4 ms·

Yea the EFF doesn't really have a very compelling argument here. I'm not even sure what the downside is in a policy sense. The only way this has any effect on

Yea the EFF doesn't really have a very compelling argument here. I'm not even sure what the downside is in a policy sense. The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.

btilly 12y ago
Not so fast. Often DNA can identify that you are likely related to someone who committed a crime. This can lead to interesting results in cases where the relationship is not known. For example consider the case where a couple with fertility problems used a sperm donor. The child is never told that this happened. Then police identify that the crime was likely committed by someone who shares 1/4 of their DNA with the child. In other words that child's grandchild, grandparent, half-sibling, aunt or uncle. You can imagine the sudden disruption when the police show up? It gets even worse if the child was the result of an affair. Or if the person who committed the crime was. Or if the child was in some other way the result of a family secret. Oh right, and it gets more problematic. The traced DNA is not necessarily the criminal's. You find hair at the crime scene, but maybe it was present before the crime. The hair is a lead, it is not proof. These cases are common enough that schools long ago learned not to use people's families for demonstration of how genes work in biology classes. Heck, they are common enough that I personally know people that I know are in these kinds of situations. And you have to get to know someone pretty well before you find out about stuff like this. And now we're going to have law enforcement randomly exposing private situations like this. Maybe we as a society consider this worthwhile. But there is no question that privacy will be invaded here.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Those are poor arguments.
  - btilly 12y ago
    Please explain why these are poor arguments to rebut the claim, The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.
    - remarkEon 12y ago
      I think you're describing questions that, before DNA analysis, were explored through traditional police investigations all the same. It would be just as disruptive if a detective figured out that the suspect is the result of an affair through tracing birth certificates and interviewing doctors and nurses as by matching DNA samples. Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument.
      - btilly 12y ago
        Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument. That is actually a very safe assumption. As articles like http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/ make clear, police already ARE creating DNA databases. And since there is little regulation around this right now, they are free to be creative in assembling them. For example you can get a good DNA sample from the straw used to blow into a breathalyzer. So get stopped at a routine traffic stop, your name, license plate, and DNA can go into a database. And voila, police can now match you and your relatives against crime scenes! Think this is crazy? This has already been happening. See https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/aug/15/maryland-court-of-appeals-upholds-breathalyzer-dna-seizure/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/aug/15/maryland-co... for breathalyzer DNA being used to convict of a crime, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/supreme-court-dna/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/supreme-court-dna/ for the Supreme Court OKing DNA tests for arrests without a conviction, and http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped-at-Roadblock-Asked-for-Saliva-Blood-232438621.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DFWBrand&utm_content=buffer87aa1&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped... for a random example where this was done to random people at a traffic stop. Yes, there is outrage at present. But over time this could become the new normal. As technology improves and costs come down, incentives to match everyone to DNA tests will go up, not down. Heck, I remember as a child in Canada over 30 years ago having police come to my elementary school and taking everyone's fingerprints. I believe that the cause was so that if anyone went missing, they could identify us. But once that data is collected and goes into databases, it doesn't come out. Heck, how many parents would give consent today for their 2nd graders to get a DNA test for that purpose?
- rhino369 12y ago
  Clearly there is some potential effect, so yea you are right. But this is pretty tenuous, rare, and this sort of risk comes with any police investigation. If the police see a red BMW leave a scene, it might accidentally cause a person with a red BMW to be falsely investigated. Human eyewitness evidence is even worse. So yea, while there is some effect, it is no more than what we already accept.
jackjello 12y ago
>The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed. Or your child. I guess you don't care if you send your kid to the chair though.

btilly 12y ago

Not so fast. Often DNA can identify that you are likely related to someone who committed a crime. This can lead to interesting results in cases where the relationship is not known. For example consider the case where a couple with fertility problems used a sperm donor. The child is never told that this happened. Then police identify that the crime was likely committed by someone who shares 1/4 of their DNA with the child. In other words that child's grandchild, grandparent, half-sibling, aunt or uncle. You can imagine the sudden disruption when the police show up? It gets even worse if the child was the result of an affair. Or if the person who committed the crime was. Or if the child was in some other way the result of a family secret. Oh right, and it gets more problematic. The traced DNA is not necessarily the criminal's. You find hair at the crime scene, but maybe it was present before the crime. The hair is a lead, it is not proof. These cases are common enough that schools long ago learned not to use people's families for demonstration of how genes work in biology classes. Heck, they are common enough that I personally know people that I know are in these kinds of situations. And you have to get to know someone pretty well before you find out about stuff like this. And now we're going to have law enforcement randomly exposing private situations like this. Maybe we as a society consider this worthwhile. But there is no question that privacy will be invaded here.

sigzero 12y ago
Those are poor arguments.
- btilly 12y ago
  Please explain why these are poor arguments to rebut the claim, The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    I think you're describing questions that, before DNA analysis, were explored through traditional police investigations all the same. It would be just as disruptive if a detective figured out that the suspect is the result of an affair through tracing birth certificates and interviewing doctors and nurses as by matching DNA samples. Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument.
    - btilly 12y ago
      Additionally, your hypothetical also assumes that the person(s) related to the supposed subject have their DNA on file or are somehow compelled to provide it as evidence - precluding some kind of existing database, or a kind of chicken|egg situation. That is out of scope of this argument. That is actually a very safe assumption. As articles like http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/ make clear, police already ARE creating DNA databases. And since there is little regulation around this right now, they are free to be creative in assembling them. For example you can get a good DNA sample from the straw used to blow into a breathalyzer. So get stopped at a routine traffic stop, your name, license plate, and DNA can go into a database. And voila, police can now match you and your relatives against crime scenes! Think this is crazy? This has already been happening. See https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/aug/15/maryland-court-of-appeals-upholds-breathalyzer-dna-seizure/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/aug/15/maryland-co... for breathalyzer DNA being used to convict of a crime, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/supreme-court-dna/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/supreme-court-dna/ for the Supreme Court OKing DNA tests for arrests without a conviction, and http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped-at-Roadblock-Asked-for-Saliva-Blood-232438621.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DFWBrand&utm_content=buffer87aa1&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped... for a random example where this was done to random people at a traffic stop. Yes, there is outrage at present. But over time this could become the new normal. As technology improves and costs come down, incentives to match everyone to DNA tests will go up, not down. Heck, I remember as a child in Canada over 30 years ago having police come to my elementary school and taking everyone's fingerprints. I believe that the cause was so that if anyone went missing, they could identify us. But once that data is collected and goes into databases, it doesn't come out. Heck, how many parents would give consent today for their 2nd graders to get a DNA test for that purpose?
rhino369 12y ago
Clearly there is some potential effect, so yea you are right. But this is pretty tenuous, rare, and this sort of risk comes with any police investigation. If the police see a red BMW leave a scene, it might accidentally cause a person with a red BMW to be falsely investigated. Human eyewitness evidence is even worse. So yea, while there is some effect, it is no more than what we already accept.

jackjello 12y ago

>The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed. Or your child. I guess you don't care if you send your kid to the chair though.