6 ms·

Resampling DNA before conviction would fix the specific issue of the digital record being subject to tampering, I kind of assume this is done already. The real

Resampling DNA before conviction would fix the specific issue of the digital record being subject to tampering, I kind of assume this is done already. The real nightmare is that we might be right around the corner from DNA being writable to the extent that you could make mock DNA to plant at a crime-scene/evidence-locker, and there might be a couple awkward decades where the courts believe the FBI when they claim to have found DNA matches (just like that time they systematically pretended they could identify hairs, and convicted people of murder based on hairs that were literally from dogs in some cases). We'll catch on eventually if they try it, but it would suck for those of us convicted on falsified evidence. I wouldn't be so paranoid about that possibility if they hadn't lied about the dog hairs for decades.

Terr_ 7y ago
> right around the corner from DNA being writable Why bother when it's trivial to copy existing DNA? The evildoer just needs to get a tiny sample from someone who'd made a decent frame. Sure, then you've got the problem of how to create a DNA-bearing artifact that'll fool forensics -- a spilled puddle of pure chromosomes would be weird -- but that'd be true in either case.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  I've read a couple books where the opposite was done. Intentionally dump huge amounts of DNA into the area to make any tracing pointless. One amusing and gross way was vacuuming bus seats for the material.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Keyboards are a great source of material. They accumulate no end of crap over time.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      I wonder how often public library keyboards are cleaned, or the ones in university computer labs. When I was in college pulling all nighters in the computer lab I regularly saw the lab being cleaned, but I can't remember ever seeing the keyboards getting dusted off, let alone wiped off with disinfectants. Go to two or three libraries in different corners of town, get what you want from the keyboards, and you should have quite the collection of DNA.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        With the ease of travel I'd suggest go to libraries in different states or countries. Libraries close to major airports so that many people are likely to travel between them. (ie don't pick a city in the middle of nowhere just large enough to have a private airport)
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      Fun activity: turn the keyboard upside down over a sheet of newsprint or butcher paper, and tap the front corner gently on a hard surface. The word for this type of accumulation of mixed biological material, crumbs, dandruff, eyelashes, and such is "kroonch".
  - Nadge 7y ago
    Reminds me of a scene in The Town - they were going to rob a bank, and they collected whole bags of hair from a barbershop floor, and spread it during the robbery.
    - michjedi 7y ago
      Wouldn't that be quite useful for police? They may be able to pinpoint a location - the barber where all the DNA matches go to have a haircut, and a time - soon after all those with majority DNA in the pile of hair went to the Barber's. Then they can analyse who was in the area around the time and find a person involved.
      - jdironman 7y ago
        My thoughts exactly. The only true way is to appear to have never been there forensically, leave no sort of evidence. Security through obscurity only works in some instances.
        greedo 7y ago
        There was a murder in Nebraska where crime scene was liberally cleaned with bleach to obliterate DNA evidence. Still no conviction despite a lot of circumstantial evidence. This was partially compounded by older DNA technology that destroyed the sample while processing it.
        inetknght 7y ago
        > This was partially compounded by older DNA technology that destroyed the sample while processing it. Can you point to current DNA tech which doesn't destroy the sample while processing it?
        brokenmachine 7y ago
        For PCR you only need a super-tiny bit, then you can amplify it as much as you want. I guess you're still technically destroying that tiny bit, but it hardly makes a difference when you only need a few molecules.
  - runarb 7y ago
    The Unabomber retrieved pubic hair from a public restroom to plant as a false clue in one of his bombs[0]. 0: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-05-9805050134-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-05-980505...
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    Sometimes the best way to hide is in plain sight.
- SEJeff 7y ago
  Indeed! We did Polymerase Chain Reaction experiments when I was in senior biology in high school almost 20 years ago. $150 for 10 groups: Edvotek 330 Amplification of DNA by PCR, For 10 Lab Groups https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004W7ZAYI https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004W7ZAYI
- haihaibye 7y ago
  Because if you make an oligo from someone's digital data it's harder to link you - you may never have been on the same continent together. It's like snatching handbags vs online credit card fraud - the reach of criminals to victims got a lot bigger.
chopin 7y ago
This is already here: https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be-faked https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be...
bayesian_horse 7y ago
DNA has long lost its aura of invincibility. A partial or even complete match is not enough to convict anyone.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  And with technology like CRISPR, you kinda wonder how that will impact forensic science.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Not at all, probably. From what I know about CRISPR, and forensic DNA testing, it should be extremely difficult or impossible to, for example, change your "genetic fingerprint" as it is called. If I remember correctly, those methods primarily use repetitive patterns, which should be hard to modify with CRISPR. And you'd need to modify hundreds of them, and in billions of cells of your body (even if you try to only get white blood cells and their progenitors).
conjectures 7y ago
That sounds like something nation states would be able to do well before it's acknowledged.
jliptzin 7y ago
Another nightmare, it's already possible to create convincing audio samples of someone else's voice that can be used for framing. I'm sure believable, fake video footage is around the corner too. Then what? You can create fake audio/video of anyone committing crimes. Or it can be used to fabricate an alibi for someone who is actually guilty. Not sure where we go after that. Maybe back to the time before audio/video technology was invented and rely solely on witness testimony.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  Deepfaked videos are here already, I could see one passing as believable evidence (especially if it's shrunk down to a lower resolution, as in a high quality deepfake pretending to be a cellphone video). We had this brief period of history where good records of actual events were cheap to capture and expensive/impossible to fake (governments have been airbrushing photos for most of this period, but videos seem to have been tougher). We're at the end of that now, but the public hasn't quite caught on. I think it'll take at least one high profile case getting overturned before society at large stops believing in videos. Then we're essentially back to trusting people at their word/digital-signature, and we'll probably have "trusted" security camera companies that install tamper-proof cameras at multiple angles that cryptographically sign videos while streaming them to remote servers. Before that, and probably after it as well, some of us will rot behind bars based on state-forged evidence.
  - mmcru 7y ago
    People said the same thing when photo-editing software was new. How is this any different?
- cr0sh 7y ago
  > rely solely on witness testimony. Bad part about that - even today - is that we know for a fact that what people remember/recall isn't necessarily what actually occurred. Also, as time goes on, those recollections can become more unreliable. We know that the mind confabulates, making things up to fill in gaps - both at the time something occurs, and after the fact to "fill in the story". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/starklab/false-memory-eyewitness-testimony/ https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/starklab/false-memory-eyewitne... Unfortunately, the legal system has been slow in acknowledging this - on top of so many other things found and/or known to be false or bias - two big ones are so-called "lie detector" systems, and "blood spatter analysis". Fortunately, lie detector "evidence" is generally not admissible in the United States (at least I think for criminal cases?) - but blood spatter analysis is still considered to be a "real science", when it may be anything but: https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter/blood-spatter-criminal-justice-courts-forensic-evidence/ https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter/blood-spatter-...

Terr_ 7y ago

> right around the corner from DNA being writable Why bother when it's trivial to copy existing DNA? The evildoer just needs to get a tiny sample from someone who'd made a decent frame. Sure, then you've got the problem of how to create a DNA-bearing artifact that'll fool forensics -- a spilled puddle of pure chromosomes would be weird -- but that'd be true in either case.

rtkwe 7y ago
I've read a couple books where the opposite was done. Intentionally dump huge amounts of DNA into the area to make any tracing pointless. One amusing and gross way was vacuuming bus seats for the material.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Keyboards are a great source of material. They accumulate no end of crap over time.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    I wonder how often public library keyboards are cleaned, or the ones in university computer labs. When I was in college pulling all nighters in the computer lab I regularly saw the lab being cleaned, but I can't remember ever seeing the keyboards getting dusted off, let alone wiped off with disinfectants. Go to two or three libraries in different corners of town, get what you want from the keyboards, and you should have quite the collection of DNA.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      With the ease of travel I'd suggest go to libraries in different states or countries. Libraries close to major airports so that many people are likely to travel between them. (ie don't pick a city in the middle of nowhere just large enough to have a private airport)
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Fun activity: turn the keyboard upside down over a sheet of newsprint or butcher paper, and tap the front corner gently on a hard surface. The word for this type of accumulation of mixed biological material, crumbs, dandruff, eyelashes, and such is "kroonch".
- Nadge 7y ago
  Reminds me of a scene in The Town - they were going to rob a bank, and they collected whole bags of hair from a barbershop floor, and spread it during the robbery.
  - michjedi 7y ago
    Wouldn't that be quite useful for police? They may be able to pinpoint a location - the barber where all the DNA matches go to have a haircut, and a time - soon after all those with majority DNA in the pile of hair went to the Barber's. Then they can analyse who was in the area around the time and find a person involved.
    - jdironman 7y ago
      My thoughts exactly. The only true way is to appear to have never been there forensically, leave no sort of evidence. Security through obscurity only works in some instances.
      - greedo 7y ago
        There was a murder in Nebraska where crime scene was liberally cleaned with bleach to obliterate DNA evidence. Still no conviction despite a lot of circumstantial evidence. This was partially compounded by older DNA technology that destroyed the sample while processing it.
        inetknght 7y ago
        > This was partially compounded by older DNA technology that destroyed the sample while processing it. Can you point to current DNA tech which doesn't destroy the sample while processing it?
        brokenmachine 7y ago
        For PCR you only need a super-tiny bit, then you can amplify it as much as you want. I guess you're still technically destroying that tiny bit, but it hardly makes a difference when you only need a few molecules.
- runarb 7y ago
  The Unabomber retrieved pubic hair from a public restroom to plant as a false clue in one of his bombs[0]. 0: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-05-9805050134-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-05-980505...
- m-p-3 7y ago
  Sometimes the best way to hide is in plain sight.
SEJeff 7y ago
Indeed! We did Polymerase Chain Reaction experiments when I was in senior biology in high school almost 20 years ago. $150 for 10 groups: Edvotek 330 Amplification of DNA by PCR, For 10 Lab Groups https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004W7ZAYI https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004W7ZAYI
haihaibye 7y ago
Because if you make an oligo from someone's digital data it's harder to link you - you may never have been on the same continent together. It's like snatching handbags vs online credit card fraud - the reach of criminals to victims got a lot bigger.

chopin 7y ago

This is already here: https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be-faked https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be...

bayesian_horse 7y ago

DNA has long lost its aura of invincibility. A partial or even complete match is not enough to convict anyone.

m-p-3 7y ago
And with technology like CRISPR, you kinda wonder how that will impact forensic science.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Not at all, probably. From what I know about CRISPR, and forensic DNA testing, it should be extremely difficult or impossible to, for example, change your "genetic fingerprint" as it is called. If I remember correctly, those methods primarily use repetitive patterns, which should be hard to modify with CRISPR. And you'd need to modify hundreds of them, and in billions of cells of your body (even if you try to only get white blood cells and their progenitors).

conjectures 7y ago

That sounds like something nation states would be able to do well before it's acknowledged.

jliptzin 7y ago

Another nightmare, it's already possible to create convincing audio samples of someone else's voice that can be used for framing. I'm sure believable, fake video footage is around the corner too. Then what? You can create fake audio/video of anyone committing crimes. Or it can be used to fabricate an alibi for someone who is actually guilty. Not sure where we go after that. Maybe back to the time before audio/video technology was invented and rely solely on witness testimony.

blotter_paper 7y ago
Deepfaked videos are here already, I could see one passing as believable evidence (especially if it's shrunk down to a lower resolution, as in a high quality deepfake pretending to be a cellphone video). We had this brief period of history where good records of actual events were cheap to capture and expensive/impossible to fake (governments have been airbrushing photos for most of this period, but videos seem to have been tougher). We're at the end of that now, but the public hasn't quite caught on. I think it'll take at least one high profile case getting overturned before society at large stops believing in videos. Then we're essentially back to trusting people at their word/digital-signature, and we'll probably have "trusted" security camera companies that install tamper-proof cameras at multiple angles that cryptographically sign videos while streaming them to remote servers. Before that, and probably after it as well, some of us will rot behind bars based on state-forged evidence.
- mmcru 7y ago
  People said the same thing when photo-editing software was new. How is this any different?
cr0sh 7y ago
> rely solely on witness testimony. Bad part about that - even today - is that we know for a fact that what people remember/recall isn't necessarily what actually occurred. Also, as time goes on, those recollections can become more unreliable. We know that the mind confabulates, making things up to fill in gaps - both at the time something occurs, and after the fact to "fill in the story". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/starklab/false-memory-eyewitness-testimony/ https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/starklab/false-memory-eyewitne... Unfortunately, the legal system has been slow in acknowledging this - on top of so many other things found and/or known to be false or bias - two big ones are so-called "lie detector" systems, and "blood spatter analysis". Fortunately, lie detector "evidence" is generally not admissible in the United States (at least I think for criminal cases?) - but blood spatter analysis is still considered to be a "real science", when it may be anything but: https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter/blood-spatter-criminal-justice-courts-forensic-evidence/ https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter/blood-spatter-...