5 ms·

Total surveillance or global DNA law enforcement database would solve many murders and prevent wrongful convictions. However, it would also give many opportunit

by 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.
      - carbocation 8y ago
        And in case this sounds implausible, a corrupt lab tech handled 60,000 cases in MA: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-crime-lab-arrested-for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-c...
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - notahacker 8y ago
    There's a case against globally accessible DNA databases from the point of view of dragnet approaches picking up people whose connection to the crime scene is either totally incidental or actually nonexistent and purely down to data mixups, but that's a largely separate issue from authoritarian police trying to massage the evidence in a case against a particular person. If you're already a "convenient suspect" the police wish to build a case against, they don't need to find you on a consumer genetics database to be able to obtain a sample of your DNA or strongly hint that they expect to be able to use DNA evidence (truthfully or otherwise) to send you away for a very long time if you're not willing to consider moving to plea bargaining territory.
- ivalm 8y ago
  Right now you do not have a convenient way to force your target to submit to a DNA test. This way you can frame someone by placing their DNA at the crime scene and then having it "discovered" using DNA testing company data.
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    Because there is a line when framing people never to be crossed ;) come on throw in a shoe print,a witness, fake signature. something extra
- freeflight 8y ago
  > Where does the database come into this? "The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person." [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
  - phs318u 8y ago
    > if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile Oh wow. Really??? Any experts in this field reading this? Would love to hear someone with pertinent authority tell us this isn't true. (Please don't be true)
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      There links in that NY Times article and they look like reasonable sources.
    - hedora 8y ago
      It is simple to do, assuming the police are using genotyping instead of a full genome sequence for the match. (This is the common case today.) Genotyping works as follows: there are thousands of regions of “junk” dna in the human genome that don’t code for anything. There is no evolutionary pressure to preserve the exact length of these regions. (They probably help the chromosomes fold up in ways that encourage/suppress the activity of certain genes, help the molecule be more robust, etc). Since there is no evolutionary pressure to preserve the regions, they tend to be full of hard to copy junk like ATAT..... that tends to change every few generations. Genotyping works by isolating a bunch of these regions, and using PCR to create millions of copies of each region (with ~one sample per region). Finally, you put a drop of the each sample and some die on a electrophoresis gel, and apply some current. Different sized molecules move at different rates, so this gives you a crude measurement of the length of each molecule. To fake a match, all you need to do is produce something that will trick the first step of all this into grabbing molecules of your choice of length, which will fool the rest of the process. If you want to see how that would work, read up on “pcr primers”. Source: I used to work in a genotyping/sequencing lab as a bioinformatician, and worked on algorithms that did exactly this sort of analysis (not the forgery bit though).
- clouddrover 8y ago
  > Surely you would need to place that suspects DNA at the scene Don't underestimate DNA transfer. Your DNA can end up in locations you have never been: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/
- kingkawn 8y ago
  With Pcr you’d only need a very small sample to produce enough DNA to smother a crime scene in “evidence”
djsumdog 8y ago
The UK takes DNA samples of every person arrested. There it's controlled by the government. In the US, it's held privately. Both situations are disturbing.
- phishfi 8y ago
  The US also takes DNA and prints from arrestees and maintains it in a federal database (CODIS for DNA, FBI for prints).
heyjudy 8y ago
Yes, the panopticon is a dangerous ideal. :/ Given enough technological progress, if everyone's DNA were kept in a database, that's a juicy target for any numbers of crimes, misuse, violence, privacy invasion and stalking, i.e., hackers break-in in order to selectively extort rich people with engineered diseases (sounds like a Black Mirror script).
mirimir 8y ago
Same here. However, I have no illusions about stopping any of this. The global panopticon is just too useful for authoritarians. So my solution is to avoid attracting any attention in meatspace. Not doing anything that could generate troublesome records. Such as leaving DNA around. I mean, I certainly leave DNA around, when I go out for stuff. But there's nothing involved that I need to hide. I also make no effort to hide anything that I do online as my meatspace persona. Because that would attract attention. I do use a VPN service, but that's not at all unusual where I live. And I do torrent some, even when I'm not really after anything. Just as cover. Anything potentially troublesome, I do via nested VPN chains and Tor. Mirimir just uses nested VPN chains. But then Mirimir just writes about stuff, so hey.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  > And I do torrent some, even when I'm not really after anything. I’d like to subscribe to your RSS feed of magnet: links.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I typically search TPB for recent action and horror films. Especially new Miike stuff.
- vonseel 8y ago
  This has to be one of the strangest replies I’ve ever read on HN. Off to google the term “meatspace” now.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/meatspace.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/meatspace.html Goes back to the earliest days of online existence, to distinguish the two.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Well, there was the "Meat Puppets", formed in 1980. And then Terry Bisson's "They're Made Out of Meat", published in 1990:[0] > "They're made out of meat." > "Meat?" > "Meat. They're made out of meat." > "Meat?" > "There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." So yeah, it's a term that we old geeks use. Recent usage by John Markoff: > "True Names" by Vernor Vinge (1981): "The basic premise of that was, you had to basically hide your true name at all costs. It was an insight into the world we’re living in today … We have to figure it out. I think we have to go to pseudonymity or something. You’re gonna participate in this networked existence, you have to be connected to meatspace in some way." And yes, we "have to go to pseudonymity or something". If we care about privacy, anyway. 0) http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html 1) http://renaissancechambara.jp/2017/06/14/oprah-time-true-names-by-vernor-vinge/ http://renaissancechambara.jp/2017/06/14/oprah-time-true-nam...
erikpukinskis 8y ago
So, as with all things which can be good or bad depending on use, we allow people to voluntarily choose whether to participate. What’s the problem?
- labster 8y ago
  The problem is the that genetic data discloses PII on other people without their consent. It cannot be a fully voluntary system.
- Quekid5 8y ago
  Lack of truly informed consent
tomonl 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 afraid it could cause wrongful convictions as well. Let's say there is a 1 in a million chance of a false positive, if you have an enormous database there is a large probability of a false positive even though your individual risk is low. As far as I understand DNA evidence is often damaged or incomplete, meaning this could be a serious risk.
dennisgorelik 8y ago
Increase in the ratio of solved crimes will make society less tolerant of wrongful convictions. If ratio of solved crimes is not high enough -- society tolerates wrongful convictions -- because without risking wrongful convictions it is hard to make any convictions at all. Because DNA testing increases the ratio of solved crimes, it decreases the chances of wrongful convictions.

by ptero 8y ago

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.
    - carbocation 8y ago
      And in case this sounds implausible, a corrupt lab tech handled 60,000 cases in MA: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-crime-lab-arrested-for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-c...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- notahacker 8y ago
  There's a case against globally accessible DNA databases from the point of view of dragnet approaches picking up people whose connection to the crime scene is either totally incidental or actually nonexistent and purely down to data mixups, but that's a largely separate issue from authoritarian police trying to massage the evidence in a case against a particular person. If you're already a "convenient suspect" the police wish to build a case against, they don't need to find you on a consumer genetics database to be able to obtain a sample of your DNA or strongly hint that they expect to be able to use DNA evidence (truthfully or otherwise) to send you away for a very long time if you're not willing to consider moving to plea bargaining territory.
ivalm 8y ago
Right now you do not have a convenient way to force your target to submit to a DNA test. This way you can frame someone by placing their DNA at the crime scene and then having it "discovered" using DNA testing company data.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  Because there is a line when framing people never to be crossed ;) come on throw in a shoe print,a witness, fake signature. something extra
freeflight 8y ago
> Where does the database come into this? "The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person." [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
- phs318u 8y ago
  > if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile Oh wow. Really??? Any experts in this field reading this? Would love to hear someone with pertinent authority tell us this isn't true. (Please don't be true)
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    There links in that NY Times article and they look like reasonable sources.
  - hedora 8y ago
    It is simple to do, assuming the police are using genotyping instead of a full genome sequence for the match. (This is the common case today.) Genotyping works as follows: there are thousands of regions of “junk” dna in the human genome that don’t code for anything. There is no evolutionary pressure to preserve the exact length of these regions. (They probably help the chromosomes fold up in ways that encourage/suppress the activity of certain genes, help the molecule be more robust, etc). Since there is no evolutionary pressure to preserve the regions, they tend to be full of hard to copy junk like ATAT..... that tends to change every few generations. Genotyping works by isolating a bunch of these regions, and using PCR to create millions of copies of each region (with ~one sample per region). Finally, you put a drop of the each sample and some die on a electrophoresis gel, and apply some current. Different sized molecules move at different rates, so this gives you a crude measurement of the length of each molecule. To fake a match, all you need to do is produce something that will trick the first step of all this into grabbing molecules of your choice of length, which will fool the rest of the process. If you want to see how that would work, read up on “pcr primers”. Source: I used to work in a genotyping/sequencing lab as a bioinformatician, and worked on algorithms that did exactly this sort of analysis (not the forgery bit though).
clouddrover 8y ago
> Surely you would need to place that suspects DNA at the scene Don't underestimate DNA transfer. Your DNA can end up in locations you have never been: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/
kingkawn 8y ago
With Pcr you’d only need a very small sample to produce enough DNA to smother a crime scene in “evidence”

djsumdog 8y ago

The UK takes DNA samples of every person arrested. There it's controlled by the government. In the US, it's held privately. Both situations are disturbing.

phishfi 8y ago
The US also takes DNA and prints from arrestees and maintains it in a federal database (CODIS for DNA, FBI for prints).

heyjudy 8y ago

Yes, the panopticon is a dangerous ideal. :/ Given enough technological progress, if everyone's DNA were kept in a database, that's a juicy target for any numbers of crimes, misuse, violence, privacy invasion and stalking, i.e., hackers break-in in order to selectively extort rich people with engineered diseases (sounds like a Black Mirror script).

mirimir 8y ago

Same here. However, I have no illusions about stopping any of this. The global panopticon is just too useful for authoritarians. So my solution is to avoid attracting any attention in meatspace. Not doing anything that could generate troublesome records. Such as leaving DNA around. I mean, I certainly leave DNA around, when I go out for stuff. But there's nothing involved that I need to hide. I also make no effort to hide anything that I do online as my meatspace persona. Because that would attract attention. I do use a VPN service, but that's not at all unusual where I live. And I do torrent some, even when I'm not really after anything. Just as cover. Anything potentially troublesome, I do via nested VPN chains and Tor. Mirimir just uses nested VPN chains. But then Mirimir just writes about stuff, so hey.

Scoundreller 8y ago
> And I do torrent some, even when I'm not really after anything. I’d like to subscribe to your RSS feed of magnet: links.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I typically search TPB for recent action and horror films. Especially new Miike stuff.
vonseel 8y ago
This has to be one of the strangest replies I’ve ever read on HN. Off to google the term “meatspace” now.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/meatspace.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/meatspace.html Goes back to the earliest days of online existence, to distinguish the two.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Well, there was the "Meat Puppets", formed in 1980. And then Terry Bisson's "They're Made Out of Meat", published in 1990:[0] > "They're made out of meat." > "Meat?" > "Meat. They're made out of meat." > "Meat?" > "There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." So yeah, it's a term that we old geeks use. Recent usage by John Markoff: > "True Names" by Vernor Vinge (1981): "The basic premise of that was, you had to basically hide your true name at all costs. It was an insight into the world we’re living in today … We have to figure it out. I think we have to go to pseudonymity or something. You’re gonna participate in this networked existence, you have to be connected to meatspace in some way." And yes, we "have to go to pseudonymity or something". If we care about privacy, anyway. 0) http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html 1) http://renaissancechambara.jp/2017/06/14/oprah-time-true-names-by-vernor-vinge/ http://renaissancechambara.jp/2017/06/14/oprah-time-true-nam...

erikpukinskis 8y ago

So, as with all things which can be good or bad depending on use, we allow people to voluntarily choose whether to participate. What’s the problem?

labster 8y ago
The problem is the that genetic data discloses PII on other people without their consent. It cannot be a fully voluntary system.
Quekid5 8y ago
Lack of truly informed consent

tomonl 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 afraid it could cause wrongful convictions as well. Let's say there is a 1 in a million chance of a false positive, if you have an enormous database there is a large probability of a false positive even though your individual risk is low. As far as I understand DNA evidence is often damaged or incomplete, meaning this could be a serious risk.

dennisgorelik 8y ago

Increase in the ratio of solved crimes will make society less tolerant of wrongful convictions. If ratio of solved crimes is not high enough -- society tolerates wrongful convictions -- because without risking wrongful convictions it is hard to make any convictions at all. Because DNA testing increases the ratio of solved crimes, it decreases the chances of wrongful convictions.