7 ms·

> and their families That's how a local cold murder case was solved last year. DNA from a 25-year-old crime scene was run against the samples in one of these

> and their families That's how a local cold murder case was solved last year. DNA from a 25-year-old crime scene was run against the samples in one of these genealogy databases, and they found a familial match. Police set up a sting to covertly collect DNA from that person's immediate family. They got their DNA match with a brother's water bottle police took from a trash can after he worked a DJ gig at a school. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/us/christy-mirack-slaying-update-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/us/christy-mirack-slaying-upd... The now-confessed killer was the DJ at my wedding. He never would have been caught if his brother hadn't done one of these genealogy tests. He wasn't even a suspect in the initial investigation.

telchar 8y ago
Indeed. Not that I plan on being involved in any such crimes (necessary disclaimer?) but a family member of mine submitted their DNA to one of these services. Now it's irrelevant whether I submit mine or not because it's as good as in there anyway. Feels real good having your rights signed away by someone else...
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  What rights? Surely if you have rights to your DNA, then your family member has rights to their DNA. It’s just an unfortunate consequence of how DNA works.
  - andrei_says_ 8y ago
    No, it’s an unfortunate consequence of how the dna test provider treats everyone’s data. It’s incredibly empowering for abuse and completely disrespectful to the individual. The assymetry is staggering.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - AuthorizedCust 8y ago
      What if a court compels the analysis or data sharing?
      - drharby 8y ago
        That migrates the issue from business ethics and consumer rights to that of legality.
      - andrei_says_ 8y ago
        The fbi has is own database. Of course having everyone’s dna will help them solve a few (one?) more crimes. At what cost?
  - jhayward 8y ago
    It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Its public use more closely resembles a commons which is shared by many. We don't give individuals the right to pollute air, for instance, simply because they own property that has air on it. Likewise we should develop principles for information which when combined with other information can be used to transgress against 3rd parties' enjoyment of their own privacy.
    - jackhack 8y ago
      >It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Are you kidding? Is there anything else more personal than THE VERY THING THAT DEFINES WHAT YOU ARE AS A PHYSICAL BEING to a level of detail that science may never fully understand it? Other than one's own thoughts, I, personally, cannot think of something more personal. Conflating this with air pollution is simply nonsensical.
      - interestica 8y ago
        Is there anything quite as shared as DNA? You share 99.xxx percent with everyone else. You share a significant portion with other species. Other living things.
        interestica 8y ago
        Also, we can't conflate DNA and one's specific DNA sequence. It's like the majority of the code is GPL.
        pvaldes 8y ago
        > Is there anything quite as shared as DNA? Music for example. The same poool of musical notes in 100% of compositions. Just arranged in different ways, like DNA
        ekianjo 8y ago
        Completely wrong analogy. Most genes sequences are completely identical between humans. The differences in genes for specific traits are marginal, percentage wise.
ptero 8y ago
Total surveillance or global DNA law enforcement database would solve many murders and prevent wrongful convictions. However, it would also give many opportunities for framing convenient suspects and "encouraging" confessions. I am sure your case was above board but, being born in a totalitarian state, I do not trust law enforcement too much and prefer to err on the side of not solving some crimes. My 2c.
- JoeSmithson 8y ago
  How would it let you frame convenient suspects? Surely you would need to place that suspects DNA at the scene, in which case you already have it...? Where does the database come into this?
  - csallen 8y ago
    Just because the government finds your DNA at the crime scene doesn't mean they know it's yours. They have to match it against some sort of database that connects the DNA to your identity.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      With enough corruption, they might also "find" it on the crime scene.
      - politician 8y ago
        Exactly, while DNA may identify an individual with high precision, we have to trust that that DNA was actually associated with the location or event. Consider a public bathroom: how much DNA is at that location? How much is relevant to the event? Consider a corrupt lab tech: The DNA at the event might be reported as DNA from their database. Does a defense attorney get to see the untainted sample? Consider a corrupt/hacked DNA database: The database might report that the DNA belongs to one individual when it actually doesn't. Does a defense attorney even get to see the source code? In these scenarios, the link to any individual is either of little consequence, or fraudulent.
dacox 8y ago
They just solved the murder of a child near my house using a technique like this. My understanding is they asked everyone they could find in a specific ethnic community if they would volunteer a sample for a kind of dna dragnet. The killer was related to one of the many people sampled.
- mkl 8y ago
  If the DNA was gathered for one specific purpose like this and not kept on file, I think that's pretty unobjectionable. As soon as it's on file in a database, though, there's potential for uses further and further removed from those envisioned by the owners when they gave the samples.
hinkley 8y ago
That's wonderful if the crime is something clear-cut like murder. We can generally all agree that it is unethical and worthy of punishment. What if it's something we can't quite agree on, or tyranny of the majority? Joe McCarthy happened once, and he didn't give a shit about ex post facto. Presuming someone like him will never come along again is a road to pain and suffering. Spend ten minutes reading about what Crypto-Judaism is and why it is even a thing. Then look at abuse of power (I've known 2 people who have had LEOs as stalkers). A big part of warrant law is the premise that you don't give people information they don't need 'just because'. Very similar to the computing concept of Principle of Least Power. They prove they need it, you give it to them, but not a moment before, because who knows what they'll get up to.
- frutiger 8y ago
  > I've known 2 people who have had LEOs as stalkers What's an LEO? My first thought is Low Earth Orbit, but obviously that's not right. Googling "leo" and "leo stalker" doesn't bring up much apart from horoscopes.
  - morgancmartin 8y ago
    Law Enforcement Officer
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Now you can refuse to support prosecution against family, but your DNA can't.
ralfd 8y ago
> The now-confessed killer was the DJ at my wedding. That is a bit morbid.

telchar 8y ago

Indeed. Not that I plan on being involved in any such crimes (necessary disclaimer?) but a family member of mine submitted their DNA to one of these services. Now it's irrelevant whether I submit mine or not because it's as good as in there anyway. Feels real good having your rights signed away by someone else...

lotsofpulp 8y ago
What rights? Surely if you have rights to your DNA, then your family member has rights to their DNA. It’s just an unfortunate consequence of how DNA works.
- andrei_says_ 8y ago
  No, it’s an unfortunate consequence of how the dna test provider treats everyone’s data. It’s incredibly empowering for abuse and completely disrespectful to the individual. The assymetry is staggering.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AuthorizedCust 8y ago
    What if a court compels the analysis or data sharing?
    - drharby 8y ago
      That migrates the issue from business ethics and consumer rights to that of legality.
    - andrei_says_ 8y ago
      The fbi has is own database. Of course having everyone’s dna will help them solve a few (one?) more crimes. At what cost?
- jhayward 8y ago
  It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Its public use more closely resembles a commons which is shared by many. We don't give individuals the right to pollute air, for instance, simply because they own property that has air on it. Likewise we should develop principles for information which when combined with other information can be used to transgress against 3rd parties' enjoyment of their own privacy.
  - jackhack 8y ago
    >It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Are you kidding? Is there anything else more personal than THE VERY THING THAT DEFINES WHAT YOU ARE AS A PHYSICAL BEING to a level of detail that science may never fully understand it? Other than one's own thoughts, I, personally, cannot think of something more personal. Conflating this with air pollution is simply nonsensical.
    - interestica 8y ago
      Is there anything quite as shared as DNA? You share 99.xxx percent with everyone else. You share a significant portion with other species. Other living things.
      - interestica 8y ago
        Also, we can't conflate DNA and one's specific DNA sequence. It's like the majority of the code is GPL.
      - pvaldes 8y ago
        > Is there anything quite as shared as DNA? Music for example. The same poool of musical notes in 100% of compositions. Just arranged in different ways, like DNA
        ekianjo 8y ago
        Completely wrong analogy. Most genes sequences are completely identical between humans. The differences in genes for specific traits are marginal, percentage wise.

ptero 8y ago

Total surveillance or global DNA law enforcement database would solve many murders and prevent wrongful convictions. However, it would also give many opportunities for framing convenient suspects and "encouraging" confessions. I am sure your case was above board but, being born in a totalitarian state, I do not trust law enforcement too much and prefer to err on the side of not solving some crimes. My 2c.

JoeSmithson 8y ago
How would it let you frame convenient suspects? Surely you would need to place that suspects DNA at the scene, in which case you already have it...? Where does the database come into this?
- csallen 8y ago
  Just because the government finds your DNA at the crime scene doesn't mean they know it's yours. They have to match it against some sort of database that connects the DNA to your identity.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    With enough corruption, they might also "find" it on the crime scene.
    - politician 8y ago
      Exactly, while DNA may identify an individual with high precision, we have to trust that that DNA was actually associated with the location or event. Consider a public bathroom: how much DNA is at that location? How much is relevant to the event? Consider a corrupt lab tech: The DNA at the event might be reported as DNA from their database. Does a defense attorney get to see the untainted sample? Consider a corrupt/hacked DNA database: The database might report that the DNA belongs to one individual when it actually doesn't. Does a defense attorney even get to see the source code? In these scenarios, the link to any individual is either of little consequence, or fraudulent.

dacox 8y ago

They just solved the murder of a child near my house using a technique like this. My understanding is they asked everyone they could find in a specific ethnic community if they would volunteer a sample for a kind of dna dragnet. The killer was related to one of the many people sampled.

mkl 8y ago
If the DNA was gathered for one specific purpose like this and not kept on file, I think that's pretty unobjectionable. As soon as it's on file in a database, though, there's potential for uses further and further removed from those envisioned by the owners when they gave the samples.

hinkley 8y ago

That's wonderful if the crime is something clear-cut like murder. We can generally all agree that it is unethical and worthy of punishment. What if it's something we can't quite agree on, or tyranny of the majority? Joe McCarthy happened once, and he didn't give a shit about ex post facto. Presuming someone like him will never come along again is a road to pain and suffering. Spend ten minutes reading about what Crypto-Judaism is and why it is even a thing. Then look at abuse of power (I've known 2 people who have had LEOs as stalkers). A big part of warrant law is the premise that you don't give people information they don't need 'just because'. Very similar to the computing concept of Principle of Least Power. They prove they need it, you give it to them, but not a moment before, because who knows what they'll get up to.

frutiger 8y ago
> I've known 2 people who have had LEOs as stalkers What's an LEO? My first thought is Low Earth Orbit, but obviously that's not right. Googling "leo" and "leo stalker" doesn't bring up much apart from horoscopes.
- morgancmartin 8y ago
  Law Enforcement Officer

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

Now you can refuse to support prosecution against family, but your DNA can't.

ralfd 8y ago

> The now-confessed killer was the DJ at my wedding. That is a bit morbid.