11 ms·
Police used a baby’s DNA to investigate its father for a crime
- Clent 4y agoDangerous precedence, this will increase the portion of the population that chooses to skip the screening.
- imoverclocked 4y agoAs it should. So far, data collection rarely benefits the people the data are collected from. DNA is akin to collecting contact lists of others to create a shadow profile of unknown persons from known ones. No opt-out is possible.
- cm2187 4y agoI don't get why they need to store it to screen it.
- tablespoon 4y ago>> Dangerous precedence, this will increase the portion of the population that chooses to skip the screening. > As it should. Not in this case. These screenings detect serious diseases, and skipping them will have serious health consequences for many people: https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/newborn-screening-tests https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/newborn-screening-t...: here's just one of the things they test for: > Phenylketonuria (PKU). PKU is an inherited disease in which the body cannot metabolize a protein called phenylalanine. It is estimated that one in every 10,000 to 15,000 babies is born with PKU in the U.S. Without treatment, PKU can cause intellectual disability. Newborn screening for PKU is required in all 50 states. IIRC, babies with that condition need to be put on a special formula ASAP, or they'll have problems. > So far, data collection rarely benefits the people the data are collected from. That may be true, but it's lazy and incorrect to assume that it's correct to proceed like it never benefits anyone.
- djbebs 4y agoToo bad the hospitals aren't trustworthy.
- tablespoon 4y ago> Too bad the hospitals aren't trustworthy. What the heck is that supposed to mean?
- imoverclocked 4y agoFrom experience with immediate family in the US, hospitals can be quite scary currently. Reasons range from staff that doesn’t communicate to surgeries that are counter-indicated and scheduled without patient knowledge. Then there is the whole opaque billing process where you learn that the minor medication (like Advil) costs hundreds of dollars after the fact. Personally, a hospital is the last place I want to end up right now.
- tablespoon 4y agoGoing from that to "hospitals aren't trustworthy" in the context of newborn screening tests is a massive overreaction.
- imoverclocked 4y agoOk, let's try again. Hospitals are businesses optimizing for their bottom line, not for patient benefit. Law-enforcement has a lot of funding. Sharing data (obtained from humans without a fully developed consciousness) with law enforcement (for whatever purposes they want) is a massive overreach and has nothing to do with providing care for the patient. So, their best interest is not your best interest, but we should trust them implicitly?
- mywittyname 4y agoUnfortunately, it doesn't matter. Most of my family has submitted samples to those ancestry sites, including my parents. So I'm basically in there whether I want to or not.
- V__ 4y ago> The New Jersey lawsuit alleges that police obtained the blood sample of a newborn child (who is now elementary-school aged) Why are these DNS sample stored for so long? The U.S. really needs some data protection and privacy laws.
- codereviewed 4y agoThey just need to shorten the TTL.
- drewcoo 4y agoLiberals will support it because public health. Conservatives will support it because law and order. It's the perfect storm of governmental invasiveness.
- V__ 4y agoDeleting (destroying) everything after all tests have been done would be the simple solution.
- SoftTalker 4y agoNo such thing. Any data that can be saved, will be saved. Deletion is a myth.
- V__ 4y agoWell yes, because there are no laws and punishments which would disincentivize it.
- tomjakubowski 4y agoWhat's the public health benefit to keeping blood samples around for so many years?
- pc86 4y agoResearch is the big/obvious one.
- arijun 4y agoHow is that not a huge HIPPA violation? Shouldn’t this be a slam dunk case?
- giantg2 4y agoBecause government cares about government rules only when it suits them. The rest of the time they make up excuses for why something should be allowed.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoTell me what part of HIPAA you think was violated.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y agoTell me why everyone spells HIPAA wrong. (It's the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)
- smegsicle 4y agowant to spell it like hippo
- Someone1234 4y agoBecause the people often mis-citing HIPAA also know so little about it they don't even know what it stands for. People think it is a magical incarnation, that they can wield in any vaguely relevant discussion. Whereas I'd argue that HIPAA is a very weak law with poor enforcement. It is a "better than nothing" law and nothing more[0]. It isn't some kind of medical data super weapon like people believe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act#Violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...
- johnbellone 4y agoThis is a gray area for sure, but I'd argue that it violates the [HITECH Act][^1] Part D (privacy & disclosure). The rub here is that the patient, newborn in this case, did not consent because they were underage. In many cases this blood sample is taken "by default" and requires an opt-out due to religious objection. [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Information_Technology_for_Economic_and_Clinical_Health_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Information_Technology_...
- asdff 4y agoSo before all of this, a crime would happen, you'd leave a fingerprint, the police attempt to match it with a fingerprint in their databases that you might have had to submit to get a drivers license. All fine because people understand the science of fingerprinting. Today, a crime would happen, you leave DNA, the police attempt to match it with a DNA sample in their databases you might have submitted for a health screening. 4th amendment violation because DNA is scary to the lay person it seems. This is not from logical reasoning but from emotional reasoning, because for all intents and purposes DNA databases are being used exactly like fingerprint databases that are normalized in our society today, and shouldn't actually have this scrutiny (or maybe fingerprints should have more scrutiny if you are against DNA screening for crimes, because the logical arguments would be the same). Then again these articles generate clicks while I'm sure most would eyeroll a fingerprinting article.
- giantg2 4y agoConsidering the quality of the labs performing the work, every test deserves scrutiny.
- asdff 4y agoBut its not being argued on that angle, its being argued on a 4th amendment angle. If it were being argued on that angle, why not also scrutinize the state fingerprinting labs on that same argument? They don't get that scrutiny though. It's just mainly a fear of DNA technology owing to privacy concerns, not really due to concerns that the sample could be crosscontaminated or that the labs aren't qualified to perform the work. Neither were mentioned in the article anyhow, just the 4th amendment angle.
- giantg2 4y agoSure, that wasn't mentioned in the article because it's not specific to DNA tests, but all tests. The difference with DNA is that the genetic data has a ton of info associated with it, and that in this case it was collected for healthcare purposes. Fingerprints don't carry sensitive health data. The arguments are different.
- uoaei 4y agoThe baby did not consent to sharing its data.
- asdff 4y agoNo, but its legal guardians probably did
- giantg2 4y agoThey probably were not informed of the uses. The nurse probably told them they're using it to screen for defects. I guarantee they made no mention of the retention nor law enforcement uses.
- Beltalowda 4y agoIf I buy a knife at the local shop then I don't explicitly consent to sharing purchase data with law enforcement either. But I don't think it's especially controversial that law enforcement nonetheless obtains this data with the appropriate warrant and such in the process of solving a crime.
- imoverclocked 4y agoPerhaps but, "informed consent" within the medical industry is a lot different than at a knife shop.
- jonas21 4y agoOne of the issues in this case is that police did not have a warrant at the time they obtained the baby's DNA sample. They were unable to get one because they did not have probable cause that any individual had committed the crime. And certainly the baby could not have committed the crime, which occurred before it was born. It was only after the state lab gave them the baby's DNA sample that they were able to establish probable cause and get a warrant for the father.
- asdff 4y ago
- mikeyouse 4y agoNew Jersey has middling rules around accessing this data, some states are far more lax; https://texaslawreview.org/americas-hidden-national-dna-database/ https://texaslawreview.org/americas-hidden-national-dna-data... (See the paragraph around cite 180)
- strangattractor 4y agoThere are questions as to whether finger prints are unique (https://psmag.com/news/why-fingerprints-arent-proof-47079 https://psmag.com/news/why-fingerprints-arent-proof-47079) so DNA seems better. I am a little conflicted on what I actually think. On the one hand typical police methodology is frightfully subjective and error prone. Having methods that can be validated independently from gov't labs seems more just. On the other hand I can see this having unintended consequences.
- acomjean 4y agoI took a genomics class. Guest presenter was someone who did genetic forensics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Bieber#National_and_International_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Bieber#National_and_... Family Search first used in California in 2010. The "Grim Sleeper" serial murderer. They first tried in 2008 but no match. Trying again 2010 yeilded a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Sleeper#Arrest_and_further_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Sleeper#Arrest_and_furthe... "Police had found no exact match between DNA found at the crime scenes and any of the profiles in California's DNA profile database, so they searched the database for stored profiles that demonstrated sufficient similarity to allow police to infer a familial relationship. They found similar DNA belonging to Franklin's son, Christopher, who had been convicted of a felony weapons charge in 2008. Christopher was too young to have committed the murders, but the familial DNA match led investigators to look at his father, Lonnie, as the likely perpetrator." its a little fraught, because some states take DNA from those who have committed crimes..
- onychomys 4y agoYou're all reacting to the wrong part of this. The blood sample part is unimportant, they could have just dug in the garbage and gotten a dirty diaper or whatever. They sent the blood off for DNA typing, which they could have done on any other thing that kid had touched instead. Follow him to McDonalds, collect the straw from his juicebox when it gets thrown away, end result is the same, and no warrant is needed for that either.
- cynusx 4y agoI don't see why we don't just DNA fingerprint the entire population. It will make the world much safer as the chances of getting away with a crime are heavily reduced. There's still due process and the presumption of innocence.
- ClosedPistachio 4y agoThis bothered me a lot, so I contacted the department of health and requested the opt-out form. They emailed me back rather quickly with the form, but boy does the text of the form try to dissuade you! "I understand that there are numerous benefits to public health in retaining residual NBS samples. Residual NBS samples are the only available opportunity for a complete population study to be conducted since there is a sample received on virtually every baby born. In addition to this, the NBS sample is sometimes the only remaining evidence available to the family from their child if their child becomes missing. The main benefits to NBS sample storage are: • Quality assurance and improvement for the NBS laboratory. • Research for new technologies and for detecting new disorders. • Research for new treatments and cures for major childhood diseases. • Population incidence research on disorders and environmental contaminant exposures. • Parents can recall the specimens to help determine the cause of an unexplained death of their child (SIDS). • Parents can recall the specimens to aid law enforcement in identifying their missing child. "