7 ms·

As distasteful as it might be, you have to draw the line somewhere. Warrantless searches of every home and vehicle in the country would probably solve a lot of

As distasteful as it might be, you have to draw the line somewhere. Warrantless searches of every home and vehicle in the country would probably solve a lot of crimes too. Do you want to shred the USC to make that happen?

astura 7y ago
The database that police use is GEDMatch, it's an opt-in database run by volunteers that people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA. GEDMatch doesn't even do the DNA testing themselves.
- rhizome 7y ago
  There has been quite a bit of thought and writing about "you made your choice, now we choose the consequences" over the years, though, admittedly, few probably predicted the stacking of new consequences upon those previously assessed. Well, outside of the Black Mirror writer's room, anyway.
  - astura 7y ago
    Okay... So if they decide not to be findable by DNA anymore they can just go delete their info from GEDMatch. https://www.gedmatch.com/tos.htm https://www.gedmatch.com/tos.htm >You understand that future genealogical and non-genealogical uses may be developed, including uses that GEDmatch cannot predict or foresee. If you find any of these current or future uses unacceptable, do not provide Raw Data to GEDmatch, and remove any of your Raw Data already provided to this Site. I fail to see what this has to do with suspending the US Constitution.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      f you find any of these current or future uses unacceptable, do not provide Raw Data to GEDmatch Hah, this reminds me of those drug commercials with disclaimers not to take the drug being advertised if you're allergic to the drug being advertised.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      It's more like--- compromises made about privacy and legality based on present technology don't always look so good carried forward. Most of our rules about what police can do to gather evidence is based on 19th century America. So we came up with compromises like... If a suspect is holding a piece of documentation personally, a search warrant is required; but if a business holds the records, a subpoena is enough. But suddenly almost all of our correspondence, personal photos, etc, is in cloud providers' hands, and ditto for basically all of our financial transactions. The rules stayed the same, but as the world changed privacy evaporated. Or, the police can record where anyone out in public is going. Because they can hardly follow everyone, right? There's an inherent bound on that power. But then you get things like license plate cameras and facial recognition recording the movement of nearly all humans. Effectively, the police became much more powerful compared to the past with no changes in laws to do it.
    - Vrondi 7y ago
      The problem is that if your sibling or cousin submits DNA to GEDmatch, they've in effect submitted the entire extended family's DNA. You cannot go take down the DNA your cousin submitted to GEDmatch, even though it affects your privacy. You cannot even take down the DNA your identical twin submitted to GEDmatch, even though it really is the _same_ as yours. The laws simply have not yet caught up to the new tech.
- smnrchrds 7y ago
  > people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA They are not making just themselves findable by DNA. They are making their extended family findable by DNA, and I don't imagine they have gotten the whole family's consent before doing so.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Why would you need your family's consent to submit your DNA? The law doesn't work like that, just because they info can be used against someone else. I can post on Facebook that I was with you at a certain time and a certain place; I don't need your permission even though law enforcement might use that to find you. Or if I post a picture of us at a baseball game, I don't need your permission just because it could be used to find out you were somewhere.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Analogies break down here - this isn't even remotely comparable to posting on Facebook.
    - Tepix 7y ago
      Because it affects them
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        A lot of things effect other people, doesn't mean you need their permission. If I thought a relative of mine was a criminal, and went to the police, and said "I think my cousin committed a crime, check my blood" Would that be ok?
        vkou 7y ago
        Depends on the culture. Some suffer from strong taboos against snitching on family members. Some suffer from an overabundance of civic duty.
    - 7y ago
- paulmd 7y ago
  Federal evidentiary standards are that any data you provide to a third party for commercial purposes forfeits a presumption of privacy, and can be accessed with an administrative subpoena (not even a warrant). Same thing they use to dragnet cellphone records. Anything you (or your relatives) submit to, let's say, 23andme, is fair game and you should assume the feds have it and can search it.
- shawnz 7y ago
  > people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA. It's for the sole purpose of being findable by people with similar DNA to you. Its purpose is not to allow anyone to look you up by your DNA like you are implying here.
- technofiend 7y ago
  And family tree dna since the owner kindly consented to assist law enforcement without asking his customers first. This is a patent misuse of data shared only to benefit customers in their genealogy searches, not law enforcement. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-tree-dna-sharing-genetic-data-police-privacy https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-tree-dna-sharing-...
- vageli 7y ago
  > The database that police use is GEDMatch, it's an opt-in database run by volunteers that people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA. Law enforcement also uses CODIS and your profile is not deletable there (unless your comment was narrowly tailored to the specifics of this article, in which case my comment is a non sequitur).
Kiro 7y ago
Yes, and I think that line is between this and warrantless searches. That's just my opinion though but I don't see what's so controversial about that.
Zenst 7y ago
The flip-side would be that we allow crimes to go unpunished to protect civil liberties and yet erode civil liberties by allowing crime to be perpetuated. It's a fine line and from personal experience - can be more devastating when criminals can abuse and game the system to use such liberties to evade capture and punishment. Alas I can not elaborate as ongoing, but dam. Criminals sure know how to play the system better than the system I have found out the hard way.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  The flip sides are not equal. The government has far more capacity for harm than criminals do, and there are other levers for reducing crime than destroying civil liberties anyway.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Imagine having hard evidence against a criminal and that evidence can not be used as it would violate the criminals civil liberties and that same criminal has used this approach to destroy an entire neighborhood, and destroyed peoples livelihoods, well-being.... Maybe it's just a minority edge-case, and I'm just looking at it from personal experience edge-case - the flip-side. Sorry, I just wished I could elaborate, but I may end-up violating a heroin/crack dealers civil rights :cry:.
    - NCWV 7y ago
      People chose to buy drugs from the man you're referencing. He isn't out making sales calls. Dealers are people too and they're mostly just trying to survive.
    - ch4s3 7y ago
      This is straight up FUD. Any case where someone is a menace to a whole neighborhood over a period of time could clearly be solved within the bounds of constitutional law with conventional policing. Commercial DNA databanks are a problem for a lot of reason. You shed small amounts of DNA absolutely everywhere, and it can absolutely be transported on shoes, coats, and the like. Modern testing can pick up these trace amounts in place where you haven't been. The Innocence Project has already overturned a few convictions based on tiny DNA traces of this variety. The commercial databases just give cops the opportunity to perform dragnet searches for any and everyone whose DNA shows up in an area of interest, it's scary and sloppy. I'll also point out that at least i the US, the constitution is the backstop for EVERYONE's civil rights. If cops are allowed to trample on the rights of the accused in the name of "safety" then there will be no protection for anyone.

astura 7y ago

The database that police use is GEDMatch, it's an opt-in database run by volunteers that people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA. GEDMatch doesn't even do the DNA testing themselves.

rhizome 7y ago
There has been quite a bit of thought and writing about "you made your choice, now we choose the consequences" over the years, though, admittedly, few probably predicted the stacking of new consequences upon those previously assessed. Well, outside of the Black Mirror writer's room, anyway.
- astura 7y ago
  Okay... So if they decide not to be findable by DNA anymore they can just go delete their info from GEDMatch. https://www.gedmatch.com/tos.htm https://www.gedmatch.com/tos.htm >You understand that future genealogical and non-genealogical uses may be developed, including uses that GEDmatch cannot predict or foresee. If you find any of these current or future uses unacceptable, do not provide Raw Data to GEDmatch, and remove any of your Raw Data already provided to this Site. I fail to see what this has to do with suspending the US Constitution.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    f you find any of these current or future uses unacceptable, do not provide Raw Data to GEDmatch Hah, this reminds me of those drug commercials with disclaimers not to take the drug being advertised if you're allergic to the drug being advertised.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    It's more like--- compromises made about privacy and legality based on present technology don't always look so good carried forward. Most of our rules about what police can do to gather evidence is based on 19th century America. So we came up with compromises like... If a suspect is holding a piece of documentation personally, a search warrant is required; but if a business holds the records, a subpoena is enough. But suddenly almost all of our correspondence, personal photos, etc, is in cloud providers' hands, and ditto for basically all of our financial transactions. The rules stayed the same, but as the world changed privacy evaporated. Or, the police can record where anyone out in public is going. Because they can hardly follow everyone, right? There's an inherent bound on that power. But then you get things like license plate cameras and facial recognition recording the movement of nearly all humans. Effectively, the police became much more powerful compared to the past with no changes in laws to do it.
  - Vrondi 7y ago
    The problem is that if your sibling or cousin submits DNA to GEDmatch, they've in effect submitted the entire extended family's DNA. You cannot go take down the DNA your cousin submitted to GEDmatch, even though it affects your privacy. You cannot even take down the DNA your identical twin submitted to GEDmatch, even though it really is the _same_ as yours. The laws simply have not yet caught up to the new tech.
smnrchrds 7y ago
> people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA They are not making just themselves findable by DNA. They are making their extended family findable by DNA, and I don't imagine they have gotten the whole family's consent before doing so.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Why would you need your family's consent to submit your DNA? The law doesn't work like that, just because they info can be used against someone else. I can post on Facebook that I was with you at a certain time and a certain place; I don't need your permission even though law enforcement might use that to find you. Or if I post a picture of us at a baseball game, I don't need your permission just because it could be used to find out you were somewhere.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Analogies break down here - this isn't even remotely comparable to posting on Facebook.
  - Tepix 7y ago
    Because it affects them
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      A lot of things effect other people, doesn't mean you need their permission. If I thought a relative of mine was a criminal, and went to the police, and said "I think my cousin committed a crime, check my blood" Would that be ok?
      - vkou 7y ago
        Depends on the culture. Some suffer from strong taboos against snitching on family members. Some suffer from an overabundance of civic duty.
  - 7y ago
paulmd 7y ago
Federal evidentiary standards are that any data you provide to a third party for commercial purposes forfeits a presumption of privacy, and can be accessed with an administrative subpoena (not even a warrant). Same thing they use to dragnet cellphone records. Anything you (or your relatives) submit to, let's say, 23andme, is fair game and you should assume the feds have it and can search it.
shawnz 7y ago
> people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA. It's for the sole purpose of being findable by people with similar DNA to you. Its purpose is not to allow anyone to look you up by your DNA like you are implying here.
technofiend 7y ago
And family tree dna since the owner kindly consented to assist law enforcement without asking his customers first. This is a patent misuse of data shared only to benefit customers in their genealogy searches, not law enforcement. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-tree-dna-sharing-genetic-data-police-privacy https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-tree-dna-sharing-...
vageli 7y ago
> The database that police use is GEDMatch, it's an opt-in database run by volunteers that people upload their DNA to for the sole purpose of being findable by their DNA. Law enforcement also uses CODIS and your profile is not deletable there (unless your comment was narrowly tailored to the specifics of this article, in which case my comment is a non sequitur).

Kiro 7y ago

Yes, and I think that line is between this and warrantless searches. That's just my opinion though but I don't see what's so controversial about that.

Zenst 7y ago

The flip-side would be that we allow crimes to go unpunished to protect civil liberties and yet erode civil liberties by allowing crime to be perpetuated. It's a fine line and from personal experience - can be more devastating when criminals can abuse and game the system to use such liberties to evade capture and punishment. Alas I can not elaborate as ongoing, but dam. Criminals sure know how to play the system better than the system I have found out the hard way.

homonculus1 7y ago
The flip sides are not equal. The government has far more capacity for harm than criminals do, and there are other levers for reducing crime than destroying civil liberties anyway.
- Zenst 7y ago
  Imagine having hard evidence against a criminal and that evidence can not be used as it would violate the criminals civil liberties and that same criminal has used this approach to destroy an entire neighborhood, and destroyed peoples livelihoods, well-being.... Maybe it's just a minority edge-case, and I'm just looking at it from personal experience edge-case - the flip-side. Sorry, I just wished I could elaborate, but I may end-up violating a heroin/crack dealers civil rights :cry:.
  - NCWV 7y ago
    People chose to buy drugs from the man you're referencing. He isn't out making sales calls. Dealers are people too and they're mostly just trying to survive.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    This is straight up FUD. Any case where someone is a menace to a whole neighborhood over a period of time could clearly be solved within the bounds of constitutional law with conventional policing. Commercial DNA databanks are a problem for a lot of reason. You shed small amounts of DNA absolutely everywhere, and it can absolutely be transported on shoes, coats, and the like. Modern testing can pick up these trace amounts in place where you haven't been. The Innocence Project has already overturned a few convictions based on tiny DNA traces of this variety. The commercial databases just give cops the opportunity to perform dragnet searches for any and everyone whose DNA shows up in an area of interest, it's scary and sloppy. I'll also point out that at least i the US, the constitution is the backstop for EVERYONE's civil rights. If cops are allowed to trample on the rights of the accused in the name of "safety" then there will be no protection for anyone.