Police Use of DNA Leads To Backlash, Policy Change For GEDmatch (apnews.com) 200
Police investigators have used popular online DNA databases to solve at least 50 open murder and rape cases, reports the Associated Press. But now, "complaints about invasion of privacy have produced a backlash, leading the Florida-based database known as GEDmatch to change its policies."
The nonprofit website's previous practice was to permit police to use its database only to solve homicides and sexual assaults. But its operators granted a Utah police department an exception to find the assailant who choked unconscious a 71-year-old woman practicing the organ alone in church. The assailant's DNA profile led detectives to the great-uncle of a 17-year-old boy. The teen's DNA matched the attacker's, and he was arrested. GEDmatch soon updated its policy to establish that law enforcement only gets matches from the DNA profiles of users who have given permission.
That closed off more than a million profiles. More than 50,000 users agreed to share their information -- a figure that the company says is growing. The 95% reduction in GEDmatch profiles available to police will dramatically reduce the number of hits detectives get and make it more difficult to solve crimes, said David Foran, a forensics biology professor at Michigan State University...
The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics say granting law enforcement exceptions that violate a website's policies is a slippery slope. They also believe broad genetic searches violate suspects' constitutional rights. While many people instinctively support the technique if used to catch serial killers or rapists, they might feel differently about their DNA profiles being analyzed to pursue burglars and shoplifters.
The site's co-founder tells the AP they've now sent an email to users encouraging them to opt-in to police searches.
That closed off more than a million profiles. More than 50,000 users agreed to share their information -- a figure that the company says is growing. The 95% reduction in GEDmatch profiles available to police will dramatically reduce the number of hits detectives get and make it more difficult to solve crimes, said David Foran, a forensics biology professor at Michigan State University...
The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics say granting law enforcement exceptions that violate a website's policies is a slippery slope. They also believe broad genetic searches violate suspects' constitutional rights. While many people instinctively support the technique if used to catch serial killers or rapists, they might feel differently about their DNA profiles being analyzed to pursue burglars and shoplifters.
The site's co-founder tells the AP they've now sent an email to users encouraging them to opt-in to police searches.
Open the profiles (Score:2)
That was the point of using an open data service.
A win for law enforcement all over the USA.
Going back decades and decades.
Criminals, police, undercover police, informants could all be found with what was kept by law enforcement going back decades.
Police won't care about ToS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Police won't care about ToS (Score:5, Informative)
If your company has the data you will be compelled by court orders to give it up, regardless of any terminology you might have in your EULA or ToS.
Probably not.
If you host an email server and the police want to search the suspect's email then yeah, they can get a warrant to search that person's email.
But they can't get a warrant asking you if any of your users had sent or recieved an email with a specific search string. Or if you're Google if anyone had entered a specific address into Google Maps on the night of a crime.
Warrants can get you very specific pieces of information that the police know (or have very good reason to think) is there. But they can't serve random companies with a warrant for all their data on the theory that a suspect might have left some evidence with them.
So yeah, if they suspect Bob, and they know Bob used GEDmatch and can't get his DNA otherwise, they can serve GEDmatch with a warrant.
But they can't give GEDmatch a warrant asking them for a copy of Bob's DNA profile, especially if they don't even know who Bob is.
They can.... (Score:2)
but they've been known to screw it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The police are already using "geofence" warrants that demand the data of every account that was in a given area during a particular timeframe: https://www.engadget.com/2019/... [engadget.com]
In this case it appears that they have a DNA sample from the suspect and submit that to GEDmatch, who then compare it to samples in their database, i.e. do a "string" search.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they do this quite a bit for customer lists, guest lists etc. though? "People who bought/rented/hired product or service X between dates Y and Z" like who stayed at a particular hotel on a particular night is usually specific enough to pass even if they don't know who they are up front and the list contains mostly innocent people. A judge could very well read this the same way, you have a million records but you're very specifically asking for a few records related to one particular DNA profile you kn
Re: (Score:2)
"they can't get a warrant asking you if any of your users had sent or recieved an email with a specific search string"
If they can convince a judge, they can get a warrant to ask for anything.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why a core principle of privacy protection is to not have that data in the first place.
They'd have to get warrents (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AC the CIA are free to collect all the DNA they want globally :)
Well, there's a difference between 'free to' and 'able to' ;)
Re: (Score:2)
a court can give permission and they better not sa (Score:2)
a court can give permission and they better not say no to that
Re:a court can give permission and they better not (Score:5, Insightful)
Courts do not generally allow fishing expeditions. The constitution has restrictions on warrants.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't fishing - it's searching.
It's not trying something to see if someone takes a bait - it's using modern technology to find someone using one of the most reliable forms of physical evidence possible.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't fishing - it's searching.
It's searching the data from people who they don't have enough cause to get a warrant for. If the police has enough evidence to get a warrant to test your dna, it's searching. If the police look through everyone's dna without cause until they find a match, it's fishing.
It's the same reason if they get a warrant to search for a stolen car in your house, they're not allowed to look in the drawers, because a car can't fit in there. If they do look in the drawers, and find drugs, they can't charge you, because
Re: (Score:2)
The question is if asking a company to see if they have DNA match is equivalent to 1. asking a storage company for CCTV footage to try and see if there is someone similar in the footage or 2. asking a storage company to allow access to all the storage bays to see if a sniffer dog gets a hit.
Realistically it's probably closer to 1 than 2, with the caveat that the DNA data does not "age" in the same way as footage and will be stored for a lot longer.
Rule 45 provides three outs. 100 miles (Score:5, Informative)
Rule 17 and Rule 45 cover subpoena duces tecum. There are several ways to have a subpoena quashed, and other ways to render it unenforceable.
First, the party seeking the subpoena would need to specify exactly which document(s) they want, and in order to enforce the subpeona there would have to be a showing that the respondent HAS such documents.
The service may not HAVE any matching DNA profiles, so you can't force them to produce some. You have to specify which profiles you want, specifically enough that searching for them doesn't create an undue burden on the respondent. Search for partial matches may or may not be an undue burden in different cases.
Specificity isn't the only criteria for undue burden. The respondent could claim undue burden for any other reason.
An expert can NOT be made to produce a scientific opinion by subpoena. The respondent could argue that the degree or likelihood of match is a scientific opinion based on training and experience, which cannot be subpoenaed.
Rule 45 is specific in saying respondents do not have to produce documents further than 100 miles from where they are, so police would have to go pick them up. Rule 17 is not quite that specific, but refers to rule 45.
It's possible that investigators could get a subpoena, it's possible that the subpoena would not be quashed, and it's possible that a court would enforce it via contempt. None of those things are certain.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that their entire business is doing DNA matches it would be hard to argue that doing one for the police would be burdensome.
From there the police can get their own DNA "expert" and use he Reid Technique to extract a confession from the suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so. A quick glance at their web site seems to indicate their line of business is mostly:
Checking two samples / people for a match.
This asks if Amijojo is my long-lost sibling. This could be done manually and take an hour of a technician's time.
Doing a comparison against each and every person in the country is millions of comparisons, theoretically could be millions of hours.
Secondly they offer a general estimate of your heritage - you have a lot of European genes. Aka, you are white. That's not specif
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate? (Score:2)
I wonder if they did this, knowing that there would be a backlash that would result in shutting off most access.
Re: (Score:2)
temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it'll be way, way WAYYYYYY more accurate. False convictions will go way down.
Re:temporary (Score:4, Informative)
Except that it'll be way, way WAYYYYYY more accurate. False convictions will go way down.
Things you should know about DNA evidence:
Given all of the above, DNA evidence is not evidence that can stand on its own. Taken in conjunction with other evidence it can help exonerate someone or convict them, but it is definitely not the "Be All, End All" of the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The electrophoresis gels are no longer analysed by humans. It would cost way to much if that where the case. This is all automated now, which is why the cost has fallen through the floor.
Re: (Score:3)
" the gov can't sell your photo to something like an entertainment concern"
"You DO have rights to your image"
Ever seen photos of suspects or mugshots on the news, in magazines, in post offices, etc? None of those people were asked or compensated for the use of their images.
FamilyTreeDNA sharing their full DB with police (Score:2)
It is a no-win situation for the company. (Score:2)
There was a match but the user has not opted in to provide the information
Here is a subpoena. Give it to us.
Don't say there is a match, you say?
There is no match.
When it comes out there was a match, the company is charged with obstruction of justice and the entire database is seized and searched to see how many other charges can be added. Also, the database is now evidence, which means the entire database may become widely available.
By the way, this whole ghetto, wannabe criminal "Don't Snitch" attitude just shows you are horrible people.who are the reason the country is in the shitter.
Fuck burglars (Score:3)
A single burglary causes a massive amount of monetary and emotional damage.
Fuck em all.
Chain of custody? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You dont go to a clinic, simply affirm that you (what ever you decide to call yourself) are the person giving the sample.
Police use of such DNA databases should be banned. (Score:2)
Law enforcement should never be access to these databases. The person or persons they eventually arrest never consented to giving law enforcement a DNA sample, and just because a close relative did, still doesn't mean the one arrested ever gave such consent. Being able to use one's relatives against them, when the sample was submitted merely for themselves to find members of their family should NOT extend to that data being used to find suspects. Congress needs to pass a law to prevent this abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Burglars by the late 1980's should have had some understanding of what not to do when doing a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you are giving far too much credit to common criminals. You would think that masks, gloves, and some kind of garment to cover your street clothes would be mandatory kit, but so far as I've seen such is not the case. Even armed robbers don't seem to exercise that kind of caution against being identified. The reason more Burglars aren't caught is down to lack of resource allocation from the police. The police might try for fingerprints on a few likely surfaces and take a sample of any blood that mi
Re:Why not use it to catch burglars and shoplifter (Score:5, Interesting)
Why shouldn't it be used to catch burglars and shoplifters?
Burglars and shoplifters usually don't leave identifiable DNA.
But if, say, a burglar was injured on a broken window, and left behind a few drops of blood, then sure, this technique should be used to identify them.
I don't see how this is morally or ethically any different than using a fingerprint database, or the photos in the DMV database.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why shouldn't it be used to catch burglars and shoplifters?
Burglars and shoplifters usually don't leave identifiable DNA.
But if, say, a burglar was injured on a broken window, and left behind a few drops of blood, then sure, this technique should be used to identify them.
I don't see how this is morally or ethically any different than using a fingerprint database, or the photos in the DMV database.
You seem to assume that the people using the DNA are moral and ethical. Do some research on Annie Dookhan, who was in high demand in Massachusetts prosecuter circles because she was going to tell you what you wanted to hear. She was considered a superwoman because she could do over 500 analyses a month and find matches where others couldn't. Problem is, she was corrupt. Over 11,000 people were imprisoned in large part on her "work"
It's made a hellava mess in Massachusetts as they clean up.
It is no secr
Re: (Score:2)
Do some research on Annie Dookhan
An obvious counter-measure for falsification is to test the process by inserting known samples into the testing pipeline, and ensuring that the resulting matches are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Do some research on Annie Dookhan
An obvious counter-measure for falsification is to test the process by inserting known samples into the testing pipeline, and ensuring that the resulting matches are correct.
There is what might be obvious, and getting the results that are desired. In some cases, the prosecution might not want the step you outlined to be taken. Ms Dookhan was in high demand because her drug tests (sorry about using a drug tester rather than DNA, the processes are the same) had a high rate of positives, leading to convictions. I might do some more research to see if what you speak of might have been how they eventually caught her.
Re: (Score:2)
the prosecution might not want the step you outlined to be taken.
It shouldn't be up to the prosecutors.
I might do some more research to see if what you speak of might have been how they eventually caught her.
All I read was the Wikipedia article, but that is NOT how she was caught. I appears that there were (are?) no integrity checks on the process of DNA matching. Considering how many people are convicted and imprisoned based on DNA evidence, that is shocking.
Re: (Score:2)
the prosecution might not want the step you outlined to be taken.
It shouldn't be up to the prosecutors.
I might do some more research to see if what you speak of might have been how they eventually caught her.
All I read was the Wikipedia article, but that is NOT how she was caught. I appears that there were (are?) no integrity checks on the process of DNA matching. Considering how many people are convicted and imprisoned based on DNA evidence, that is shocking.
I found the police report. http://cache.boston.com/multim... [boston.com] It is a pretty interesting read, if kinda long. The gist is that she was doing all kinds of whacked out stuff, forging people's signatures, even falsifying some things. I'm still reading it, but I'd be really surprised if she wasn't dry labbing, which is not testing at all, just writing specious results.
While it might have been better if her co-workers had turned her in earlier, but by the time her crimes were first discovered, the damage had
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say someone not using a technique at all isn't an indictment of the technique itself. "Someone might lie about using this when they aren't" is a more solvable problem which has nothing to do with the tech.
I'm not indicting the technique. But the complexity of it causes juries and others to rely on "experts". A fingerprint is pretty easy to compare. Electrophoresis gels are a bit more intricate. And given the propensity for DA's to count convictions like a touchstone, there is a lot of pressure to find matches.
Here's a weird and sort of amusing one - not related to criminal DNA tests - that I found researching the topic today: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home... [newshub.co.nz] In Brazil, identical twins were ordered to bo
Re: (Score:2)
What I want is a DNA database for dogs, and then have the dog catcher run poop samples from the park and arrest those miscreants!
It seems a lot less problematic than trusting them with human DNA. And it solves a more common problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has some strong protections going back decades over who can use DMV photos and for what reason.
That is even more protected with sanctuary city issued photo ID given to many illegal immigrants.
Criminals understand fingerprints.
Smartphone use and strange patterns of smartphone use is another less understood method for the police.
Voice prints at a mil/federal level
FBI and use of utility pole surveillance cams
The NSA and GCHQ ability to seek out VPN use
DNA i
Re: (Score:2)
That is an answer made up by an idiot who is just sort of trying to think about it and make an answer.
Poop is full of snot. Snot that contains DNA.
It is normal in various sciences to do DNA testing on animal poop.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
A method has been developed for the forensic analysis of faeces by DNA...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/1... [nytimes.com]
Shed cells are also found in urine and feces, vomit, and even tears
https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/DNAb... [ncjrs.gov]
DNA is contained in blood, semen, skin cells, tissue, organs, muscle, brain cells, bone, teeth, hair, saliva, mucus, perspiration, fingernails, urine, feces, etc.
While you're worrying about people's geek cards, you might want to look for a shredder to deposit your own.
Re:Why not use it to catch burglars and shoplifter (Score:4, Insightful)
You can be sure that if the Germans had access to DNA records, the French Resistance would have been eliminated quickly.
Ah, of course. I was wondering how the US had managed to subdue the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq so quickly.
Re:Why not use it to catch burglars and shoplifter (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Bill C-16 added gender identity to the enumerated list of personal attributes you're not allowed to discriminate against. That's it. If you're an intelligent human being, read the bill instead of the media hype. It's short, and very simple: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentVi... [www.parl.ca]
Since you could call a woman "he" or a man "she" before without going to jail, you can continue to use the wrong pronouns without danger. You'll be an asshole, not a criminal. If you refuse to hire people who's gender doesn't agree with what you think it should be, you might be sued though. And if you advocate violence against such people *then* you can go to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
The Germans had access to French police files and lots of informants.
The results of advance radio intelligence gathering all over France.
Add in some very poor code and crypto keeping standards.
Re:Conflicted (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see immense guilt brought upon family members who did participate in this and their DNA matches them to a sibling, child, parent, etc. "Oh, if I hadn't done that DNA thing Johnny wouldn't be in prison, it's like I turned him in myself!" The justification about this scenario has me torn.
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, if I hadn't done that DNA thing Johnny wouldn't be in prison, it's like I turned him in myself!"
Since Johnny raped and murdered someone, I think most of the blame goes on him.
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you think this costs?
You can get it done, personally, for pretty cheap. Imagine how much cheaper it would be if you remove the profit margin and do it in bulk.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get the *testing* done for pretty cheap. The database search is essentially free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if DNA testing was free of monetary cost I don't think it'll get used as frequently as some people seem to think. The police have to be able to gather a sample of DNA to test with for starters. What kinds of crimes are likely to result in leaving that kind of evidence? Most of the ones I can think of are crimes of violence or sex. The only thing I can think of that I don't really want them prosecuting that DNA testing would help with is drug use. And even with Drug use I think we'd be better off fixing
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. A number of elements of Johnny's DNA match that of the person believed to have raped and murdered someone.
That's the only thing you can conclude from the DNA.
If the math is right (Score:3)
You can conclude a DNA match with 1:1,966,912,087 certainty.
Which roughly means that on average there are around 4 people with such profile on this planet.
You might be currently holding one of the 3 wrong guy in custody, while the real culprit might still be on the large.
And that's it the maths was done right
The performance of the test might have been overstated by the company for marketing purpose.
The actual calculation of the odds of the combination of multiple tests might have been b0rked.
Eventually, you'll discover that at least 20 different people in the same c
Re: (Score:2)
With a 1:1.1mil uniqueness, if they were using a database of 1mil people, there is a 40% chance that any arbitrary person will match some other arbitrary person.
You probably meant "chance that any arbitrary person will match some other member of the set," or you could just give it as an expected rate of false positives.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I can google, DNA "matching" is only 1:5,000,000
That would mean that out of 300M Americans, 60 people would match.
But 59 of those people live in other cities and states, and one is the victim's ex-boyfriend with a restraining order.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the one and ONLY reason to opt-in. Which is why I don't understand it at all.
The only benefit from allowing police to search you (or your home, or your dna) is to find out that you or your family has committed a crime. When would I ever EVER want to do that?
But it gets much much worse. It's one thing when police find me using something bad. It's another thing when they find me holding something bad. It's very much less of a thing when they find something bad in my home, that might not be mine
Opt-in is irrelevant (Score:2)
The policfe can just subpoena the database and search for matches regardless of permission.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least then they have to care enough to do so.
If the site's offering it voluntarily, why 'wouldn't' you just run every bit of dna that you get against it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's totally fine. The police can subpoena me directly too. But that a) takes time -- which means police have other investigative measures to prioritize; and b) goes through a judge.
To be very clear here, I am TOTALLY IN FAVOUR of a court completely obliterating my individual rights for the community's public interests. That's what judges are for -- to decide police when over-reach is acceptable; and when it wasn't.
My problem here is that if a police officer/detective walks into a corporate business ask
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you truly are what we think of as stereo-typically ignorant american.
First, you don't read. I said I'm fine with a court (a.k.a. a respected judge) choosing the destroy my rights as an exception based on a specific case. That's what judges are for. I said that. It's called a warrant. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that all warrants be eliminated. Though if you are, please see my first sentence above.
Second, FAVOUR, spelled correctly -- as in if 100% of people make a mistake, it's still a mistake
Re: (Score:2)
My goodness, the stupid, it hurts.
It hurts almost as bad as listening to a British politician talk about Brexit! "We're going to renegotiate the deal!" Europe: "No." "Choose me, I'll renegotiate the deal and be really tough on those Europeans!" Europe: "No." "Blah blah blah renegotiate." Europe: "No."
It is almost as if you think "smart" means "From My Backwards Country" , and so you're no longer expected to be intelligent at the same time as being called "smart." Maybe you think mentally smart means you hav
Re: (Score:2)
If it hurts, then you ought to stop being stupid.
Oh, you misunderstood my correct-english spelling comment.
If you, ever, want to invent a word in english, open language, go ahead. All you need to do is to say "I'm using this as a word, and here's what it means when I do". No problem.
But that's very different than making a mistake, then calling it correct.
If I spell "happy" as "hapy", unintentionally, or because I'm a six-year old and don't know what I'm doing, you don't get to say it's correct because eng
Re: (Score:2)
It was the beer comment wasn't it. Look, there's great beer everywhere. I just think that when it comes to small craft breweries, our population cares more than most.
Although, I've heard of a country over-seas that drinks something like ten-times more beer per capita than anywhere else on earth. So I'd probably want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably don't comprehend the seriousness that Americans have for craft beer, or the prices, or the number of craft breweries.
Being snooty doesn't brew better beer, but heavy competition plus high prices does.
Local craft beers command higher prices than imports. Once upon a time, that was not even close to true, but these days it is, and has been for 20 years now.
Almost every neighborhood on the west coast of the US has a craft brewery.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually know absolutely nothing about beer. I've maybe had ten litres in forty years. I like very few of them. Perhaps ironically, none of them from anywhere near me, nor near you. There's a french beer that I like, but wine is almost always better. Though not french wine, again ironically.
If you want your US beer to be the better beer, that's cool with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, mod this up please! Best punch-line of the day, for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice fallacy there. You'll need to show a causal relationship to be convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, police should have a warrant to do a search. And asking a company for information about you should require a warrant. (Justice Gorsuch agrees, and would hold that the consumer owns the data about them, but nobody read his dissent they only read the vote count)
That said, when you pay a company to do some tests on your body fluids, currently they own those results. You have very few rights at stake, because you already waived them when you let somebody else do the test.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
False. To get a search warrant they have to have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and they have to have a reasonable belief that there is evidence in the place to be searched.
The search is not punitive, so there is no need to wave your arms about "blood sin." If you are in possession of evidence for an innocent reason, and the police know it, they can still get a search warrant. At times they know where evidence is but not who put it there, as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost most of your rights the moment you volunteered your dna.
If only it were so simple. I think it's salient here to point out that you aren't just volunteering your own DNA to be searched in the database, but your parents, your kids...
Re: (Score:2)
When you suggest that if your uncle raped and murdered somebody you'd want him to remain free, my presumption is that you fantasize about helping him rape and murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but sir, you've missed the point.
My uncle raping and murdering somebody is not the scenario at hand.
The scenario being discussed here is that my uncle is SUSPECTED of raping and murdering somebody -- in this case purely based on a computer algorithmic match -- the one that steers teslas into concrete barriers, gps navigators into rivers, and can't take dictation after decades of speech recognition attempts with even close to a 90% accuracy. Oh, and when I type "betamethasone" into my phone, it autocorr
Re: (Score:2)
Fact: If you get tired of caring for your pet eel, most species are edible. You can find recipes on Youtube.
Also, that isn't your home page. That is YouTube's home page. You're part of the content, but it is not your content.
But you're right about one thing: People should know when they see you coming that you're not going to be capable of enjoying subtitles. That's why I appreciate it so much that American neckbeards don't know how to pronounce the Japanese word "anime;" I won't accidentally sit down to wa
Re: (Score:2)
"if he didn't do it, the DNA won't match" -- that isn't true. Your word "match" is determined by an algorithm, that has a margin of error. That margin of error, while exceedingly small, is overshadowed by the algorithm that accounts for it.
If you can guarantee me that the algorithm is perfect, then I can turn in anybody. But you can't, because it isn't, so I won't.
That's why it isn't my job. And that's why it isn't my duty. Because I'm not in a position to evaluate the risks; nor am I in a position to b
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's a quick-undo for the 20% of the time when it's horribly wrong. And there's a less-than-quick delete-this-suggestion-forever and learn-this-word option. Those two combined are the after-the-fact accountability repair and the in-advance educational prevention that I've been talking about.
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
The tired old apology for stricter and stricter laws and less, more and more surveillance and less privacy. All authoritarians thrive on this. And you know what? Available data shows that this does not even work. Sure, there may be a very small number of rapists and murderers that can be caught only this way, but it is not relevant to the general level of safety, despite the grand stories being spun. These stories are driven by an entirely different agenda. In addition to being a tiny group, these people have stopped raping and murdering or they would have caught by other means. What this is really about is that some people want to push some "great victories for justice" (which are anything but) in order to keep the narrative going that you should trust the state with all your data and, in this case, with your DNA.
Now, look to history and present affairs. What if that DNA shows you have a Jewish ancestor? (Nazi Germany) Or that you or a family member may be gay? (Time-honored favorite, currently Russia, most Islamic countries, and latent homophobia exists in the US as well). Or that you have some blood of some race the authorities do not like? (Many countries past and present.) Or some cop is on the take and sells your higher risk of some medical condition? And so on. Some level of unsolved crime is a small price to pay to keep the state restricted in what it can do.
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have to get as far as the Nazis to be abused. It's happened many time with fingerprint evidence, and DNA is portrayed as even more reliable.
A poor match can be very convincing for a jury, backed up by an expert who claims it's nearly infallible. Unless the defendant has a good team and their own expert to point out how the amplification methods used are flawed, or how the DNA could have got there any number of innocent ways, they are probably screwed.
Juries assume it's like CSI, the computer scans through a database and the two DNA samples slide together to form a perfect match.
Combined with the Reid Technique to extract false confessions DNA is a very powerful tool for solving crimes, assuming you just want them cleared and don't care if the right person goes to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, data in databases can be false, either by mistake or by intent.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to get as far as the Nazis to be abused. It's happened many time with fingerprint evidence
And arson-witching, or whatever they call walking through a burnt building and making up a story about where the fire started.
The problem with the complaints I'm seeing in the thread is that they're pretty ignorant, even blathering about laws and shit, but there is no new law here. Complaining about things that aren't happening, just to join the pile, might not actually help to educate enough people about the problem to have any impact. It is just a circle-virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
...more and more surveillance and less privacy. All authoritarians thrive on this. And you know what? Available data shows that this does not even work.
I wonder where they get that data?
Re: (Score:2)
Whose privacy rights are you claiming are being violated? The person who contracted the genealogy DNA service voluntarily gave their DNA to be searched and searched by strangers. So this doesn't violate their privacy. The perp voluntarily gave their DNA at the crime scene as evidence, so it doesn't violate their privacy.
What we are really talking about is a situation where the family member regrets giving their DNA because the perp in their family gets caught by it. Their regret isn't the same thing as lack
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying you are a pro-lifer
Re: (Score:2)
She did drugs, not DNA.
Example stands, but should be clear on what the example is.
Re: (Score:2)
She did drugs, not DNA.
Example stands, but should be clear on what the example is.
Right, but for the DNA versions..... - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0... [nytimes.com]
or https://www.manchestereveningn... [manchester...news.co.uk] or https://www.sfgate.com/crime/a... [sfgate.com]
The average person is led to belive that DNA is the very word of God, infallible and above questioning. Law enforcement demands that belief in similar manner that they demand that people think that lie detector tests are infallible. Voluntarily giving DNA information to the Police - which is exactly what you are doing if you give a sample to any company like
Re: (Score:2)
She did drug tests. But it nicely demonstrates the problem. If hundreds or thousands of people cannot successfully fight false drug test results, and nobody notices for a long time that her results are not good, the situation will not be better for false DNA test results.
Re: (Score:2)
She did drug tests. But it nicely demonstrates the problem. If hundreds or thousands of people cannot successfully fight false drug test results, and nobody notices for a long time that her results are not good, the situation will not be better for false DNA test results.
Yeah - I definitely goofed on that one. Anyhow, in another reply I fixed that with how DNA testing isn't the iron clad word of God proof many think it is. Some links that are interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for upholding privacy but if people weren't murdering and raping there wouldn't be the need to go after the info to begin with.
They can't even get people to park properly. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
In my State, locals don't even understand the term "double parking." Most people have never seen it unless they've traveled out of state.
If they saw it happen and described it, they would be describing somebody "abandoned their car right in the traffic lane, and just walked away!" And it would be immediately impounded. The driver would likely be arrested for the crime of Disorderly Conduct. If somebody yells at them, "Hey asshole get your fucking car out of the street!" and they argue back, that charge incr
Re: (Score:2)
If only we could rid ourselves of a tiny percentage of the population who commits the largest percentage of violent crimes. Really makes you think how society could benefit from a small change.
AC posters?
Re: (Score:2)
However, do try and actually refer to the police as the police, because you're not three years old and you really should have some grasp of vocabulary by now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This "gay pride" thing has me confused. What is there to be proud about? "Hey, I'm proud that random pervs stick their dick up my rectum!" "I'm proud to lick the cum and shit off another man's anus!' Seriously, this is mental illness.
We should really start reevaluating institutionalizing these people. This behavior is a sure sign that something is seriously wrong in these people's heads. Institutionalization, strong drug therapy, and counseling would go a long way to helping these poor unfortunates.
Spoiler alert, it's because of people like you. Who cares where they want to sticks their dicks or whatever? As long as whoever they are doing whatever to is happy for it to happen then it's all gravy. You do you, as they say.
Re: (Score:2)
This means you.
What other people do with 6" of their anatomy is LITERALLY none of your fucking business
Re: (Score:2)
As a non-nazi conservative, could I suggest not feeding the trolls? It only encourages them.