowing the government to collect this type of data, but allowing corporations to collect it, ends up with the same result as allowing the government to collect this data itself. All we've really accomplished is making things cheaper for the government as the private sector is footing the bill for collection and storage.
- ianai 8y ago
  Put differently,corporations exist to put prices on things. Corporations are clearly minting products from peoples DNA samples. They probably can’t deny sales to governments.
23487t398o 8y ago
> potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits Western civilization requires warrants supported by probable cause, because history has proved the hard way that those are not the kind of people the state would be identifying if left to its own devices.
- shostack 8y ago
  Forgot to add "for now." The risk with this sort of thing is you never know which way the political winds will blow. Case in point, I thought we progressed to the point where concentration camps were inconceivable in America given our past history with them nationally and internationally. And yet here we are.
bayouborne 8y ago
re: "..essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits" Perhaps today at 3:00 EST it may helping law enforcement identify violent criminals, but tomorrow it may be helping other gov't entities directly (or indirectly via familial) identify individuals for any reason at all.
twoquestions 8y ago
`law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals` Go ahead and replace "law enforcement" with political group you don't like, and "violent criminals" for a group you do.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  I don't get it. What political groups rely heavily on not being identified? Most political groups have leaders whose identity is public knowledge.
  - jahabrewer 8y ago
    > What political groups rely heavily on not being identified? Resistances, opposition groups in some environments, etc.
  - throwaway66666 8y ago
    It means you will be unidentified by political groups. EG let's say a right wing goverment in France finding all the gypsies in Paris. Or a life insurance corporation seeing that you have predisposition for heart disease, and refusing to provide services to you.
    - usaphp 8y ago
      > Or a life insurance corporation seeing that you have predisposition for heart disease, and refusing to provide services to you. I don't get your example. It's a private company and has a right to decide what risks it should take...Unless there is a government control over life insurance rules - why would an insurance company risk losing money? It's the same as charging an 80 year old man higher premium than a 20 year old.
      - AllegedAlec 8y ago
        Because perfect information makes insurances useless. Insurances work because we know that most people have roughly the same chance, plus or minus a bit, to get royally fucked in life by disease, acts of God, human maliciousness and all that. That means that when someone gets the rough end of the stick, the entire group helps to pay to keep them on their feet. If we have perfect (or near-perfect) knowledge, what would insurers do? Well, they'd charge you for exactly how much you're going to cost, plus some administrative costs, plus some extra. At that point, everyone's better off not having insurance.
OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago
This part is concerning though: "Under the arrangement, the company has also agreed to test DNA evidence for the FBI in its private laboratory." I hope the FBI will corroborate whatever results the private company comes up with later and just use the data to narrow down the suspects.
- Jach 8y ago
  That's likely how it will play out, DNA evidence is a lot shakier these days since it's better known that DNA can go places the owner has never been. The transition point where juries don't know that though will be a bit scary, no one wants to be falsely implicated (like [0]) because they touched a handle on a bus and later the actual criminal touched it too. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    >DNA can go places the owner has never been Damn right it can. I was on a business trip alone and found some of my wife’s hair in my bed. I know it was hers because there was some more on a jacket in my luggage. I know testing hair isn’t exactly straight forward, but that was her DNA in a country she’s never even been to.
- lozaning 8y ago
  Im sure they can just send the samples to Target for double checking like they've done for years. https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-career-target-forensic-services-labo https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-c...
ribosometronome 8y ago
>If the company did not disclose this in massive font to potential customers ahead of time, then I do think this company should very quickly go out of business. Disclose what? The point of most of these services is that you are adding yourself to a searchable database where you can find relations. The FBI seems to be using the service for the explicit reason it exists. I'm very uncomfortable with the thought that one of these services could hand over specific DNA information to groups that could be used to profile you (employers, insurance, etc) but this use case really shouldn't come as surprising. It seems like complaining that the FBI found you by searching for your name on Facebook.
- shawnz 8y ago
  23andMe, for example, only shows your information to people that it identifies as being related to you (typically ~1000 people). And that's only if you have open sharing turned on -- otherwise they need to send you a request. That's quite different from just sharing your information with anyone who searches for it.
- tomsthumb 8y ago
  There’s a meaningful difference between the government getting a warrant to look for a specific person’s DNA and searching everyone’s DNA to see if it’s a match. Why should the government get to digitally “stop and frisk” three hundred thousand people because they have a hair sample from a murder scene?
  - guntars 8y ago
    You talk about meaningful differences, but then lump a search in a database with stop and frisk. Either everyone is allowed to use hyperbole or no one is - you can’t have it both ways.
    - tomsthumb 8y ago
      Do you understand the difference between searching an individual you know had committed a crime and searching pool of people that might contain an individual? No hyperbole needed, and only one way is present :)
EliRivers 8y ago
It also makes it possible to screen for people with various ancestries. In the future, it will be easier to identify the target du jour for rounding up.
shkkmo 8y ago
> On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits as opposed to the contents of their mind such as forcing someone to unlock a phone which I am very against. That is far from all it does. We have had massive historic and ongoing issues with the correct presentation and interpretation of forensic evidence by experts. There are a number of potential issues that can arise, but the deepest issue is a gradual shifting of the burden of proof onto defendants. "Perhaps the greatest concern in all this debate, has been the subtle shift in the burden of proof resulting from misunderstanding or misuse of streamlined DNA profile match reports; with assumptions made and inferences asserted that a DNA match could only have resulted from the allegations, unless or until a defendant can demonstrate otherwise." https://keithborer.co.uk/news/dna-profile-matches-their-use-and-misuse https://keithborer.co.uk/news/dna-profile-matches-their-use-...
WalterBright 8y ago
Let's say the government was able to perfectly connect every person who commits a crime with that crime. Combine that against the reality that everyone commits 3 felonies a day. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438... That's the perfect tool for oppression. Do you really want the government to be too good at solving crimes?
- koolba 8y ago
  Don’t forget to mention selective enforcement. That’s the real key to “monetizing” the pantopicon.
- patejam 8y ago
  3 felonies a day is a lie. The fact that there's a book with that title doesn't mean it's reality. Your point is a decent one, no need to exaggerate.
  - simple_phrases 8y ago
    > 3 felonies a day is a lie This is a compelling argument.
- lupire 8y ago
  The FBI is never going to arrest people for the felony of improper paperwork on their crawfish fishing business based on their DNA.
laken 8y ago
The problem with using DNA to identify someone in crime is that we leave DNA everywhere. See this case for example: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/
- tbyehl 8y ago
  Came here to mention that same article. The more important point, to my view, is that the DNA we shed doesn't necessarily stay put. DNA transference, law enforcement access to large DNA databases, familial matching, and advances in extracting DNA from trace samples make for a scary combination. Lukis Anderson was damned lucky that the person who inadvertently transferred his DNA to a crime scene could be identified.
  - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
    Reading that article and the studies it cites makes me lose all faith in DNA evidence. It seems anyone can be carrying anyone else’s DNA at any given time. What’s the point of considering it as evidence?
- kenjackson 8y ago
  It's evidence. I can point you to tons of cases of eye witnesses providing faulty testimony (in good faith, not to mention those who lie). Is there an oracle that will tell you who committed the crime? No. But it seems odd to be OK with some forms of evidence that are even more unreliable than this, if your issue is about reliability.
dgzl 8y ago
> On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify People who support government's ability to violate our rights always seem to think that the government will never use it in bad faith... And then they act surprised when their rights are gone.
matwood 8y ago
> Assuming DNA technology is advanced enough to provide few false positives (which I am not sure it is) and prosecution is based on additional concrete evidence as well I think I am fine with this. The problem is that we have learned that so much forensic science is just flat out not scientific. DNA has many issues depending on the type of matching done and the samples gathered. It's scary that DNA has become such a slam dunk in cases, because it makes framing someone for a crime incredibly easy.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  Just to be more clear, the problem is that if they don't find a perfect match (that ensures a low number of false positives) then they will try a partial match, and if I]that fails a somewhat match, but then the expert will claim that there is still a very low probability of false positives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Issues_with_forensic_DNA_samples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Issues_with_fore...
avip 8y ago
I'd happily put my DNA on public record if it promotes scientific research. I honestly don't understand the privacy concerns here for the lawful citizen.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  Place; Amsterdam. Date; 27th of March, 1943. Objective; destroy the records identifying the 70000 Jewish people living in Amsterdam. They were lawful citizens too. The law was to identify them and ship them out. Do you understand their privacy concerns? Can you promise that this won't happen again? Can you assure us that no future group will use the records for this sort of thing? I believe it will happen again. I believe it can happen here. I'm not keen on making it easier for them.
mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
Problem is private companies do and will have access to this data and will one day do the worst imaginable thing we don’t want them doing. There is really no way forward with this. Even is legally limited to law enforcement, the data will get hacked, leaked, abused. It’s just a matter of time.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
Question: would policing in the US be easier without the 4th amendment? Would it matter if the answer was yes?
downrightmike 8y ago
"can screen people for genetics flaws and make hiring decisions etc. based on them" Don't worry, by time we can accurately do this screening, the large push to automation will have already rendered most people unemployable.

kokokokoko 8y ago

I think if anything it points to the fallacy that not allowing the government to collect this type of data, but allowing corporations to collect it, ends up with the same result as allowing the government to collect this data itself. All we've really accomplished is making things cheaper for the government as the private sector is footing the bill for collection and storage.

ianai 8y ago
Put differently,corporations exist to put prices on things. Corporations are clearly minting products from peoples DNA samples. They probably can’t deny sales to governments.

23487t398o 8y ago

> potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits Western civilization requires warrants supported by probable cause, because history has proved the hard way that those are not the kind of people the state would be identifying if left to its own devices.

shostack 8y ago
Forgot to add "for now." The risk with this sort of thing is you never know which way the political winds will blow. Case in point, I thought we progressed to the point where concentration camps were inconceivable in America given our past history with them nationally and internationally. And yet here we are.

bayouborne 8y ago

re: "..essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits" Perhaps today at 3:00 EST it may helping law enforcement identify violent criminals, but tomorrow it may be helping other gov't entities directly (or indirectly via familial) identify individuals for any reason at all.

twoquestions 8y ago

`law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals` Go ahead and replace "law enforcement" with political group you don't like, and "violent criminals" for a group you do.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
I don't get it. What political groups rely heavily on not being identified? Most political groups have leaders whose identity is public knowledge.
- jahabrewer 8y ago
  > What political groups rely heavily on not being identified? Resistances, opposition groups in some environments, etc.
- throwaway66666 8y ago
  It means you will be unidentified by political groups. EG let's say a right wing goverment in France finding all the gypsies in Paris. Or a life insurance corporation seeing that you have predisposition for heart disease, and refusing to provide services to you.
  - usaphp 8y ago
    > Or a life insurance corporation seeing that you have predisposition for heart disease, and refusing to provide services to you. I don't get your example. It's a private company and has a right to decide what risks it should take...Unless there is a government control over life insurance rules - why would an insurance company risk losing money? It's the same as charging an 80 year old man higher premium than a 20 year old.
    - AllegedAlec 8y ago
      Because perfect information makes insurances useless. Insurances work because we know that most people have roughly the same chance, plus or minus a bit, to get royally fucked in life by disease, acts of God, human maliciousness and all that. That means that when someone gets the rough end of the stick, the entire group helps to pay to keep them on their feet. If we have perfect (or near-perfect) knowledge, what would insurers do? Well, they'd charge you for exactly how much you're going to cost, plus some administrative costs, plus some extra. At that point, everyone's better off not having insurance.

OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago

This part is concerning though: "Under the arrangement, the company has also agreed to test DNA evidence for the FBI in its private laboratory." I hope the FBI will corroborate whatever results the private company comes up with later and just use the data to narrow down the suspects.

Jach 8y ago
That's likely how it will play out, DNA evidence is a lot shakier these days since it's better known that DNA can go places the owner has never been. The transition point where juries don't know that though will be a bit scary, no one wants to be falsely implicated (like [0]) because they touched a handle on a bus and later the actual criminal touched it too. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  >DNA can go places the owner has never been Damn right it can. I was on a business trip alone and found some of my wife’s hair in my bed. I know it was hers because there was some more on a jacket in my luggage. I know testing hair isn’t exactly straight forward, but that was her DNA in a country she’s never even been to.
lozaning 8y ago
Im sure they can just send the samples to Target for double checking like they've done for years. https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-career-target-forensic-services-labo https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-c...

ribosometronome 8y ago

>If the company did not disclose this in massive font to potential customers ahead of time, then I do think this company should very quickly go out of business. Disclose what? The point of most of these services is that you are adding yourself to a searchable database where you can find relations. The FBI seems to be using the service for the explicit reason it exists. I'm very uncomfortable with the thought that one of these services could hand over specific DNA information to groups that could be used to profile you (employers, insurance, etc) but this use case really shouldn't come as surprising. It seems like complaining that the FBI found you by searching for your name on Facebook.

shawnz 8y ago
23andMe, for example, only shows your information to people that it identifies as being related to you (typically ~1000 people). And that's only if you have open sharing turned on -- otherwise they need to send you a request. That's quite different from just sharing your information with anyone who searches for it.
tomsthumb 8y ago
There’s a meaningful difference between the government getting a warrant to look for a specific person’s DNA and searching everyone’s DNA to see if it’s a match. Why should the government get to digitally “stop and frisk” three hundred thousand people because they have a hair sample from a murder scene?
- guntars 8y ago
  You talk about meaningful differences, but then lump a search in a database with stop and frisk. Either everyone is allowed to use hyperbole or no one is - you can’t have it both ways.
  - tomsthumb 8y ago
    Do you understand the difference between searching an individual you know had committed a crime and searching pool of people that might contain an individual? No hyperbole needed, and only one way is present :)

EliRivers 8y ago

It also makes it possible to screen for people with various ancestries. In the future, it will be easier to identify the target du jour for rounding up.

shkkmo 8y ago

> On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits as opposed to the contents of their mind such as forcing someone to unlock a phone which I am very against. That is far from all it does. We have had massive historic and ongoing issues with the correct presentation and interpretation of forensic evidence by experts. There are a number of potential issues that can arise, but the deepest issue is a gradual shifting of the burden of proof onto defendants. "Perhaps the greatest concern in all this debate, has been the subtle shift in the burden of proof resulting from misunderstanding or misuse of streamlined DNA profile match reports; with assumptions made and inferences asserted that a DNA match could only have resulted from the allegations, unless or until a defendant can demonstrate otherwise." https://keithborer.co.uk/news/dna-profile-matches-their-use-and-misuse https://keithborer.co.uk/news/dna-profile-matches-their-use-...

WalterBright 8y ago

Let's say the government was able to perfectly connect every person who commits a crime with that crime. Combine that against the reality that everyone commits 3 felonies a day. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438... That's the perfect tool for oppression. Do you really want the government to be too good at solving crimes?

koolba 8y ago
Don’t forget to mention selective enforcement. That’s the real key to “monetizing” the pantopicon.
patejam 8y ago
3 felonies a day is a lie. The fact that there's a book with that title doesn't mean it's reality. Your point is a decent one, no need to exaggerate.
- simple_phrases 8y ago
  > 3 felonies a day is a lie This is a compelling argument.
lupire 8y ago
The FBI is never going to arrest people for the felony of improper paperwork on their crawfish fishing business based on their DNA.

laken 8y ago

The problem with using DNA to identify someone in crime is that we leave DNA everywhere. See this case for example: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/

tbyehl 8y ago
Came here to mention that same article. The more important point, to my view, is that the DNA we shed doesn't necessarily stay put. DNA transference, law enforcement access to large DNA databases, familial matching, and advances in extracting DNA from trace samples make for a scary combination. Lukis Anderson was damned lucky that the person who inadvertently transferred his DNA to a crime scene could be identified.
- mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  Reading that article and the studies it cites makes me lose all faith in DNA evidence. It seems anyone can be carrying anyone else’s DNA at any given time. What’s the point of considering it as evidence?
kenjackson 8y ago
It's evidence. I can point you to tons of cases of eye witnesses providing faulty testimony (in good faith, not to mention those who lie). Is there an oracle that will tell you who committed the crime? No. But it seems odd to be OK with some forms of evidence that are even more unreliable than this, if your issue is about reliability.

dgzl 8y ago

> On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify People who support government's ability to violate our rights always seem to think that the government will never use it in bad faith... And then they act surprised when their rights are gone.

matwood 8y ago

> Assuming DNA technology is advanced enough to provide few false positives (which I am not sure it is) and prosecution is based on additional concrete evidence as well I think I am fine with this. The problem is that we have learned that so much forensic science is just flat out not scientific. DNA has many issues depending on the type of matching done and the samples gathered. It's scary that DNA has become such a slam dunk in cases, because it makes framing someone for a crime incredibly easy.

gus_massa 8y ago
Just to be more clear, the problem is that if they don't find a perfect match (that ensures a low number of false positives) then they will try a partial match, and if I]that fails a somewhat match, but then the expert will claim that there is still a very low probability of false positives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Issues_with_forensic_DNA_samples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Issues_with_fore...

avip 8y ago

I'd happily put my DNA on public record if it promotes scientific research. I honestly don't understand the privacy concerns here for the lawful citizen.

EliRivers 8y ago
Place; Amsterdam. Date; 27th of March, 1943. Objective; destroy the records identifying the 70000 Jewish people living in Amsterdam. They were lawful citizens too. The law was to identify them and ship them out. Do you understand their privacy concerns? Can you promise that this won't happen again? Can you assure us that no future group will use the records for this sort of thing? I believe it will happen again. I believe it can happen here. I'm not keen on making it easier for them.

mrhappyunhappy 8y ago

Problem is private companies do and will have access to this data and will one day do the worst imaginable thing we don’t want them doing. There is really no way forward with this. Even is legally limited to law enforcement, the data will get hacked, leaked, abused. It’s just a matter of time.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

Question: would policing in the US be easier without the 4th amendment? Would it matter if the answer was yes?

downrightmike 8y ago

"can screen people for genetics flaws and make hiring decisions etc. based on them" Don't worry, by time we can accurately do this screening, the large push to automation will have already rendered most people unemployable.