3 ms·

I don't understand the privacy concerns and most of the comments here. I see these DNA database searches as an amazing tool to find criminals and not in any way

I don't understand the privacy concerns and most of the comments here. I see these DNA database searches as an amazing tool to find criminals and not in any way privacy infringing. And I wish it was more widespread, ideally everyone being required to submit their DNA. Some arguments I'm seeing: * "Privacy": I don't see this more private than the information contained on a driver's license. It also does not expose anything that's not otherwise already available to the police. I don't see the difference (when it comes to privacy) between DNA and a fingerprint that you have to provide when getting ID/drivers license. * "False positives": Yes, they'll probably happen. But even if we go with that assumption there are additional ways to exclude most of them. And those that can't be excluded get tested for an exact match and/or additional evidence. This is no different than being a suspect in any other way. * "False convictions": As far as I understood it this will just be used to narrow down potential suspects, not to get a conviction. * "Police will lie do anything to convict the person just based off of this evidence": That's a separate topic that needs to be addressed, but not by reducing tools and forbidding technology that can narrow down and find suspects. Under worst case scenario is being a false positive result and maybe talking to the police (if you were in the same city, your age was correct, you were around/close to area of the crime) and providing exact DNA sample so much worse than the fact that "The approach has led to arrests in at least 60 cold cases around the country."? I say it's not.

tzmudzin 7y ago
> * "Privacy": I don't see this more private than the information contained on a driver's license. Your DNA tells a lot more about you than the driver's licence. Think about the next step: this time it's the police submitting false profiles. Next time it's your insurance agent checking for hereditary preconditions you may not even be aware about. Or your bank trying to assess if you'll live beyond 50 before they grant you the mortgage. Without a proper regulatory framework all of that can happen without your knowledge and without your consent. Does this not change the goalposts in privacy?
carbocation 7y ago
> I see these DNA database searches as an amazing tool to find criminals and not in any way privacy infringing. And I wish it was more widespread, ideally everyone being required to submit their DNA. I think I can at least understand the viewpoint of those who favor DNA database searches. But, I don't understand how DNA database searches are not obviously in tension with privacy. Can you explain why you think that DNA database searches are "not in any way privacy infringing"?
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  This is a bit of a strawman. Law enforcement already uses databases of DNA and fingerprints of offenders and tries to match new cases to them. These are highly effective measures since many criminals are repeat offenders. So of course a DNA genetic database is privacy infringing to a degree. Its not required for every citizen to register their DNA, and its an extremely useful tool that helped put extremely violent offenders in jail.
  - carbocation 7y ago
    It’s not a strawman; it’s a request for clarification from the GP.
- a254613e 7y ago
  I see them more as a fingerprint, which yes is unique, but I don't consider providing it when getting my ID to be privacy invading. If that makes sense. Because what the police is really doing in these cases is that they're trying to identify potential suspects, not find people who have a high chance of some disease to sell them insurances and make money. Because of that I do not find this to be in any way privacy infringing. Just because something _can_ be used in a privacy invading context, doesn't mean that it is in the context being discussed.
cgriswald 7y ago
Re: privacy – DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about a person. Although it is true we leave DNA everywhere we go, up until very recently that information was not recoverable. For the average person this is still the case and will remain so until the point that $20 DNA sequencers are available at CVS. Logically, it should not be surprising that people consider this information to be private. On a more visceral level, it “feels” like a violation; but I think that’s something you either grok or don’t.

tzmudzin 7y ago

> * "Privacy": I don't see this more private than the information contained on a driver's license. Your DNA tells a lot more about you than the driver's licence. Think about the next step: this time it's the police submitting false profiles. Next time it's your insurance agent checking for hereditary preconditions you may not even be aware about. Or your bank trying to assess if you'll live beyond 50 before they grant you the mortgage. Without a proper regulatory framework all of that can happen without your knowledge and without your consent. Does this not change the goalposts in privacy?

carbocation 7y ago

> I see these DNA database searches as an amazing tool to find criminals and not in any way privacy infringing. And I wish it was more widespread, ideally everyone being required to submit their DNA. I think I can at least understand the viewpoint of those who favor DNA database searches. But, I don't understand how DNA database searches are not obviously in tension with privacy. Can you explain why you think that DNA database searches are "not in any way privacy infringing"?

eanzenberg 7y ago
This is a bit of a strawman. Law enforcement already uses databases of DNA and fingerprints of offenders and tries to match new cases to them. These are highly effective measures since many criminals are repeat offenders. So of course a DNA genetic database is privacy infringing to a degree. Its not required for every citizen to register their DNA, and its an extremely useful tool that helped put extremely violent offenders in jail.
- carbocation 7y ago
  It’s not a strawman; it’s a request for clarification from the GP.
a254613e 7y ago
I see them more as a fingerprint, which yes is unique, but I don't consider providing it when getting my ID to be privacy invading. If that makes sense. Because what the police is really doing in these cases is that they're trying to identify potential suspects, not find people who have a high chance of some disease to sell them insurances and make money. Because of that I do not find this to be in any way privacy infringing. Just because something _can_ be used in a privacy invading context, doesn't mean that it is in the context being discussed.

cgriswald 7y ago

Re: privacy – DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about a person. Although it is true we leave DNA everywhere we go, up until very recently that information was not recoverable. For the average person this is still the case and will remain so until the point that $20 DNA sequencers are available at CVS. Logically, it should not be surprising that people consider this information to be private. On a more visceral level, it “feels” like a violation; but I think that’s something you either grok or don’t.