8 ms·
The FBI Has Collected DNA Profiles for 21M People
- jtbayly 3y ago“If you look back at when CODIS was established, it was originally for violent or sexual offenders,” Anna Lewis, a Harvard researcher who specializes in the ethical implications of genetics research, told The Intercept. “The ACLU warned that this was going to be a slippery slope, and that’s indeed what we’ve seen.” Just like the CSAM scanning people are still promoting...
- ftxbro 3y agoThat's enough to fill in the rest.
- soligern 3y agoThat hits hard. Atleast they can’t reasonably base insurance premiums on the gene set of your third cousin, not for most health conditions anyway.
- donmcronald 3y ago1% is the number I seem to remember from watching an interview of a CEO of a DNA company.
- julienreszka 3y ago[flagged]
- advisedwang 3y agoDoes that include, like, the EPA? NPS? What about the DoD? Agencies are just how the government does stuff, does "all alphabet agencies must be abolished" just mean the government should stop doing anything?
- wahnfrieden 3y agoYes
- soligern 3y ago[flagged]
- wahnfrieden 3y agothe congo has plenty of hierarchy and belief in strongman leaders.
- soligern 3y agoNothing you would have to abide by if you’re not part of the local community.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoOk and
- soligern 3y agoYou get what you want.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoAn anarchist society? No, they have plenty of hierarchy and desire for strongman leaders
- wahnfrieden 3y agoOh I see you thought that's the only step. Ok
- 3y ago
- smitty1110 3y agoCome on, that's just absurd. No more IRS? No SSA? Good luck with all the angry seniors asking for their SSA checks beating down your door.
- mypgovroom 3y ago[flagged]
- twiddling 3y agoThat few?
- snakeyjake 3y agoI see little difference between collecting fingerprints and DNA samples. Very few reasonable people object to suspects being fingerprinted, so far as I can tell. Maybe people don't actually know what's being stored? A couple dozen non-protein-encoding loci cannot be used to frame you, tell what gender or race you are, or derive any other information about you. You can't look at a CODIS entry and say "this is a red-headed female with green eyes and a higher-than-average risk of breast cancer" you can't tell anything-- except if the samples being compared match. Same as fingerprints.
- tw04 3y agoAs far as I know, fingerprints can't be used against my great-great grandchildren 200 years from now if some insane dictator decides he wants to eliminate every person that shares my bloodline for some reason. History has shown the horrible things mankind is capable of, and DNA can be utilized to facilitate it. Fingerprints cannot.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoMaking the argument that DNA is private is a hard sell. Which parts? Your unique genome? Or the segments you share with everyone else. Instead of putting the genie back in the bottle (we can't), we should have more governance around the use and storage of the data, because it's only going to get faster, cheaper, and easier to sequence DNA, store it, and move it around digitally. Can probably already store global database of everyone's genome in a few racks of storage, if not a single rack. Very similar to the challenges we face around PII/SPI and other personal data.
- tw04 3y ago>Making the argument that DNA is private is a hard sell. How is that a hard sell at all? I'm not suggesting a motivated actor would have trouble getting it, but I am suggesting that nobody should be allowed to have a copy without my express consent. AKA: it's private. In the same way that if a significant other were to send you a nude photo it's OK, but if you were to take pictures up a woman's skirt on the subway, it's very much not.
- pushedx 3y agoI don’t like this
- Simulacra 3y agoAlas, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. The government will always have these, it will never go away, and it's highly unlikely we will ever get them to stop collecting this data.
- pushedx 3y agoThis would be illegal in Germany, especially for the government.
- playday 3y agoWhy not just tell them to delete the data or they are fired?
- voakbasda 3y agoRevolution. Burn these institutions to the ground.
- jstarfish 3y agoJust don't leave any DNA at the scene.
- lamontcg 3y agoAny revolution that involves burning any institutions to the ground in this country is very likely to be a fascist one (and will be quite happy to keep all those DNA profiles).
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago"Burn it down" is the same short sighted reactionary thinking as "surveil it all". A blanket judgement.
- theptip 3y ago> The rapid growth of the FBI’s sample load is in large part thanks to a Trump-era rule change that mandated the collection of DNA from migrants who were arrested or detained by immigration authorities. This detail makes a difference, IMO. It’s one thing to be doing DNA surveillance on citizens, quite different to use it to identify/correlate migrants, particularly undocumented ones. I don’t love the overall accumulation of Orwellian machinery that sooner or later can be turned on the citizenry, but I did leave the article with less concern than I entered with based on the title.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- skellington 3y agoI don't want this level of surveillance either, but if the rapid growth is in 'large part' due to collecting illegal immigrant DNA, doesn't that go against the narrative that illegal immigration is a small problem? Have we caught and released 20 (?) million people since Trump was in office?
- cout 3y agoThe 20M DNA samples is more than just migrants. Still, 100K encounters per month can add up fast: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-encounters-with-migrants-at-u-s-mexico-border-remain-near-record-highs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-e...
- dpifke 3y agoAccording to CBP, there were about 100,000 "encounters" on the southern border this past June, which is a 42% decline from the month before and the lowest since February, 2021: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-june-2023-monthly-update https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele... (It's not immediately clear to me whether an intercepted group counts as one "encounter," or if each individual in the group gets logged as a separate "encounter." My hunch is that it's the latter.) 100-150k/month * 36 months = between 3.6 and 5.4 million individuals since Trump left office, which would make up a significant chunk—but not the majority—of the 21 million DNA profiles. (For context, this is about the population of Dallas, TX or San Diego, CA entering the country illegally per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...)
- TurkishPoptart 3y agoThis is why I never felt comfortable doing 23andMe, or any of the spin-offs. It seems there's no way to protect that data.
- leotravis10 3y agoEven if you don't use it, there's a good chance your relatives or your loved ones might have. Connecting the dots that way.
- Euphorbium 3y agoI regret doing it.
- sillystate2023 3y agoIt is worse. My cousin did it. So parts of me are there already and I have zero say here. It is kinda like current surveillance. You can take all the precautions you want, but, if your so does not, it partially defeats the purpose. Those are the moments I lean towarda heavy regulation.
- refurb 3y agoPresumably a good number of them are dead?
- coin 3y agoTheir descendants are still alive
- TurkishPoptart 3y agoI'd really like to use 23andMe to see my genetic heritage/background, but at this time it seems there's no safe or secure way to do this, it's just not worth it.