6 ms·

Regardless Hand your biometric to government it in their rights now, regarding how to use it. Warning to us all.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
You leave your DNA everywhere. You leave it on pop cans you drink from, with hair and skin you shed, not to mention DNA relatives who willingly share with anyone who will sequence and store their DNA (23andme, Ancestory, and so forth). Any expectation of privacy regarding DNA is not grounded in reality. Perhaps the warning is to not commit the crime.
- eindiran 5y ago
  I was about to comment that in the next few years we would start seeing people who are willing to let the government biometrically finger fuck them because its pointless to fight back, but here you are proving that the battle was already lost and people are willing to roll over and take it already.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
  The possible 4th amendment/Victim's Bill of Rights violations here are not the same as the lack privacy with private companies/DNA collection from items you discard.
- mLuby 5y ago
  Cool cool cool. So can jobs (say schools), some of which require fingerprinting now, require a DNA sample too? Think of the children this might save from vile criminals! And think of the control this would gives employers over the health and genetic make-up of their prospective employees! There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit.
  - spullara 5y ago
    The point is that they don't need to require a DNA sample. They can just take one.
    - version_five 5y ago
      This point is wrong in relation to the story. They have some unknown DNA, and certainly they can go and stake out peoples houses and see it they throw out a cigarette but or however you get it. This seems reasonable, and if they are grabbing DNA off something a person threw away, they arguably wouldn't even need a warrant. But if instead they run their unknown DNA though a database of rape victims to see if any of them was the criminal, they're not "just taking a sample", they are invading the privacy of vulnerable women on the off chance one of them is a criminal. And they are obviously deterring people from reporting future crimes in which they have to give their DNA. I don't believe I need to belabor this, the case in the story had nothing to do with how easy it might be to collect DNA from someone you've already identified
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Some genes will be considered a security risk or a health hazard for one reason or another, and CRISPR will be available as a tool for modification. In 10, 20, 30 years people who don't want to be treated may have to settle for a limited range of jobs.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    You missed my point (which I admittedly didn’t make well). Because DNA is so ubiquitous, policy and regulation is the only way to provide safeguards (and there are already laws regulating the use of DNA for health insurance issuance). Rape victims, without exception, should not be dissuaded from coming forward out of fear of future crimes (speaking specially of this instance), but DNA databases and collection are still a useful tool for crime solving. It should be regulated, but still permitted, while ensuring victims are not disenfranchised or harmed in the process (when dna collection occurs as part of their own crime investigations). The genie is already out of the bottle wrt DNA, so governance and oversight are all that’s left to ensure it’s not wielded improperly (in a very similar, but not quite the same way, as photographs in public). (my dna has been genotyped by all major commercial providers, and is also public as part of Harvard’s personal genome project)
version_five 5y ago
Yes, one cound imagine an alternate world where strong controls meant data was never abused and government had a history of honestly protecting people. And then I could see an argument for why you would voluntarily (or even by compliance) give info to the government, like with contract tracing or even reporting a horrible personal crime like this. But the reality is, your information will be abused, and there is no good reason to help any government I'm aware of out, given how systematically uncaring they all are.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  >Yes, one cound imagine an alternate world where strong controls meant data was never abused and government had a history of honestly protecting people. I have a very good imagination but I cannot imagine this world.
  - sidewndr46 5y ago
    Likewise, I have no idea how this would work.

You leave your DNA everywhere. You leave it on pop cans you drink from, with hair and skin you shed, not to mention DNA relatives who willingly share with anyone who will sequence and store their DNA (23andme, Ancestory, and so forth). Any expectation of privacy regarding DNA is not grounded in reality. Perhaps the warning is to not commit the crime.

eindiran 5y ago
I was about to comment that in the next few years we would start seeing people who are willing to let the government biometrically finger fuck them because its pointless to fight back, but here you are proving that the battle was already lost and people are willing to roll over and take it already.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
The possible 4th amendment/Victim's Bill of Rights violations here are not the same as the lack privacy with private companies/DNA collection from items you discard.
mLuby 5y ago
Cool cool cool. So can jobs (say schools), some of which require fingerprinting now, require a DNA sample too? Think of the children this might save from vile criminals! And think of the control this would gives employers over the health and genetic make-up of their prospective employees! There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit.
- spullara 5y ago
  The point is that they don't need to require a DNA sample. They can just take one.
  - version_five 5y ago
    This point is wrong in relation to the story. They have some unknown DNA, and certainly they can go and stake out peoples houses and see it they throw out a cigarette but or however you get it. This seems reasonable, and if they are grabbing DNA off something a person threw away, they arguably wouldn't even need a warrant. But if instead they run their unknown DNA though a database of rape victims to see if any of them was the criminal, they're not "just taking a sample", they are invading the privacy of vulnerable women on the off chance one of them is a criminal. And they are obviously deterring people from reporting future crimes in which they have to give their DNA. I don't believe I need to belabor this, the case in the story had nothing to do with how easy it might be to collect DNA from someone you've already identified
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Some genes will be considered a security risk or a health hazard for one reason or another, and CRISPR will be available as a tool for modification. In 10, 20, 30 years people who don't want to be treated may have to settle for a limited range of jobs.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  You missed my point (which I admittedly didn’t make well). Because DNA is so ubiquitous, policy and regulation is the only way to provide safeguards (and there are already laws regulating the use of DNA for health insurance issuance). Rape victims, without exception, should not be dissuaded from coming forward out of fear of future crimes (speaking specially of this instance), but DNA databases and collection are still a useful tool for crime solving. It should be regulated, but still permitted, while ensuring victims are not disenfranchised or harmed in the process (when dna collection occurs as part of their own crime investigations). The genie is already out of the bottle wrt DNA, so governance and oversight are all that’s left to ensure it’s not wielded improperly (in a very similar, but not quite the same way, as photographs in public). (my dna has been genotyped by all major commercial providers, and is also public as part of Harvard’s personal genome project)

version_five 5y ago

Yes, one cound imagine an alternate world where strong controls meant data was never abused and government had a history of honestly protecting people. And then I could see an argument for why you would voluntarily (or even by compliance) give info to the government, like with contract tracing or even reporting a horrible personal crime like this. But the reality is, your information will be abused, and there is no good reason to help any government I'm aware of out, given how systematically uncaring they all are.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>Yes, one cound imagine an alternate world where strong controls meant data was never abused and government had a history of honestly protecting people. I have a very good imagination but I cannot imagine this world.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  Likewise, I have no idea how this would work.