4 ms·

What if someone in your family has done a crime, and the result of your DNA being online is (1) you are the first suspect and (2) the criminal might well learn/

What if someone in your family has done a crime, and the result of your DNA being online is (1) you are the first suspect and (2) the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?

mustyoshi 2y ago
Isn't it better for society as a whole if criminals are apprehended? Even moreso if they're one that would be a physical threat like you're suggesting?
- haxxorfreak 2y ago
  Yes, assuming the label of who is a “criminal” is fair. There is always the risk of a society or government changing that definition after they have the data and it’s too late to go back.
- nukem222 2y ago
  Depends on the crime. They aren't exactly fungible acts. Furthermore the state isn't exactly obligated to manage society, even if this has occurred in various forms throughout history. Many of our laws weren't exactly written with "society's" best interest at heart. Ultimately, the state will look after itself above all else. I'm just saying I'd like the state to have to work hard to put people away. The law can just as easily be wielded to harm people. I don't see much sign the american public agrees with me, and politicians certainly don't agree. Even mr "it's a witch hunt" trump is only anti-LEO when it comes to his own crimes. But I'd rather have some low background level of crime than the sinking feeling that we're imprisoning a lot of innocent people, as unpopular a sentiment it might be to some in this country. Besides, if the government doesn't take care of society, higher crime is inevitable.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Mustyosi, your DNA was found on a coffee cup at a Denny’s frequented by terrorists destroying Tesla property. Where were you on Tuesday at 2?
  - adolph 2y ago
    “Zoom and enhance” forensics aren’t real right? Isn’t it mostly NSA listens in and then they have to parallel construct something to hide the illegal pervasive surveillance?
    - consteval 2y ago
      Pretty much all of forensics isn't real. Blood splatter analysis, polygraphs, fingerprinting. That doesn't mean it doesn't put people in jail.
      - trogdor 2y ago
        What, specifically, are you claiming is “not real” about fingerprinting?
        thunderfork 2y ago
        There's a common belief that fingerprint analysis is objective and reliable, but there's a great deal of subjectivity involved. Additionally, there have been several convictions involving fingerprints as evidence which were eventually overturned. While they may still be useful, they have an image of infallibility that doesn't line up with reality.
        adolph 2y ago
        Their use as evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media. There are no uniform standards for point-counting methods, and academics have argued that the error rate in matching fingerprints has not been adequately studied and that fingerprint evidence has no secure statistical foundation. Research has been conducted into whether experts can objectively focus on feature information in fingerprints without being misled by extraneous information, such as context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I think your example highlights why most people don't view these as plausible concerns: 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. 2. "the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?" That doesn't seem reasonably plausible enough to me to care. What, cousin Billy Bob is going to come hold me hostage because he knows I used 23 and me at some point? Really??
- kortilla 2y ago
  > 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. But you are apprehended instead and are responsible for now coming up with an alibi.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    That is not how dna evidence works in my understanding. They would know if you are a partial match or a complete match.
BurningFrog 2y ago
Very unlikely things can happen, sure, but they can just as well be positive: What if an unknown biological relative of mine happens to be a billionaire and gifts me $10M like he does for all his other relatives?

mustyoshi 2y ago

Isn't it better for society as a whole if criminals are apprehended? Even moreso if they're one that would be a physical threat like you're suggesting?

haxxorfreak 2y ago
Yes, assuming the label of who is a “criminal” is fair. There is always the risk of a society or government changing that definition after they have the data and it’s too late to go back.
nukem222 2y ago
Depends on the crime. They aren't exactly fungible acts. Furthermore the state isn't exactly obligated to manage society, even if this has occurred in various forms throughout history. Many of our laws weren't exactly written with "society's" best interest at heart. Ultimately, the state will look after itself above all else. I'm just saying I'd like the state to have to work hard to put people away. The law can just as easily be wielded to harm people. I don't see much sign the american public agrees with me, and politicians certainly don't agree. Even mr "it's a witch hunt" trump is only anti-LEO when it comes to his own crimes. But I'd rather have some low background level of crime than the sinking feeling that we're imprisoning a lot of innocent people, as unpopular a sentiment it might be to some in this country. Besides, if the government doesn't take care of society, higher crime is inevitable.
Spooky23 2y ago
Mustyosi, your DNA was found on a coffee cup at a Denny’s frequented by terrorists destroying Tesla property. Where were you on Tuesday at 2?
- adolph 2y ago
  “Zoom and enhance” forensics aren’t real right? Isn’t it mostly NSA listens in and then they have to parallel construct something to hide the illegal pervasive surveillance?
  - consteval 2y ago
    Pretty much all of forensics isn't real. Blood splatter analysis, polygraphs, fingerprinting. That doesn't mean it doesn't put people in jail.
    - trogdor 2y ago
      What, specifically, are you claiming is “not real” about fingerprinting?
      - thunderfork 2y ago
        There's a common belief that fingerprint analysis is objective and reliable, but there's a great deal of subjectivity involved. Additionally, there have been several convictions involving fingerprints as evidence which were eventually overturned. While they may still be useful, they have an image of infallibility that doesn't line up with reality.
      - adolph 2y ago
        Their use as evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media. There are no uniform standards for point-counting methods, and academics have argued that the error rate in matching fingerprints has not been adequately studied and that fingerprint evidence has no secure statistical foundation. Research has been conducted into whether experts can objectively focus on feature information in fingerprints without being misled by extraneous information, such as context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

I think your example highlights why most people don't view these as plausible concerns: 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. 2. "the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?" That doesn't seem reasonably plausible enough to me to care. What, cousin Billy Bob is going to come hold me hostage because he knows I used 23 and me at some point? Really??

kortilla 2y ago
> 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. But you are apprehended instead and are responsible for now coming up with an alibi.
- krisoft 2y ago
  That is not how dna evidence works in my understanding. They would know if you are a partial match or a complete match.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Very unlikely things can happen, sure, but they can just as well be positive: What if an unknown biological relative of mine happens to be a billionaire and gifts me $10M like he does for all his other relatives?