9 ms·

The Messy Consequences of the Golden State Killer Case

63 points by danso 7y ago

draw_down 7y ago
It seems crazy to me to give these companies your DNA.
stefan_ 7y ago
So many questions. How did "sexual assault" sneak in here next to homicide? That's not a capital crime. Is the irony of having a one-person opt-in/opt-out box entirely lost on the people running genealogy websites? How can you give informed consent to sharing your data when the entire point of these sites is not knowing what you discover? And of course the biggest problem of all, which is that these sites are used to discover third-parties not using the site or consenting at all. The article bizarrely omits this, making the whole thing seem like a cookie consent popup.
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  Rape (and related crimes) and Murder are both crimes which have a large external cost and where there is a reasonable chance at repetition. The value to society of catching the perps in these cases is large enough to make giving police access on a case-by-case basis worth it.
  - mc32 7y ago
    And also vicious physical assaults. They can leave people injured for life.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    > value to society of catching the perps in these cases is large enough That is for a judge to decide. While signing (or not) a warrant
- gumby 7y ago
  > So many questions. How did "sexual assault" sneak in here next to homicide? That's not a capital crime. Regardless of one's belief of how murder should be punished, I think it's pretty clear that rape is an offense as destructive as murder. The reason it does not bear the same penalty is pragmatic: if the punishment were the same then why should a rapist not kill the victim as well? The penalty would be no worse and the chance of being captured would go down. > How can you give informed consent to sharing your data when the entire point of these sites is not knowing what you discover? Your question isn't just genetic question but really a mass surveillance question. E.g. relatives tend to look alike so an advanced facial recognition system could be used to, say, see where a wanted suspect's possible relatives live and then follow them in case said suspect contacts them. Or simply look for people who have a "guilt factor" above X near where a crime was committed and sweep them up.
  - zeveb 7y ago
    > The reason it does not bear the same penalty is pragmatic: if the punishment were the same then why should a rapist not kill the victim as well? The real reason is even more prosaic in the U.S.: the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia decided that it was unconstitutional, despite having been constitutional and practiced by some number of states for nearly 200 years. It doesn't get any more philosophical than that: six men didn't like it, so the nation doesn't have it any more. But, to the grandparent's point, rape has been a capital crime in the past, and there's no reason it couldn't be again.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
RIMR 7y ago
I really don't like some of the philosophies expressed in this article. The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion. If your family member is a mass murderer, I really don't care if investigators use information related to you to catch them. Even if that data is your DNA, and it was shared contrary to your expectations. Nobody wants to see their loved ones go to prison, but the Golden State Killer was an absolute monster, and it's an demonstrably good thing he was caught and faced justice. I understand that people feel that using DNA information from genealogy services to investigate crimes might feel like a slippery slope towards egregious abuse (and maybe that's true), but the Golden State Killer is definitely not an example of such abuse.
- mavelikara 7y ago
  If a family member is charged for a crime, unless it is your spouse, isn't it true that the State can compel you to provide evidence that might incriminate the family member?
  - Verdex 7y ago
    It's complicated: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282
- authoritarian 7y ago
  I don't buy this justification. It's like the people talking about mass surveillance saying, "I understand that people feel like unchecked government mass surveillance might feel like a slipper slope towards egregious abuse, but it's worth it to catch all the evil terrorists and pedophiles" Sure the Golden State Killer was a terrible person, but I'm not willing to just blindly trust and accept that the government should be able to access and use whatever data they want to keep me "safe." Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp
  - zajd 7y ago
    > Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp Man what a dumb quote. Trading liberty for security is the foundation of what a society/civilization is.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> At one point, the site secretly allowed police to upload DNA from the scene of a violent assault—following a personal appeal from the detective to one of GEDmatch’s co-founders. One thing with these DOJ guidelines is that they will create a 2 tier system of justice. Ordinary victims won't be able to use these genetic databases to try to obtain justice. However, family members and close friends of the executives of these companies will have access to these (If the founder of the company comes to law enforcement and says, "Here are the closest DNA matches for the assailant of my niece." do you think law enforcement will refuse that information?)
- jlarocco 7y ago
  I don't think that's a big concern because law enforcement will have to refuse the information or the case will be thrown out. They can't just go up and present illegally obtained evidence. Even the crappiest public defenders should catch something like that. Parallel construction might be a possibility (though still illegal), but it would be difficult in this situation when the criminal isn't a suspect already.
  - brohee 7y ago
    Parallel reconstruction. Happened before, will happen again. Confidential informant will suddenly tie the genetic match to the crime scene.
  - bonestamp2 7y ago
    It sounds like they just apply to federal law enforcement. So they could get around it by going to local law enforcement instead.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    I think law enforcement can use information provided by third parties, that they could not themselves obtain, if they had no part in obtaining that information.
Mathnerd314 7y ago
It seems like it wouldn't be hard to have hospitals do DNA sequencing after birth so that eventually everyone with a birth certificate had their DNA on file. The data could then be used for medical research, law enforcement, genealogy, etc. I'm sure this would have terrible unintended consequences but I can't think of any at the moment.
- pg_bot 7y ago
  The data could be used by dating sites, employers, hate groups, insurance companies, human cloning labs, and would greatly help our secret police! This is certainly unethical (informed consent) and probably illegal under federal and state law. Would you like to make your DNA available to anyone who wishes to utilize it without your consent?
- lozaning 7y ago
  I'd recommend you go watch Gattica.
  - moate 7y ago
    I was looking for this comment, and was going to post it myself if nobody else did. Please don't encourage the surveillance state to go around and keep a DB of all your genetic information. It doesn't end well.
- exhilaration 7y ago
  I'm sure this would have terrible unintended consequences but I can't think of any at the moment. I'm sure insurance companies would like to get their hands on this information. I can see people with certain problematic genes being unable to get life insurance for example.
  - mandevil 7y ago
    By US law (GINA, passed in 2008), health insurance companies and employers are barred from discriminating on the basis of genetic results. Life insurance companies are allowed to, as is housing and schooling, interestingly enough.
friedegg 7y ago
I wonder how long until someone creates a DNA site where you can upload your DNA, and then get a "reward" if yours is used to locate a suspect, with closeness of relation being worth more. The rewards could be paid for by the money they charge the law enforcement agencies to use the database. If the rewards were high enough, you'd probably get a lot of people signing up for the chance to make money off their relatives. Of course, you'd need some way to ensure people are only uploading their own DNA, but that's probably do-able if you handle the DNA samples directly.
- mc32 7y ago
  Ah, the gamification of citizen law enforcement. What have we come to?
  - friedegg 7y ago
    We already have rewards for help solving some crimes, this just makes it more of a market. Participants could opt to have their rewards donated to charity. If I knew anything about DNA, I'd probably be very tempted to work on this.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      What we really need is some sort of a cyber-fatwa calling all valiant friends of freedom to kill those working on these sorts of surveillance systems without delay, no one shall infringe on the fundamental right to privacy. And whoever is killed in this cause shall be a martyr. Meanwhile, if someone has access to the authors of the surveillance systems but is incapable of carrying out the execution, they should inform the people so that the perpetrator is punished for his actions.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Swatting gamified the police in an even darker way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
pessimizer 7y ago
The Golden State Killer was a cop that didn't have his DNA taken, and was used as a justification for cops taking your DNA.
tareqak 7y ago
Here is the thread about the same/similar topic from a different source six days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21086866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21086866 .
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

63 points by danso 7y ago

It seems crazy to me to give these companies your DNA.

So many questions. How did "sexual assault" sneak in here next to homicide? That's not a capital crime. Is the irony of having a one-person opt-in/opt-out box entirely lost on the people running genealogy websites? How can you give informed consent to sharing your data when the entire point of these sites is not knowing what you discover? And of course the biggest problem of all, which is that these sites are used to discover third-parties not using the site or consenting at all. The article bizarrely omits this, making the whole thing seem like a cookie consent popup.

radicalbyte 7y ago
Rape (and related crimes) and Murder are both crimes which have a large external cost and where there is a reasonable chance at repetition. The value to society of catching the perps in these cases is large enough to make giving police access on a case-by-case basis worth it.
- mc32 7y ago
  And also vicious physical assaults. They can leave people injured for life.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  > value to society of catching the perps in these cases is large enough That is for a judge to decide. While signing (or not) a warrant
gumby 7y ago
> So many questions. How did "sexual assault" sneak in here next to homicide? That's not a capital crime. Regardless of one's belief of how murder should be punished, I think it's pretty clear that rape is an offense as destructive as murder. The reason it does not bear the same penalty is pragmatic: if the punishment were the same then why should a rapist not kill the victim as well? The penalty would be no worse and the chance of being captured would go down. > How can you give informed consent to sharing your data when the entire point of these sites is not knowing what you discover? Your question isn't just genetic question but really a mass surveillance question. E.g. relatives tend to look alike so an advanced facial recognition system could be used to, say, see where a wanted suspect's possible relatives live and then follow them in case said suspect contacts them. Or simply look for people who have a "guilt factor" above X near where a crime was committed and sweep them up.
- zeveb 7y ago
  > The reason it does not bear the same penalty is pragmatic: if the punishment were the same then why should a rapist not kill the victim as well? The real reason is even more prosaic in the U.S.: the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia decided that it was unconstitutional, despite having been constitutional and practiced by some number of states for nearly 200 years. It doesn't get any more philosophical than that: six men didn't like it, so the nation doesn't have it any more. But, to the grandparent's point, rape has been a capital crime in the past, and there's no reason it couldn't be again.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

RIMR 7y ago

I really don't like some of the philosophies expressed in this article. The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion. If your family member is a mass murderer, I really don't care if investigators use information related to you to catch them. Even if that data is your DNA, and it was shared contrary to your expectations. Nobody wants to see their loved ones go to prison, but the Golden State Killer was an absolute monster, and it's an demonstrably good thing he was caught and faced justice. I understand that people feel that using DNA information from genealogy services to investigate crimes might feel like a slippery slope towards egregious abuse (and maybe that's true), but the Golden State Killer is definitely not an example of such abuse.

mavelikara 7y ago
If a family member is charged for a crime, unless it is your spouse, isn't it true that the State can compel you to provide evidence that might incriminate the family member?
- Verdex 7y ago
  It's complicated: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282
authoritarian 7y ago
I don't buy this justification. It's like the people talking about mass surveillance saying, "I understand that people feel like unchecked government mass surveillance might feel like a slipper slope towards egregious abuse, but it's worth it to catch all the evil terrorists and pedophiles" Sure the Golden State Killer was a terrible person, but I'm not willing to just blindly trust and accept that the government should be able to access and use whatever data they want to keep me "safe." Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp
- zajd 7y ago
  > Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp Man what a dumb quote. Trading liberty for security is the foundation of what a society/civilization is.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

> At one point, the site secretly allowed police to upload DNA from the scene of a violent assault—following a personal appeal from the detective to one of GEDmatch’s co-founders. One thing with these DOJ guidelines is that they will create a 2 tier system of justice. Ordinary victims won't be able to use these genetic databases to try to obtain justice. However, family members and close friends of the executives of these companies will have access to these (If the founder of the company comes to law enforcement and says, "Here are the closest DNA matches for the assailant of my niece." do you think law enforcement will refuse that information?)

jlarocco 7y ago
I don't think that's a big concern because law enforcement will have to refuse the information or the case will be thrown out. They can't just go up and present illegally obtained evidence. Even the crappiest public defenders should catch something like that. Parallel construction might be a possibility (though still illegal), but it would be difficult in this situation when the criminal isn't a suspect already.
- brohee 7y ago
  Parallel reconstruction. Happened before, will happen again. Confidential informant will suddenly tie the genetic match to the crime scene.
- bonestamp2 7y ago
  It sounds like they just apply to federal law enforcement. So they could get around it by going to local law enforcement instead.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  I think law enforcement can use information provided by third parties, that they could not themselves obtain, if they had no part in obtaining that information.

Mathnerd314 7y ago

It seems like it wouldn't be hard to have hospitals do DNA sequencing after birth so that eventually everyone with a birth certificate had their DNA on file. The data could then be used for medical research, law enforcement, genealogy, etc. I'm sure this would have terrible unintended consequences but I can't think of any at the moment.

pg_bot 7y ago
The data could be used by dating sites, employers, hate groups, insurance companies, human cloning labs, and would greatly help our secret police! This is certainly unethical (informed consent) and probably illegal under federal and state law. Would you like to make your DNA available to anyone who wishes to utilize it without your consent?
lozaning 7y ago
I'd recommend you go watch Gattica.
- moate 7y ago
  I was looking for this comment, and was going to post it myself if nobody else did. Please don't encourage the surveillance state to go around and keep a DB of all your genetic information. It doesn't end well.
exhilaration 7y ago
I'm sure this would have terrible unintended consequences but I can't think of any at the moment. I'm sure insurance companies would like to get their hands on this information. I can see people with certain problematic genes being unable to get life insurance for example.
- mandevil 7y ago
  By US law (GINA, passed in 2008), health insurance companies and employers are barred from discriminating on the basis of genetic results. Life insurance companies are allowed to, as is housing and schooling, interestingly enough.

friedegg 7y ago

I wonder how long until someone creates a DNA site where you can upload your DNA, and then get a "reward" if yours is used to locate a suspect, with closeness of relation being worth more. The rewards could be paid for by the money they charge the law enforcement agencies to use the database. If the rewards were high enough, you'd probably get a lot of people signing up for the chance to make money off their relatives. Of course, you'd need some way to ensure people are only uploading their own DNA, but that's probably do-able if you handle the DNA samples directly.

mc32 7y ago
Ah, the gamification of citizen law enforcement. What have we come to?
- friedegg 7y ago
  We already have rewards for help solving some crimes, this just makes it more of a market. Participants could opt to have their rewards donated to charity. If I knew anything about DNA, I'd probably be very tempted to work on this.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    What we really need is some sort of a cyber-fatwa calling all valiant friends of freedom to kill those working on these sorts of surveillance systems without delay, no one shall infringe on the fundamental right to privacy. And whoever is killed in this cause shall be a martyr. Meanwhile, if someone has access to the authors of the surveillance systems but is incapable of carrying out the execution, they should inform the people so that the perpetrator is punished for his actions.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Swatting gamified the police in an even darker way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting

pessimizer 7y ago

The Golden State Killer was a cop that didn't have his DNA taken, and was used as a justification for cops taking your DNA.

tareqak 7y ago

Here is the thread about the same/similar topic from a different source six days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21086866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21086866 .

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]