9 ms·

U.S. police may now be able to access online DNA database records

99 points by SQL2219 7y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Personally I'm glad they are catching murderers and rapists this way. It's fantastic and as far as we've seen there is no downside when this tool is applied within the context of a state that has rule of law. Even in a totalitarian panopticon like China, it's hard to picture exactly what downside a complete dna database would have. I mean we can contrive scenarios. Maybe a resistance cell is busted while everyone is out and the government is able to deduce the members from dna traces. But it seems far fetched. Even in that scenario, traditional policing techniques are likely to be more effective. I.e. wait until resistance members are present THEN attack the cell. Interrogate prisoners to give up accomplices etc. Dna identification is pretty cool because the vast majority of cases where it's useful are cases where traces have been left at the scene of the crime or on a victim. That fact, the mere existence of a scene or a victim, constrains the use of the tool mostly to legitimate circumstances. If my dna were used to lock up a relative who commits a rape or a murder I would be sad but I would consider it justified. I'm not going to do either of those things so I am not worried about whether the police would use dna to identify me. And considering the lack of scenarios where DNA could be misused, this is actually one of those situations where the innocent have nothing or next to nothing to worry about.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Have you never been in a place where a murder was later committed? Have you never had personal contact with someone later raped? There’s a temptation to compute “1 in a billion” probabilities, have a computer or science wizard process spit them out and for investigators to conclude the person who matches is the one. I’m more worried about the possible lazy or sloppy interpretation and curve-fitting aspects of the tech than I am worried about me flipping out and committing a felony offense. I am likewise glad for the cases where it is helping to correctly solve crimes, of course.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    There is always the possibility that you will be incorrectly identified by an investigative technique, dna or otherwise. This is not a remote chance; it happens all the time. In my view, this does not increase that probability very much, but it massively improves the odds of finding criminals. Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction. There is still the matter of alibis, motives, and all those traditional avenues of forensic inquiry. As to your questions, as far as I know, nobody has ever been murdered in a place where I've been. Maybe on the sidewalk somewhere, but that is not a scenario where DNA is going to be any help, unless the perpetrator leaves behind blood or skin on the victim or the ground. And I've never had sexual contact with anyone who was subsequently raped, nor anyone who didn't already know me for that matter. But it hardly matters whether those things have happened to me personally. What matters is how often that happens in the world, and what fraction of the time this leads to incorrect prosecution.
    - pdkl95 7y ago
      > this does not increase that probability very much That depends[1] strongly on what question you are asking. Matching an unknown sample against a small number of suspects is a very different question than searching a database with millions (or billions) of records. The latter is almost guaranteed[2] to return false positives. > it massively improves the odds of finding criminals That's a strong claim that requires equally strong evidence. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/dna_matching_an.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/dna_matching_... ( http://archive.li/M0SeV http://archive.li/M0SeV ) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
    - tw04 7y ago
      >Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction. That's awful wishful thinking. The general public is of the opinion that DNA evidence is 100% accurate and the government does a great job of continuing to present that farce. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to face a jury of their peers in the face of DNA evidence saying I committed a crime. Regardless of my alibi... I wouldn't trust the lay person to understand or get it right.
- C14L 7y ago
  Sooner or later followed by the next step: interpreting the DNA to identify people who are genetically likely to commit a certain crime.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Alternatively if intervention techniques can be found that work, these people can be treated before they go on the path to anti social behavior and may become “habilitated”. Obviously there is a big red flag about what gets classified as this criminal behavior, but if we can keep it to immediate acts of violence, then it may possibly be worthwhile.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Yes, send them to treatment even before they do anything wrong. This is a line from basically every future dystopian nightmare ever.
      - mc32 7y ago
        It depends. If it’s somewhat deterministic like disease, and there are no adverse effects or if there are they are overridden by the benefits then I don’t see why not investigate that avenue. Obviously if it remains guesswork then the reason to pursue this option doesn’t exist.
        RHSeeger 7y ago
        > there are no adverse effects Both real life and those dystopian movies have taught me that this is _never_ the case. There's literally a 0% chance of no adverse side effects.
        huherto 7y ago
        To be fear, that needs to happen in movies. Otherwise it would be a boring movie if everything goes right.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Just because a there is a law or policy doesn’t mean it’s not abused or the policy is 100% effective. China is a great example of bureaucracy and keeping up appearances while the reality is starkly different, but it happens in the US too.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Even in a totalitarian panopticon like China, it's hard to picture exactly what downside a complete dna database would have. This is a really bad take, because we already know that China is running an ethnicity-based genocide and cultural obliteration programme in Xinjang. You might also want to consider this case, which is the reverse: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ray-cromartie-death-row-execution-dna-evidence-shooting-a9202391.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ray-cromar... - refusal to perform DNA testing even when the defense demands it.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    You don't need dna to perform an ethnic cleansing. It's not even really that helpful. We've been doing those as a species for centuries, long before we even knew what DNA was. In the case of the reverse: doesn't that just strengthen my point that this tool should be used to narrow the set of possible perpetrators? Btw, I find the "this is a really bad take" verbiage to be rude and unnecessary. You could just leave it out and it wouldn't make your argument weaker.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      When I had my DNA tested I found out I was 7% Jewish. It's not clear if that's enough "bad" blood to qualify me for the gas chamber.
      - hilbert42 7y ago
        I'd bet it would have been quite sufficient information for the likes of Heinrich Himmler—and if you'd lived back then and if he could have gotten his hands on you then you'd be history! That's why putting one's DNA on line is so dangerous and so bloody damn stupid! For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily put their DNA on any database when it's been so damn obvious for many years—from the very start—that police, governments, life insurance companies and crooks etc. are just dying to get their grubby little paws on this valuable information. What annoys me even more is that people who put their DNA on these databases do so without consideration of those who are genetically related to them. When a person puts their DNA on a database, ipso facto, they are also violating the privacy of their near (and no-so-near) relatives, who in most instances, have never given their consent to do so. Frankly, I consider this a terrible state of affairs and there should be strict laws against people doing it. Seems to me that now that the cat's out of the bag the only thing that can be done is to seed these databases with cleverly engineered noisy/disruptive profiles that would make tree analysis much harder to decipher.
- navigatr 7y ago
  Texas is about to execute a man who was convicted on DNA evidence[1]. His crime? Having an affair with a cop's wife. His DNA was found in the victim's body. There is sworn testimony that the husband confessed to the murder of his own wife. I'd hate to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time, or to have left garbage somewhere a crime was committed, or to have had sex with someone who later has a crime committed against them. [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/15/opinion/texas-may-soon-execute-an-innocent-man/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/15/opinion/texas-may-soo...
nabla9 7y ago
If you are a criminal, it might be wise to send them someone else's DNA in your own name. From someone who is not in the register and never gets there, maybe dies soon. When they start to eliminate suspects based on DNA you get dropped.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The ultimate form of identity fraud.
- rmtech 7y ago
  That wouldn't work. If you are already a suspect, the police will retest you, not rely on what's on the database. What you actually want to do is send your own DNA in someone else's name - preferably someone who is demographically similar to you, but who has essentially no connection to you (better still, someone who is dead) If none of your relatives use the service then this might work.
  - igetspam 7y ago
    Suspicion is not always sufficient for a warrant and tapping you for DNA isn't the same as searching your car, which requires probable cause. I don't know how DNA db srach warrants work but if they're blind matches, submitting bad data could be an effective smoke screen. You just have to make sure you submit DNA from someone who isn't going to make you a false positive march later.
    - Sam_Odio 7y ago
      Most cases are not caught because there is a direct march, but because there are multiple distant relatives that match and allow detectives to triangulate the suspect. Final confirmation is done w/ direct testing after probable cause. Faking your own dna has little effect on this process of triangulation and can easily be identified as you won’t share expected traits with relatives. Good luck...
    - rmtech 7y ago
      They got the Golden State Killer without a warrant. They took a cup he had drank from and then discarded. The key was that the DNA of his relatives led them to him. Once you are in that position, you are already done.
sysbin 7y ago
I’m not sure if I trust people enough to be using DNA in the legal system of today. Let alone police with the bad actors that are attracted to the career. The one law protection service I wish would be created is a way for opting-in to have my iPhone track location & record audio 24/7; with the guarantee of privacy for the data and able to be viewed only with consent (whenever being alleged to have committed a crime). It’s a work in progress thought I’ve been thinking about because I’ve been in a few situations where having a recording could have been potentially life changing in benefiting my recollection of what happened. Police don’t even let you audio record interrogations with your own personal phone. Although one should never even speak to the police and just request their lawyer on the spot.
gwern 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it always been 100% clear that police would be able to search online DNA databases easily, through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine if nothing else?
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  Isn’t DNA sequencing my medical information and protected by HIPAA and other privacy laws? Can the police search my medical records without a warrant?
  - i_am_nomad 7y ago
    Not since Smith vs. Maryland, one of the SCOTUS’ truly awful rulings. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-third-party-doctrine/282721/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-...
    - phkahler 7y ago
      The police can ask you for something without a warrant. You can say no. When they ask a 3rd party like the phone company they are free to say yes and comply if they want. I dont think that would apply to data protected under HIPPA though, which by law is not to be shared without the persons comcent. But IANAL.
      - i_am_nomad 7y ago
        The problem is that the data obtained via a third party, without a warrant, is admissible in court. And IANALE, but HIPAA has exclusions and exemptions for law enforcement.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    HIPAA doesn't apply to everyone. There's a definition for "covered entities". For example, if you tell me about your medical condition, I can tell anyone I like. I can't find any reference to HIPAA in 23andme's privacy policy and I don't believe they are currently considered a covered entity. I don't even know if their data is considered medical information in the same way a diagnosis would be.
hugh4life 7y ago
A power database for genetic geneology could be developed just with the DNA of police officers. The government should be providing incentivizes to people who make their DNA information open for genetic genealogy searches rather than resorting to warrants on information people didn't agree to it.
- buboard 7y ago
  It should actually be a requirement for police personnel, in the interest of transparency
annoyingnoob 7y ago
In 2019, when we have huge databases that we can search quickly, the Third-Party doctrine no longer fits/works. We share vast amounts of very private information with third parties, it goes way beyond the meta-data of a PSTN phone call. There is a big difference between asking for the call records of particular phone numbers and searching an entire database for whatever you want. With phone records you are asking for specific details, details that could provide direct evidence of a crime, the database has a perfect match for the search and that is known ahead of time. With DNA DB searches you are fishing for potential links, at least for now the DB isn't likely to have a perfect match and that is known ahead of time. Everyone in that DNA DB becomes suspect. I should not need DNA evidence to clear my name every time someone commits a crime.
- deogeo 7y ago
  The third party doctrine was always a disgusting mess. Sharing my information with entity A does not even remotely imply I'm okay with sharing it with B, and even less that A may be compelled to reveal my information against my and their desire. So often we hear that "corporations are people" - so can people be compelled to inform on others, without a warrant? They're a third party, after all!
  - Ogopogostick 7y ago
    Your comment looks like it's getting downvotes but the idea seems worth considering. I almost never hear corporate personhood brought up in good faith, it's usually just a rhetorical device these days, but it's worth remembering that the general idea behind it is that Corporations are just organized groups of people and therefore they should (should in the view of the relevant laws) not lose protections (compared to the individuals that comprise the group) simply for acting in a coordinated fashion.
jsonne 7y ago
I think we need a DNA GDPR. The notion that your unique genetic makeup and data derived from your DNA is yours to do with what you will that you can revoke at any time.
- inetknght 7y ago
  Who gets the rights when there's identical twins?
  - xyst 7y ago
    The term “identical twins” is a misnomer in terms of DNA. If you have two identical looking people, they will still have unique sets of DNA.
    - inetknght 7y ago
      You are wrong. I'm not talking about "identical looking" people. I'm talking about _monozygotic twins_. They have identical DNA because they're two people spawned from one zygote and therefore have identical DNA.
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        Won’t natural mutations give them different DNA after some time?
        wahern 7y ago
        Correct: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/identical-twins-arent-so-identical-which-makes-twin-studies-harder-119107266/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/identical-twins-ar... And it starts in utero, even at the embryonic stage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/
        inetknght 7y ago
xyst 7y ago
I feel bad for all of the suckers that paid for and freely submitted their DNA to these private companies. I have been saying this for years, but your DNA and health should only be viewed by you and your healthcare providers. With this contract, you are protected by strict federal and state laws (ie, HIPAA) Using it for vanity bullshit like “I just found out I am 2% Cherokee” is absolutely insane.
- mod50ack 7y ago
  Conversely, I was able to use a service of this kind to reconnect branches of my family separated by genocide. And I personally don't mind if the police have my DNA. If some cousin of mine committed a crime, and this helps them somehow, all the better in my view. You can make your own choices for yourself but I don't feel like a sucker at all.
- buboard 7y ago
  I did and dont feel bad. Unfortunately, these services will be outlawed or regulated for whatever reasons, witholding people from information they should be able to have. I was lucky enough to have had health reports before it was outlawed. I know how imperfect it is , but i think the bans violated my rights. I now have a file with my SNPs - uncensored- to play with as i wish. (I wouldn’t rule it out that these companies will be forced to censor SNPs that some groups don’t like in the future) Also , it is futile to think you re not already affected, after all we re all connected with only 3 degrees of genetic separation: https://blog.23andme.com/news/make-that-three-degrees-of-separation/ https://blog.23andme.com/news/make-that-three-degrees-of-sep...
- austhrow743 7y ago
  Don't forget the relatives of the suckers! We're pwned as well.

99 points by SQL2219 7y ago

Personally I'm glad they are catching murderers and rapists this way. It's fantastic and as far as we've seen there is no downside when this tool is applied within the context of a state that has rule of law. Even in a totalitarian panopticon like China, it's hard to picture exactly what downside a complete dna database would have. I mean we can contrive scenarios. Maybe a resistance cell is busted while everyone is out and the government is able to deduce the members from dna traces. But it seems far fetched. Even in that scenario, traditional policing techniques are likely to be more effective. I.e. wait until resistance members are present THEN attack the cell. Interrogate prisoners to give up accomplices etc. Dna identification is pretty cool because the vast majority of cases where it's useful are cases where traces have been left at the scene of the crime or on a victim. That fact, the mere existence of a scene or a victim, constrains the use of the tool mostly to legitimate circumstances. If my dna were used to lock up a relative who commits a rape or a murder I would be sad but I would consider it justified. I'm not going to do either of those things so I am not worried about whether the police would use dna to identify me. And considering the lack of scenarios where DNA could be misused, this is actually one of those situations where the innocent have nothing or next to nothing to worry about.

sokoloff 7y ago
Have you never been in a place where a murder was later committed? Have you never had personal contact with someone later raped? There’s a temptation to compute “1 in a billion” probabilities, have a computer or science wizard process spit them out and for investigators to conclude the person who matches is the one. I’m more worried about the possible lazy or sloppy interpretation and curve-fitting aspects of the tech than I am worried about me flipping out and committing a felony offense. I am likewise glad for the cases where it is helping to correctly solve crimes, of course.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  There is always the possibility that you will be incorrectly identified by an investigative technique, dna or otherwise. This is not a remote chance; it happens all the time. In my view, this does not increase that probability very much, but it massively improves the odds of finding criminals. Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction. There is still the matter of alibis, motives, and all those traditional avenues of forensic inquiry. As to your questions, as far as I know, nobody has ever been murdered in a place where I've been. Maybe on the sidewalk somewhere, but that is not a scenario where DNA is going to be any help, unless the perpetrator leaves behind blood or skin on the victim or the ground. And I've never had sexual contact with anyone who was subsequently raped, nor anyone who didn't already know me for that matter. But it hardly matters whether those things have happened to me personally. What matters is how often that happens in the world, and what fraction of the time this leads to incorrect prosecution.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > this does not increase that probability very much That depends[1] strongly on what question you are asking. Matching an unknown sample against a small number of suspects is a very different question than searching a database with millions (or billions) of records. The latter is almost guaranteed[2] to return false positives. > it massively improves the odds of finding criminals That's a strong claim that requires equally strong evidence. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/dna_matching_an.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/dna_matching_... ( http://archive.li/M0SeV http://archive.li/M0SeV ) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
  - tw04 7y ago
    >Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction. That's awful wishful thinking. The general public is of the opinion that DNA evidence is 100% accurate and the government does a great job of continuing to present that farce. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to face a jury of their peers in the face of DNA evidence saying I committed a crime. Regardless of my alibi... I wouldn't trust the lay person to understand or get it right.
C14L 7y ago
Sooner or later followed by the next step: interpreting the DNA to identify people who are genetically likely to commit a certain crime.
- mc32 7y ago
  Alternatively if intervention techniques can be found that work, these people can be treated before they go on the path to anti social behavior and may become “habilitated”. Obviously there is a big red flag about what gets classified as this criminal behavior, but if we can keep it to immediate acts of violence, then it may possibly be worthwhile.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Yes, send them to treatment even before they do anything wrong. This is a line from basically every future dystopian nightmare ever.
    - mc32 7y ago
      It depends. If it’s somewhat deterministic like disease, and there are no adverse effects or if there are they are overridden by the benefits then I don’t see why not investigate that avenue. Obviously if it remains guesswork then the reason to pursue this option doesn’t exist.
      - RHSeeger 7y ago
        > there are no adverse effects Both real life and those dystopian movies have taught me that this is _never_ the case. There's literally a 0% chance of no adverse side effects.
        huherto 7y ago
        To be fear, that needs to happen in movies. Otherwise it would be a boring movie if everything goes right.
chrischen 7y ago
Just because a there is a law or policy doesn’t mean it’s not abused or the policy is 100% effective. China is a great example of bureaucracy and keeping up appearances while the reality is starkly different, but it happens in the US too.
pjc50 7y ago
> Even in a totalitarian panopticon like China, it's hard to picture exactly what downside a complete dna database would have. This is a really bad take, because we already know that China is running an ethnicity-based genocide and cultural obliteration programme in Xinjang. You might also want to consider this case, which is the reverse: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ray-cromartie-death-row-execution-dna-evidence-shooting-a9202391.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ray-cromar... - refusal to perform DNA testing even when the defense demands it.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  You don't need dna to perform an ethnic cleansing. It's not even really that helpful. We've been doing those as a species for centuries, long before we even knew what DNA was. In the case of the reverse: doesn't that just strengthen my point that this tool should be used to narrow the set of possible perpetrators? Btw, I find the "this is a really bad take" verbiage to be rude and unnecessary. You could just leave it out and it wouldn't make your argument weaker.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    When I had my DNA tested I found out I was 7% Jewish. It's not clear if that's enough "bad" blood to qualify me for the gas chamber.
    - hilbert42 7y ago
      I'd bet it would have been quite sufficient information for the likes of Heinrich Himmler—and if you'd lived back then and if he could have gotten his hands on you then you'd be history! That's why putting one's DNA on line is so dangerous and so bloody damn stupid! For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily put their DNA on any database when it's been so damn obvious for many years—from the very start—that police, governments, life insurance companies and crooks etc. are just dying to get their grubby little paws on this valuable information. What annoys me even more is that people who put their DNA on these databases do so without consideration of those who are genetically related to them. When a person puts their DNA on a database, ipso facto, they are also violating the privacy of their near (and no-so-near) relatives, who in most instances, have never given their consent to do so. Frankly, I consider this a terrible state of affairs and there should be strict laws against people doing it. Seems to me that now that the cat's out of the bag the only thing that can be done is to seed these databases with cleverly engineered noisy/disruptive profiles that would make tree analysis much harder to decipher.
navigatr 7y ago
Texas is about to execute a man who was convicted on DNA evidence[1]. His crime? Having an affair with a cop's wife. His DNA was found in the victim's body. There is sworn testimony that the husband confessed to the murder of his own wife. I'd hate to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time, or to have left garbage somewhere a crime was committed, or to have had sex with someone who later has a crime committed against them. [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/15/opinion/texas-may-soon-execute-an-innocent-man/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/15/opinion/texas-may-soo...

nabla9 7y ago

If you are a criminal, it might be wise to send them someone else's DNA in your own name. From someone who is not in the register and never gets there, maybe dies soon. When they start to eliminate suspects based on DNA you get dropped.

jacquesm 7y ago
The ultimate form of identity fraud.
rmtech 7y ago
That wouldn't work. If you are already a suspect, the police will retest you, not rely on what's on the database. What you actually want to do is send your own DNA in someone else's name - preferably someone who is demographically similar to you, but who has essentially no connection to you (better still, someone who is dead) If none of your relatives use the service then this might work.
- igetspam 7y ago
  Suspicion is not always sufficient for a warrant and tapping you for DNA isn't the same as searching your car, which requires probable cause. I don't know how DNA db srach warrants work but if they're blind matches, submitting bad data could be an effective smoke screen. You just have to make sure you submit DNA from someone who isn't going to make you a false positive march later.
  - Sam_Odio 7y ago
    Most cases are not caught because there is a direct march, but because there are multiple distant relatives that match and allow detectives to triangulate the suspect. Final confirmation is done w/ direct testing after probable cause. Faking your own dna has little effect on this process of triangulation and can easily be identified as you won’t share expected traits with relatives. Good luck...
  - rmtech 7y ago
    They got the Golden State Killer without a warrant. They took a cup he had drank from and then discarded. The key was that the DNA of his relatives led them to him. Once you are in that position, you are already done.

sysbin 7y ago

I’m not sure if I trust people enough to be using DNA in the legal system of today. Let alone police with the bad actors that are attracted to the career. The one law protection service I wish would be created is a way for opting-in to have my iPhone track location & record audio 24/7; with the guarantee of privacy for the data and able to be viewed only with consent (whenever being alleged to have committed a crime). It’s a work in progress thought I’ve been thinking about because I’ve been in a few situations where having a recording could have been potentially life changing in benefiting my recollection of what happened. Police don’t even let you audio record interrogations with your own personal phone. Although one should never even speak to the police and just request their lawyer on the spot.

gwern 7y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it always been 100% clear that police would be able to search online DNA databases easily, through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine if nothing else?

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
Isn’t DNA sequencing my medical information and protected by HIPAA and other privacy laws? Can the police search my medical records without a warrant?
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  Not since Smith vs. Maryland, one of the SCOTUS’ truly awful rulings. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-third-party-doctrine/282721/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-...
  - phkahler 7y ago
    The police can ask you for something without a warrant. You can say no. When they ask a 3rd party like the phone company they are free to say yes and comply if they want. I dont think that would apply to data protected under HIPPA though, which by law is not to be shared without the persons comcent. But IANAL.
    - i_am_nomad 7y ago
      The problem is that the data obtained via a third party, without a warrant, is admissible in court. And IANALE, but HIPAA has exclusions and exemptions for law enforcement.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  HIPAA doesn't apply to everyone. There's a definition for "covered entities". For example, if you tell me about your medical condition, I can tell anyone I like. I can't find any reference to HIPAA in 23andme's privacy policy and I don't believe they are currently considered a covered entity. I don't even know if their data is considered medical information in the same way a diagnosis would be.

hugh4life 7y ago

A power database for genetic geneology could be developed just with the DNA of police officers. The government should be providing incentivizes to people who make their DNA information open for genetic genealogy searches rather than resorting to warrants on information people didn't agree to it.

buboard 7y ago
It should actually be a requirement for police personnel, in the interest of transparency

annoyingnoob 7y ago

In 2019, when we have huge databases that we can search quickly, the Third-Party doctrine no longer fits/works. We share vast amounts of very private information with third parties, it goes way beyond the meta-data of a PSTN phone call. There is a big difference between asking for the call records of particular phone numbers and searching an entire database for whatever you want. With phone records you are asking for specific details, details that could provide direct evidence of a crime, the database has a perfect match for the search and that is known ahead of time. With DNA DB searches you are fishing for potential links, at least for now the DB isn't likely to have a perfect match and that is known ahead of time. Everyone in that DNA DB becomes suspect. I should not need DNA evidence to clear my name every time someone commits a crime.

deogeo 7y ago
The third party doctrine was always a disgusting mess. Sharing my information with entity A does not even remotely imply I'm okay with sharing it with B, and even less that A may be compelled to reveal my information against my and their desire. So often we hear that "corporations are people" - so can people be compelled to inform on others, without a warrant? They're a third party, after all!
- Ogopogostick 7y ago
  Your comment looks like it's getting downvotes but the idea seems worth considering. I almost never hear corporate personhood brought up in good faith, it's usually just a rhetorical device these days, but it's worth remembering that the general idea behind it is that Corporations are just organized groups of people and therefore they should (should in the view of the relevant laws) not lose protections (compared to the individuals that comprise the group) simply for acting in a coordinated fashion.

jsonne 7y ago

I think we need a DNA GDPR. The notion that your unique genetic makeup and data derived from your DNA is yours to do with what you will that you can revoke at any time.

inetknght 7y ago
Who gets the rights when there's identical twins?
- xyst 7y ago
  The term “identical twins” is a misnomer in terms of DNA. If you have two identical looking people, they will still have unique sets of DNA.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    You are wrong. I'm not talking about "identical looking" people. I'm talking about _monozygotic twins_. They have identical DNA because they're two people spawned from one zygote and therefore have identical DNA.
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      Won’t natural mutations give them different DNA after some time?
      - wahern 7y ago
        Correct: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/identical-twins-arent-so-identical-which-makes-twin-studies-harder-119107266/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/identical-twins-ar... And it starts in utero, even at the embryonic stage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/
        inetknght 7y ago

xyst 7y ago

I feel bad for all of the suckers that paid for and freely submitted their DNA to these private companies. I have been saying this for years, but your DNA and health should only be viewed by you and your healthcare providers. With this contract, you are protected by strict federal and state laws (ie, HIPAA) Using it for vanity bullshit like “I just found out I am 2% Cherokee” is absolutely insane.

mod50ack 7y ago
Conversely, I was able to use a service of this kind to reconnect branches of my family separated by genocide. And I personally don't mind if the police have my DNA. If some cousin of mine committed a crime, and this helps them somehow, all the better in my view. You can make your own choices for yourself but I don't feel like a sucker at all.
buboard 7y ago
I did and dont feel bad. Unfortunately, these services will be outlawed or regulated for whatever reasons, witholding people from information they should be able to have. I was lucky enough to have had health reports before it was outlawed. I know how imperfect it is , but i think the bans violated my rights. I now have a file with my SNPs - uncensored- to play with as i wish. (I wouldn’t rule it out that these companies will be forced to censor SNPs that some groups don’t like in the future) Also , it is futile to think you re not already affected, after all we re all connected with only 3 degrees of genetic separation: https://blog.23andme.com/news/make-that-three-degrees-of-separation/ https://blog.23andme.com/news/make-that-three-degrees-of-sep...
austhrow743 7y ago
Don't forget the relatives of the suckers! We're pwned as well.