4 ms·

I see little difference between collecting fingerprints and DNA samples. Very few reasonable people object to suspects being fingerprinted, so far as I can tel

I 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 ago
As 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 ago
  Making 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.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      > but I am suggesting that nobody should be allowed to have a copy without my express consent I think that is a fair position to take and would support legislation codifying that in statute. That's not necessarily private, but strongly governed (but perhaps we're talking past each other). How do you feel about relatives who share segments with you, where them sharing their DNA would trivially lead to you? As always, the discussion is "where does one's rights end and the other's begin."
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - type0 3y ago
    > Making the argument that DNA is private is a hard sell. Which parts? It is in a way, it just doesn't work as many people think it does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_encryption
- manquer 3y ago
  Given what CRISPR can already do today, it is not inconceivable that DNA editing and obfuscation becomes a thing 200 years from now , modifying the genetics and DNA of the zygote and sperm aka designer babies already is a serious non sci-fi area now . I doubt our progeny 200 years from now will have that strong a DNA connection to direct forefathers as we do now. DNA has been used to free thousands of wrongly convicted men from long prison sentences, probably from this kind of FBI databases too. I would rather take the benefit of better accuracy in criminal justice system now rather than vague problem far in the future. Tools are just tools , ethnic cleansing and eugenics existed far before DNA was even discovered , lack of tooling did not stop them
  - jasonjayr 3y ago
    This sounds like it could be a plotline in some futuristic cyberpunk story: encrypted/obfuscated DNA to protect against some antagonist!
    - Arrath 3y ago
      I could swear I've read a book (Consider Phlebas, maybe?) where along with shapeshifting to allow for easier approaches to their target, an assassin character can modify their dna such to leave behind evidence (hair, skin cells, etc) that point towards other parties.
      - jimmygrapes 3y ago
        Many of Peter F Hamilton's books come to mind, DNA resequencing/rejuvenation playing a big role in the ability of certain characters to avoid detection from authorities
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  >As 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. The type of DNA information contained within CODIS cannot be used to do this.
typingonmyphone 3y ago
[dead]
xhkkffbf 3y ago
One big difference is that DNA can identify siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents etc. So even if I willfully allow the FBI to store my DNA, it could identify one of my relatives. It makes the decision much more complicated for society and people who want to preserve some privacy.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  >One big difference is that DNA can identify siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents etc. The type of DNA information contained within CODIS cannot be used to do this.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Fingerprints on a gun means you atleast touched that gun at some point. Some dandruff on a gun with your dna in it could mean that you rubbed against the murderers neighbor in the subway two weeks ago.
pessimizer 3y ago
Let's say that Judaism is made illegal, and the police bust an underground synagogue, or homosexuality is made illegal, and the police arrest the host of a gay book club that meets at his home, or, to strain credulity, a group of lesbians meet in secret in Tasmania to avoid having to include translesbians. Could DNA vacuumed up in the room be used to find all of the people that attended, and imprison them?
- Euphorbium 3y ago
  They could probably use the dna to make a precise targeted bioweapon aimed at those people.
  - snakeyjake 3y ago
    >They could probably use the dna to make a precise targeted bioweapon aimed at those people. The type of DNA information contained within CODIS cannot be used to do this.
ufjfjjfjfj 3y ago
> I see little difference between collecting fingerprints and DNA samples. There's a huge difference... Its like alphabet VS encyclopedia

tw04 3y ago

As 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 ago
Making 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.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > but I am suggesting that nobody should be allowed to have a copy without my express consent I think that is a fair position to take and would support legislation codifying that in statute. That's not necessarily private, but strongly governed (but perhaps we're talking past each other). How do you feel about relatives who share segments with you, where them sharing their DNA would trivially lead to you? As always, the discussion is "where does one's rights end and the other's begin."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- type0 3y ago
  > Making the argument that DNA is private is a hard sell. Which parts? It is in a way, it just doesn't work as many people think it does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_encryption
manquer 3y ago
Given what CRISPR can already do today, it is not inconceivable that DNA editing and obfuscation becomes a thing 200 years from now , modifying the genetics and DNA of the zygote and sperm aka designer babies already is a serious non sci-fi area now . I doubt our progeny 200 years from now will have that strong a DNA connection to direct forefathers as we do now. DNA has been used to free thousands of wrongly convicted men from long prison sentences, probably from this kind of FBI databases too. I would rather take the benefit of better accuracy in criminal justice system now rather than vague problem far in the future. Tools are just tools , ethnic cleansing and eugenics existed far before DNA was even discovered , lack of tooling did not stop them
- jasonjayr 3y ago
  This sounds like it could be a plotline in some futuristic cyberpunk story: encrypted/obfuscated DNA to protect against some antagonist!
  - Arrath 3y ago
    I could swear I've read a book (Consider Phlebas, maybe?) where along with shapeshifting to allow for easier approaches to their target, an assassin character can modify their dna such to leave behind evidence (hair, skin cells, etc) that point towards other parties.
    - jimmygrapes 3y ago
      Many of Peter F Hamilton's books come to mind, DNA resequencing/rejuvenation playing a big role in the ability of certain characters to avoid detection from authorities
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
snakeyjake 3y ago
>As 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. The type of DNA information contained within CODIS cannot be used to do this.

typingonmyphone 3y ago

[dead]

xhkkffbf 3y ago

One big difference is that DNA can identify siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents etc. So even if I willfully allow the FBI to store my DNA, it could identify one of my relatives. It makes the decision much more complicated for society and people who want to preserve some privacy.

snakeyjake 3y ago
>One big difference is that DNA can identify siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents etc. The type of DNA information contained within CODIS cannot be used to do this.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Fingerprints on a gun means you atleast touched that gun at some point. Some dandruff on a gun with your dna in it could mean that you rubbed against the murderers neighbor in the subway two weeks ago.

pessimizer 3y ago

Let's say that Judaism is made illegal, and the police bust an underground synagogue, or homosexuality is made illegal, and the police arrest the host of a gay book club that meets at his home, or, to strain credulity, a group of lesbians meet in secret in Tasmania to avoid having to include translesbians. Could DNA vacuumed up in the room be used to find all of the people that attended, and imprison them?

Euphorbium 3y ago
They could probably use the dna to make a precise targeted bioweapon aimed at those people.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  >They could probably use the dna to make a precise targeted bioweapon aimed at those people. The type of DNA information contained within CODIS cannot be used to do this.

ufjfjjfjfj 3y ago

> I see little difference between collecting fingerprints and DNA samples. There's a huge difference... Its like alphabet VS encyclopedia