4 ms·

Then they'd know that that person had a relative there. We're still a lot of dots away from going "Well, we found this DNA by accident, it was clearly and obvi

Then they'd know that that person had a relative there. We're still a lot of dots away from going "Well, we found this DNA by accident, it was clearly and obvious Bob was there."

pfdietz 3y ago
I'm expecting the Republicans (if they haven't already) to insist that immigrants get their DNA put into databases. The argument would be that US citizens of long standing are already likely to have relatives in such databases (along with the genealogical information to exploit it) while criminal immigrants would be cloaked from such scrutiny, at least at first.
- S_A_P 3y ago
  Why stop at Republicans? I would think that a bill that allows for more people data would get bipartisan support no problem.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Oh, quite likely (especially if it there is a plausible justification as I gave), but I think the GOP would be more likely to push it initially.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  s/Republicans/politicians/; s/immigrants/everyone/ Based on the last 2 years of "show your papers" vaccine cards, I'm not sure why you'd pin this on Republicans.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Because the Republicans appear to enjoy abusing immigrants.
- some_random 3y ago
  Both parties are ecstatic to turn this nation into a surveillance panopticon, make no mistake
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
oilchange 3y ago
> We're still a lot of dots away from going "Well, we found this DNA by accident, it was clearly and obvious Bob was there." Once they have a relative, it isn't that difficult to narrow it down to Bob. Think about it, you went from 350 million possible candidates to maybe 50 or less. Go to the relative and ask them if they have any relatives in or near state X or city Y. That should narrow it down to a handful. And also you can narrow further by gender. Once you find a relative, you can logarithmically cull the search space.

4 ms·

Then they'd know that that person had a relative there. We're still a lot of dots away from going "Well, we found this DNA by accident, it was clearly and obvi

by SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

Then they'd know that that person had a relative there. We're still a lot of dots away from going "Well, we found this DNA by accident, it was clearly and obvious Bob was there."

pfdietz 3y ago
I'm expecting the Republicans (if they haven't already) to insist that immigrants get their DNA put into databases. The argument would be that US citizens of long standing are already likely to have relatives in such databases (along with the genealogical information to exploit it) while criminal immigrants would be cloaked from such scrutiny, at least at first.
- S_A_P 3y ago
  Why stop at Republicans? I would think that a bill that allows for more people data would get bipartisan support no problem.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Oh, quite likely (especially if it there is a plausible justification as I gave), but I think the GOP would be more likely to push it initially.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  s/Republicans/politicians/; s/immigrants/everyone/ Based on the last 2 years of "show your papers" vaccine cards, I'm not sure why you'd pin this on Republicans.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Because the Republicans appear to enjoy abusing immigrants.
- some_random 3y ago
  Both parties are ecstatic to turn this nation into a surveillance panopticon, make no mistake
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
oilchange 3y ago
> We're still a lot of dots away from going "Well, we found this DNA by accident, it was clearly and obvious Bob was there." Once they have a relative, it isn't that difficult to narrow it down to Bob. Think about it, you went from 350 million possible candidates to maybe 50 or less. Go to the relative and ask them if they have any relatives in or near state X or city Y. That should narrow it down to a handful. And also you can narrow further by gender. Once you find a relative, you can logarithmically cull the search space.