4 ms·

This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a n

by yannyu 11mo ago

This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen. Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information or how often it's given to law enforcement, but there's been proposed legislation to make this more transparent.

jedberg 11mo ago
> This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. Was it inaccurate?
- yannyu 11mo ago
  It's about as accurate a Buzzfeed headline, but I guess that's par for the course on the internet these days. It's not a "DNA sample" in the way that most people would consider it these days, no more than a used cup would also be called a "DNA sample". But to your point, it can still be used for surveillance and tracking. Also, your phrasing is designed to make it seem like a huge overreach, when this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities. I have personally experienced this. So yes, I do think your framing here is inaccurate through omission of key facts.
  - pdonis 11mo ago
    > this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities Why does the state have to collect and keep the sample for that to happen? Why can't it be the private property of the parents, provided to whatever private testing labs are used to do the tests?
    - yannyu 11mo ago
      That seems like a fair criticism. I don't know enough to quantify the benefit of retaining these samples, but I do know that the reason for keeping samples primarily relates to quality control, research, and development of tests. There is a process for people to have the sample destroyed, I also have no idea how easy or how often that is used.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- rolph 11mo ago
  it was misinformation, the DNA in such a sample is not only miniscule and unstandardized, but also not treated for longterm archival specimen retention. the blood "spot" is about general morphology, and antigenic specificity.
- chneu 11mo ago
  It's very inaccurate. OP made it sound like Cali was genome sequencing everyone born in the state and then storing that. What's really going on is they're doing routine blood tests. So yeah, pretty inaccurate.
  - IncreasePosts 11mo ago
    Blood isn't stored after routine blood tests?
  - DoctorOetker 11mo ago
    It didn't sound like that at all, it just says DNA samples are collected and stored. The implication that such DNA in such samples can be sequenced after the fact is not novel at all, every time DNA is sequenced, it is first collected.
- postflopclarity 11mo ago
  the implication was misleading, yes. the implication being that California has database of its citizens' genetic data. when the reality is that CA has a _physical sample_ of blood.
  - DoctorOetker 11mo ago
    A collection of cars is also a collection of steering wheels, a collection of tires, a collection of seats, a collection of engines a collection of seats, ... as blood contains white blood cells, and these cells tend to contain DNA, yes a collection of identified blood samples is also a collection of DNA (molecules). A DNA collection doesn't need to have been sequenced to qualify as a DNA collection.
    - PetitPrince 11mo ago
      On the other hand blood samples degrade over time depending on how you store it. This makes DNA sequencing more difficult and/or impossible. Presumably the ROI (in a non-dystopian society) of storing those sample long-term doesn't make sense, especially if the primary usecase is screening for diseases (a random PDF from the Association of Public Health Laboratories says biomonitoring/biothreat samples are stored 1 year https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Specimen_Storage_0216.pdf https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Spe... ). So yes a collection of blood sample is technically also a collection of DNA sequences, but it has an expiry date (a short one compared to the lifespan of an individual!) contrary to a DNA sequence that's pure data.
- vkou 11mo ago
  It is as accurate as any of the incendiary Pravda propaganda pieces[1] about how the capitalist swine lived. Other posters have helpfully pointed out the specifics of why your particular spin on it is not entirely honest. --- [1] Often mostly factually accurate, but I doubt you'd find much common ground with the particular spin they'd put on describing your daily life.
nomel 11mo ago
No, they are correct, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. They have a DNA sample of everyone. Those samples haven't been sequenced. As you've pointed out, they are sequenced when the state needs them to be. It would be like scanning your drivers license and putting it in a sealed envelope and claiming "I don't have your home address!", when I'm known to get the home address from other peoples envelopes when asked for it.
- vintermann 11mo ago
  At least they can't trawl them for random matches when they're like that, the cost of sequencing is a barrier. Probably even more in that a 20 year old blood spot on a piece of paper isn't an ideal DNA sample.
jandrewrogers 11mo ago
The blood sample isn’t a DNA sample right up until the point they decide to sequence it. This is the same legal doctrine allowing the government to systematically collect all of your personal data without violating your privacy as long they don’t look at what they collect without a warrant. The government has granted themselves an option on your personal data that can’t be revoked.
- tantalor 11mo ago
  They can arrest you (with a warrant) and take your DNA whenever they want so I don't see what your point is.
  - jandrewrogers 11mo ago
    They don’t need to arrest you to obtain your DNA, which is the entire point. They don’t need to arrest you to use your DNA, previously collected, to identify a family member. The government has my biometrics. Most people should assume, by default, that the government has theirs as well.
    - duskdozer 11mo ago
      Then they don't need to recollect it for "any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, supporter, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit request or other request or collection of information, including U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals and lawful permanent residents, and without regard to age"
- yannyu 11mo ago
  I agree with you in principle. And I agree that the government has been steadily eroding our privacy. And I agree that California probably shouldn't be retaining these samples forever. However, the likelihood of being able to "sequence" the biomatter on a blood spot is quite low, and the probability of getting good signal out of it continues to go down over time. It'll still remain useful for various kinds of spot testing and genetic disease testing, but it's not going to produce a fully validated genomic sequence or even be that useful for forensic purposes. This isn't some sort of sealed blood vial, it's literally just blood on paper.
HaZeust 11mo ago
"There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information..." Then no, it wasn't an incendiary claim.
thayne 11mo ago
> This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. Then why do they keep the samples?
- hnbad 11mo ago
  Because the US has laughably weak privacy laws and most Americans snicker at the EU GDPR because of "cookie banners" (which btw isn't a thing - most consent dialogs are non-compliant as they shouldn't serve to just inform you but to actually obtain voluntary, revokable and specific informed consent) instead of thinking about what it means to actually have a fundamental human right to privacy and ownership of your own data or not. They keep the samples for the same reason US tech startups keep deleted data and track seemingly useless behavior. Because they might find a use for it someday and there's literally no law preventing them from doing it.
themafia 11mo ago
> but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. Then I can easily guarantee you that individual samples have been given to law enforcement _without_ orders or warrants. > There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information Which means there is zero oversight, logging, or auditing.
stn_za 11mo ago
Ag puhleez

by yannyu 11mo ago

jedberg 11mo ago

> This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. Was it inaccurate?

yannyu 11mo ago
It's about as accurate a Buzzfeed headline, but I guess that's par for the course on the internet these days. It's not a "DNA sample" in the way that most people would consider it these days, no more than a used cup would also be called a "DNA sample". But to your point, it can still be used for surveillance and tracking. Also, your phrasing is designed to make it seem like a huge overreach, when this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities. I have personally experienced this. So yes, I do think your framing here is inaccurate through omission of key facts.
- pdonis 11mo ago
  > this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities Why does the state have to collect and keep the sample for that to happen? Why can't it be the private property of the parents, provided to whatever private testing labs are used to do the tests?
  - yannyu 11mo ago
    That seems like a fair criticism. I don't know enough to quantify the benefit of retaining these samples, but I do know that the reason for keeping samples primarily relates to quality control, research, and development of tests. There is a process for people to have the sample destroyed, I also have no idea how easy or how often that is used.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
rolph 11mo ago
it was misinformation, the DNA in such a sample is not only miniscule and unstandardized, but also not treated for longterm archival specimen retention. the blood "spot" is about general morphology, and antigenic specificity.
chneu 11mo ago
It's very inaccurate. OP made it sound like Cali was genome sequencing everyone born in the state and then storing that. What's really going on is they're doing routine blood tests. So yeah, pretty inaccurate.
- IncreasePosts 11mo ago
  Blood isn't stored after routine blood tests?
- DoctorOetker 11mo ago
  It didn't sound like that at all, it just says DNA samples are collected and stored. The implication that such DNA in such samples can be sequenced after the fact is not novel at all, every time DNA is sequenced, it is first collected.
postflopclarity 11mo ago
the implication was misleading, yes. the implication being that California has database of its citizens' genetic data. when the reality is that CA has a _physical sample_ of blood.
- DoctorOetker 11mo ago
  A collection of cars is also a collection of steering wheels, a collection of tires, a collection of seats, a collection of engines a collection of seats, ... as blood contains white blood cells, and these cells tend to contain DNA, yes a collection of identified blood samples is also a collection of DNA (molecules). A DNA collection doesn't need to have been sequenced to qualify as a DNA collection.
  - PetitPrince 11mo ago
    On the other hand blood samples degrade over time depending on how you store it. This makes DNA sequencing more difficult and/or impossible. Presumably the ROI (in a non-dystopian society) of storing those sample long-term doesn't make sense, especially if the primary usecase is screening for diseases (a random PDF from the Association of Public Health Laboratories says biomonitoring/biothreat samples are stored 1 year https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Specimen_Storage_0216.pdf https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Spe... ). So yes a collection of blood sample is technically also a collection of DNA sequences, but it has an expiry date (a short one compared to the lifespan of an individual!) contrary to a DNA sequence that's pure data.
vkou 11mo ago
It is as accurate as any of the incendiary Pravda propaganda pieces[1] about how the capitalist swine lived. Other posters have helpfully pointed out the specifics of why your particular spin on it is not entirely honest. --- [1] Often mostly factually accurate, but I doubt you'd find much common ground with the particular spin they'd put on describing your daily life.

nomel 11mo ago

No, they are correct, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. They have a DNA sample of everyone. Those samples haven't been sequenced. As you've pointed out, they are sequenced when the state needs them to be. It would be like scanning your drivers license and putting it in a sealed envelope and claiming "I don't have your home address!", when I'm known to get the home address from other peoples envelopes when asked for it.

vintermann 11mo ago
At least they can't trawl them for random matches when they're like that, the cost of sequencing is a barrier. Probably even more in that a 20 year old blood spot on a piece of paper isn't an ideal DNA sample.

jandrewrogers 11mo ago

The blood sample isn’t a DNA sample right up until the point they decide to sequence it. This is the same legal doctrine allowing the government to systematically collect all of your personal data without violating your privacy as long they don’t look at what they collect without a warrant. The government has granted themselves an option on your personal data that can’t be revoked.

tantalor 11mo ago
They can arrest you (with a warrant) and take your DNA whenever they want so I don't see what your point is.
- jandrewrogers 11mo ago
  They don’t need to arrest you to obtain your DNA, which is the entire point. They don’t need to arrest you to use your DNA, previously collected, to identify a family member. The government has my biometrics. Most people should assume, by default, that the government has theirs as well.
  - duskdozer 11mo ago
    Then they don't need to recollect it for "any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, supporter, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit request or other request or collection of information, including U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals and lawful permanent residents, and without regard to age"
yannyu 11mo ago
I agree with you in principle. And I agree that the government has been steadily eroding our privacy. And I agree that California probably shouldn't be retaining these samples forever. However, the likelihood of being able to "sequence" the biomatter on a blood spot is quite low, and the probability of getting good signal out of it continues to go down over time. It'll still remain useful for various kinds of spot testing and genetic disease testing, but it's not going to produce a fully validated genomic sequence or even be that useful for forensic purposes. This isn't some sort of sealed blood vial, it's literally just blood on paper.

HaZeust 11mo ago

"There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information..." Then no, it wasn't an incendiary claim.

thayne 11mo ago

> This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. Then why do they keep the samples?

hnbad 11mo ago
Because the US has laughably weak privacy laws and most Americans snicker at the EU GDPR because of "cookie banners" (which btw isn't a thing - most consent dialogs are non-compliant as they shouldn't serve to just inform you but to actually obtain voluntary, revokable and specific informed consent) instead of thinking about what it means to actually have a fundamental human right to privacy and ownership of your own data or not. They keep the samples for the same reason US tech startups keep deleted data and track seemingly useless behavior. Because they might find a use for it someday and there's literally no law preventing them from doing it.

themafia 11mo ago

> but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. Then I can easily guarantee you that individual samples have been given to law enforcement _without_ orders or warrants. > There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information Which means there is zero oversight, logging, or auditing.

stn_za 11mo ago

Ag puhleez