5 ms·

This is clever, if used correctly. I would help prove that someone was in a building, but would not necessarily help proving that someone was in the building on

This is clever, if used correctly. I would help prove that someone was in a building, but would not necessarily help proving that someone was in the building on a particular day.

rco8786 3y ago
> in the building on a particular day This is a general limitation of DNA collection/analysis I would think? If you find someone's DNA somewhere, it's evidence that they were maybe there at some point in the past, but not at a specific time.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  I wonder how strong that evidence is. For example: My DNA is probably on my coworkers clothing. Which means it is in their homes, even though I've never been there.
  - surfingdino 3y ago
    Interesting, I did not think of that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Maybe I've let 'GATTACA' influence my thoughts too much but it seems like all it proves is that someone was in the building that possessed a sample of a particular person's DNA.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    It's not paranoia. As a sibling already pointed, we carry plenty of samples of other people's DNA around all the time. I wonder how many snakes one would find by average in an office.
- sholladay 3y ago
  Even that is a troubling assumption. Our DNA ends up in weird places. For example, someone’s DNA is probably on this plastic bag at the bottom of the ocean… https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-bag-found-bottom-worlds-deepest-ocean-trench/ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-ba...
  - rco8786 3y ago
    For sure. I used the word evidence rather than proof!
- bookofjoe 3y ago
  Not true. I take a used Starbucks cup and leave it in a building. Now the DNA of the person who used it is in the building. The person may never even have been in that city or country.
  - ChuckMcM 3y ago
    Gives all the baristas a good alibi :-)
- gist 3y ago
  Oh that is not going to stop law enforcement (who as a general rule doesn't have to be truthful). They can say they have evidence that you were there and on the spot (if you decide to talk to them) they can get you for lying or asking when and why you were at the location in question (and the reasons). Plenty can be done with this even on a hypothetical. I think this is (in the hands of the right interrogator super helpful. It's not like someone who commits a crime is going to be up on the latest forensic tests and it does sound possible.
sebstefan 3y ago
The article doesn't seem to be going that way After a year of using an office, they still can't detect one guy but still detect the previous owner just fine If you can only detect somebody after multiple months (up to multiple years for bad shedders) of residency, I'd imagine they would leave way easier clues than DNA in an AC unit
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Is it possible to use to narrow down warrants for DNA samples? Say the police have a sample from a perpetrator and can prove that sample matches samples from a builing AC. This could be part of the evidence used to obtai warrants for the DNA of some or all current/former inhabitants of the building, especially when pairdled with unopposed expert testimony about the reliability of the methodology.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    I would think (and surely hope) that would fail the probable cause test if attempted to be used for “all current/former inhabitants”. https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/dna-prosecutors-practice-notebook-inventory/preparing-cases-involving-dna/admissibility/court-order-or-search-warrant https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/dna-p...
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      As your link explains, in some jurisdictions all that is needed to collect biological samples is reasonable suspicion. Geofenced warrents are already a thing. While they may not be constitutional, that hasn't stopped them from being issued and executed. DNA from ACs could also be used to supplement other data to target specifc inhabitants with warrants. E
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        Even if the threshold is only “reasonable suspicion”, that test fails for large numbers of people whose DNA was found in an AC.
ElevenLathe 3y ago
Also makes it super easy to frame people: everyone is constantly shedding evidence, so just slurp some up and spit it back out somewhere you would like to "prove" them to have been.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Easy to do already with people's tobacco spit cup, or even regular drink cup residue, and such.

This is clever, if used correctly. I would help prove that someone was in a building, but would not necessarily help proving that someone was in the building on a particular day.

rco8786 3y ago

> in the building on a particular day This is a general limitation of DNA collection/analysis I would think? If you find someone's DNA somewhere, it's evidence that they were maybe there at some point in the past, but not at a specific time.

BurningFrog 3y ago
I wonder how strong that evidence is. For example: My DNA is probably on my coworkers clothing. Which means it is in their homes, even though I've never been there.
- surfingdino 3y ago
  Interesting, I did not think of that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Maybe I've let 'GATTACA' influence my thoughts too much but it seems like all it proves is that someone was in the building that possessed a sample of a particular person's DNA.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  It's not paranoia. As a sibling already pointed, we carry plenty of samples of other people's DNA around all the time. I wonder how many snakes one would find by average in an office.
sholladay 3y ago
Even that is a troubling assumption. Our DNA ends up in weird places. For example, someone’s DNA is probably on this plastic bag at the bottom of the ocean… https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-bag-found-bottom-worlds-deepest-ocean-trench/ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-ba...
- rco8786 3y ago
  For sure. I used the word evidence rather than proof!
bookofjoe 3y ago
Not true. I take a used Starbucks cup and leave it in a building. Now the DNA of the person who used it is in the building. The person may never even have been in that city or country.
- ChuckMcM 3y ago
  Gives all the baristas a good alibi :-)
gist 3y ago
Oh that is not going to stop law enforcement (who as a general rule doesn't have to be truthful). They can say they have evidence that you were there and on the spot (if you decide to talk to them) they can get you for lying or asking when and why you were at the location in question (and the reasons). Plenty can be done with this even on a hypothetical. I think this is (in the hands of the right interrogator super helpful. It's not like someone who commits a crime is going to be up on the latest forensic tests and it does sound possible.

sebstefan 3y ago

The article doesn't seem to be going that way After a year of using an office, they still can't detect one guy but still detect the previous owner just fine If you can only detect somebody after multiple months (up to multiple years for bad shedders) of residency, I'd imagine they would leave way easier clues than DNA in an AC unit

shkkmo 3y ago
Is it possible to use to narrow down warrants for DNA samples? Say the police have a sample from a perpetrator and can prove that sample matches samples from a builing AC. This could be part of the evidence used to obtai warrants for the DNA of some or all current/former inhabitants of the building, especially when pairdled with unopposed expert testimony about the reliability of the methodology.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I would think (and surely hope) that would fail the probable cause test if attempted to be used for “all current/former inhabitants”. https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/dna-prosecutors-practice-notebook-inventory/preparing-cases-involving-dna/admissibility/court-order-or-search-warrant https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/dna-p...
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    As your link explains, in some jurisdictions all that is needed to collect biological samples is reasonable suspicion. Geofenced warrents are already a thing. While they may not be constitutional, that hasn't stopped them from being issued and executed. DNA from ACs could also be used to supplement other data to target specifc inhabitants with warrants. E
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Even if the threshold is only “reasonable suspicion”, that test fails for large numbers of people whose DNA was found in an AC.

ElevenLathe 3y ago

Also makes it super easy to frame people: everyone is constantly shedding evidence, so just slurp some up and spit it back out somewhere you would like to "prove" them to have been.

giantg2 3y ago
Easy to do already with people's tobacco spit cup, or even regular drink cup residue, and such.