4 ms·

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 wit

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.
    - jellicle 7y ago
      I would love to see some test cases of that. Call in an unknowing jury by normal procedure, conduct an apparently-real trial, present evidence that a) DNA means X did it and also b) X has three friends who swear to an alibi. I'll bet X gets convicted.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Then that is what need to be fixed. Either make DNA information more accurate or better inform the general public the current state of DNA evidence.
      - inetknght 7y ago
        How do you propose to do that?
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...

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.
  - jellicle 7y ago
    I would love to see some test cases of that. Call in an unknowing jury by normal procedure, conduct an apparently-real trial, present evidence that a) DNA means X did it and also b) X has three friends who swear to an alibi. I'll bet X gets convicted.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Then that is what need to be fixed. Either make DNA information more accurate or better inform the general public the current state of DNA evidence.
    - inetknght 7y ago
      How do you propose to do that?

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...