3 ms·

It's crucial to remember that "DNA evidence" does not mean "DNA sequence". It's much less technical than that. Basically, you look at some set of sequences that

It's crucial to remember that "DNA evidence" does not mean "DNA sequence". It's much less technical than that. Basically, you look at some set of sequences that vary a lot among populations and individuals. The choice of sequences, and the total number, varies. And it's generally increased over time. So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot harder. Because you'd need to synthesize (or assemble from some library) the sequence for each chromosome. And that's still a lot harder than doing a complete sequence. For now, anyway.

coldtea 8y ago
>So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot harder. Wouldn't they be as easy as taking some hair from a person and dumping it to the crime scene to be collected? Doesn't even have to be the police, someone wanting to frame them could do it trivially.
- mirimir 8y ago
  True. But they'd need physical access to the target. And actually, back in the day when I mailed cash, that was part of my OPSEC. I had a jar full of dust from public places. Working with disposable gloves, I'd put the cash in a new plastic bag, toss in some public dust, and shake well.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >True. But they'd need physical access to the target. Or to just go (or have someone go) right after them at the hair saloon?
    - mirimir 8y ago
      That's also physical access. My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Or know anyone who does. But if they can obtain $TARGET's DNA test results, they could fabricate evidence.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >That's also physical access. We've already discussing the situation that someone is committing an actual crime for which they want to frame another. Compared to that, getting "physical access" to someone's hair saloon is a trivial part. >My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Why wouldn't they know where $TARGET is? That's the easiest thing to know. That would only be a problem is they wanted to implicate fugitives already on the run or in hiding, or Waldo.

coldtea 8y ago

>So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot harder. Wouldn't they be as easy as taking some hair from a person and dumping it to the crime scene to be collected? Doesn't even have to be the police, someone wanting to frame them could do it trivially.

mirimir 8y ago
True. But they'd need physical access to the target. And actually, back in the day when I mailed cash, that was part of my OPSEC. I had a jar full of dust from public places. Working with disposable gloves, I'd put the cash in a new plastic bag, toss in some public dust, and shake well.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >True. But they'd need physical access to the target. Or to just go (or have someone go) right after them at the hair saloon?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's also physical access. My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Or know anyone who does. But if they can obtain $TARGET's DNA test results, they could fabricate evidence.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >That's also physical access. We've already discussing the situation that someone is committing an actual crime for which they want to frame another. Compared to that, getting "physical access" to someone's hair saloon is a trivial part. >My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Why wouldn't they know where $TARGET is? That's the easiest thing to know. That would only be a problem is they wanted to implicate fugitives already on the run or in hiding, or Waldo.