New Federal Rules Limit Police Searches of Family Tree DNA Databases (sciencemag.org) 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Magazine: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released new rules yesterday governing when police can use genetic genealogy to track down suspects in serious crimes -- the first-ever policy covering how these databases, popular among amateur genealogists, should be used in law enforcement attempts to balance public safety and privacy concerns. The DOJ interim policy, which takes effect on 1 November, is intended to "balance the Department's relentless commitment to solving violent crime and protecting public safety against equally important public interests," such as privacy and civil liberties, a press release states. The policy says "forensic genetic genealogy" should generally be used only for violent crimes such as murder and rape, as well as to identify human remains. (The policy permits broader use if the ancestry database's policy allows such searches.) Police should first exhaust traditional crime solving methods, including searching their own criminal DNA databases.
Under the new policy, police can't quietly upload a fake profile to a genealogy website, as some have done in hopes of finding a suspect's distant relatives, without first identifying themselves. And the site itself must have informed its users that law enforcement agencies may search their data. The policy also bars police from using a suspect's DNA profile to look for genes related to disease risks or psychological traits. Another provision attempts to limit situations in which police secretly take a DNA sample from a suspect's relative -- from a discarded cup or tissue, for example -- to help home in on a suspect. The policy says the person must give their informed consent unless police have obtained a search warrant.
Under the new policy, police can't quietly upload a fake profile to a genealogy website, as some have done in hopes of finding a suspect's distant relatives, without first identifying themselves. And the site itself must have informed its users that law enforcement agencies may search their data. The policy also bars police from using a suspect's DNA profile to look for genes related to disease risks or psychological traits. Another provision attempts to limit situations in which police secretly take a DNA sample from a suspect's relative -- from a discarded cup or tissue, for example -- to help home in on a suspect. The policy says the person must give their informed consent unless police have obtained a search warrant.
Sure! (Score:3)
We can't have serial killers found this way.
The shame for the family.
People might talk. (gasp)
Re: (Score:1)
Paper files closed at a city and state level never expected to get US wide funding and national DNA interest decades later?
To get privacy, someone with wealth, with police/police/mil "power" must have requested DNA law changes.
What did the DNA find? Mil, gov, police, city workers, criminals doing extra crime and who never got investigated?
The vast use of police informants doing extra crime to keep
Re: (Score:1)
Probably my parents.
Re: Sure! (Score:2)
What percentage of crime is committed by the police? Of that, what percent "'cuz undercover"? What percent as a ploy to drive up police budgets? What percent "'cuz we can"?
Re: (Score:2)
Guess we will never know.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's asking a lot to read the summary, but...it says that the new rules ALLOW government agencies to use DNA searches for violent crimes, including murder and rape.
Reasonable Enough (Score:3)
So basically, a reasonable policy in line with the Constitution and people's expectations.
Will wonders never cease...
Re:Reasonable Enough (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree whole heartedly - it is not reasonable at all. They treated it like a law enforcement issue only, ignoring civil rights. But they knew people objected to this so they made made a token effort saying "We will only do it when it is important".
We don't let the cops say "We will only break into your home when it is important". Instead we require they get a warrant. It is up to the JUDGE to decide if it is important, not the cops.
Frankly I would rather they said they would do it for any crime than this disgusting attempt to mollify people without actually addressing their objections.
You can not go to a genetic database that contractually requires you to submit only your own DNA and submit someone else. That is a criminal violation of the terms of service. The fact that the police are doing it does not make it "OK".
They should have to get a warrant. But they should be able to get a warrant for ANY crime, not just violent ones.
What they did here is disgusting. It lets minor crimes go unpunished and also allows the cops to do it when they claim it is a serious crime, rather than having a judge provide meaningful control.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TOS violations are almost NEVER criminal violations unless there's another actual law that is passed by the legislative branch that allows it to be criminalized.
That law would be the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Some courts have ruled against this interpretation however prosecutors still use it.
Re: Reasonable Enough (Score:2)
"Instead we require they get a warrant. It is up to the JUDGE to decide if it is important, not the cops."
Well la-dee-dah, they gotta go fill out a form and get a rubber stamp.
What percent of search warrant requests are ever denied by the rubber stamp.. I mean, judge? 2%? 1%? My bet is less than 1%, but if Big Brother Google knows he doesn't feel like telling me.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't appear you've even read the summary, let alone the release on the policy.
Here, let me recap for you with some emphasis on the parts which address your comment:
Re: (Score:2)
You can not go to a genetic database that contractually requires you to submit only your own DNA and submit someone else. That is a criminal violation of the terms of service.
No, there is no such thing. It may be breach of contract, but that is a civil matter. That's because the contract is not law.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Aaron Swartz. Prosecutors have pressed criminal charges for things like this under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act frequently.
Not saying I agree that it should be criminal. But law enforcement have established the precedent. I just want to see the law applied equally.
Re: (Score:2)
It's never been against the TOS of DNA sites, to submit DNA for another person. They DO ask you to do so only with that person's consent. This is a very common practice, in cases where a genealogy enthusiast gets all their family members to agree to a test. Generally, the enthusiast is the one that submits the DNA sample.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that police need a warrant to enter your property without your permission. However, they do NOT need a warrant to take photos of your property, or collect trash left at the curb of your property, or stake out your property to see who comes and goes, and they can ask questions of neighbors who are willing to talk.
Police can't compel you to take a DNA test without a warrant. But they can perform a DNA test from swabs taken from your trash, and they can compare DNA from a crime scene to genetic "neig
Re: (Score:2)
You can not go to a genetic database that contractually requires you to submit only your own DNA and submit someone else. That is a criminal violation of the terms of service. The fact that the police are doing it does not make it "OK".
It does when the prosecutor uses their discretion. They already prosecute violations of an EULA as violations of the CFAA statute when it pleases them. So it does make it "OK" when the police do it.
This whole thing is just security and privacy theater to reassure people that their DNA records will not be used against them so that there are more DNA records to use against them.
Re: (Score:1)
What was DNA finding? (Score:1)
Was the good results all over the USA getting too political?
Too many criminals getting found after years of thinking they could escape for decades?
Whats is "privacy concerns" really all about? The criminal can be found, the community want the criminals found.
Why this political demand to protect the "privacy" of criminals? Re "exhaust traditional" methods? Is a DNA test now not a traditional method given its use from about the late
Re:What was DNA finding? (Score:5, Informative)
Testing autosomal DNA (as used in the now-common "ancestry" tests) is even more problematic.
And mitochondrial DNA mutates so slowly that it can prove nothing about recent relationships.
The FBI is infamous among genetic genealogists for their "one in a million" claims about DNA matching.
Re: (Score:1)
Find the ancestry then do the better quality tests needed.
No false positive then.
What is the US diverting its crime lab spending to?
Fund the labs, get DNA testing working again so it can face lawyers, experts and questions in any open court.
Buy some good DNA lab tests and keep looking.
Don't fix a political problem by removing DNA testing as a police method.
Re: (Score:2)
No DNA match is absolute proof of identity.
In the simple case I've never heard of any real issues except bungling of samples, like in a paternity case it's either ~50% of your genes or it's not. Sure if you try to map out everyone and has too few markers you'll have false positives, but if you're using them for anything important like sending a man to jail for many years surely you can do a full screening of that particular pairing. And even if there was some kind of residual risk left I would think it's still less than reasonable doubt - I mean, wh
Re: What was DNA finding? (Score:3)
People are concerned about giving law enforcers even more power, because people increasingly perceive the Law itself as corrupt. Under our existing vast contradictory multitude of laws, everyone is guilty of something. Including the law enforcer goons themselves - although they enjoy practical immunity from the laws they force on the common people.
People feel that if the existing law were perfectly enforced, the entire country would be one giant gulag. With not a man, woman, or child remaining free. Thus pe
Re: (Score:1)
Recall what genetic genealogy was doing for police all over the USA?
All the good new police work opened up looking back to the 1970's and 1980's.
Will be ignored (Score:3)
I predict they just keep doing whatever they want. When someone asks how they found the suspect, they'll call in an anonymous tip.
They get qualified immunity so they can never be held liable no matter how many of your rights they violate, unless a court made a ruling in an identical case. (And this policy document is not a court ruling.)
Interesting "or psychological traits" (Score:2)
Not sure what the solution is because as mentioned above this does kinda fit with the constitution.
Just my 2 cents
No, cousin's DNA is not applicable (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. The check legally required before exercising rights explicitly protected by the Constitution does not check whether your cousin has the gene making him high risk to have a Down's syndrome baby. It covers:
Criminal history
Dishonorable military discharges
unlawful immigration status
open warrants
documented history of domestic violence (arrests, rotective orders, etc)
drug use
insitutionalization or similar interventions for mental health issues
I wonder if the last two should be checked before you
Re: No, cousin's DNA is not applicable (Score:2)
Yup, we need background checks and licensing before anyone is allowed to speak about politics. Then we'll REALLY be free!!!!!!
This goes against court rulings (Score:4, Insightful)
Courts have upheld that if you're arrested for misdemeanors you can be DNA sampled. This tends to fly in the face of those rulings quite a bit but with the advent of DNA and other Technology that makes it easier to track and identify you, your family etc. we should have stronger constitutional protections. I'm also not just considering the criminal investigation aspects here, I'm concerned about who owns that data, how long do they keep it, how secure is it and who do they share it with? We really need a data privacy constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
They can keep your DNA even if you get arrested for breaking no laws
Re: (Score:2)
This does not go against those court ruling since none of these new rules are about collecting samples from someone who had been arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not what the story is talking about. Yes, police can still collect DNA evidence at crime scenes of any kind. This rule is about what they can do with the DNA once they have it.
Police have always been able to compare such DNA to samples from their own databases. This rule allows them to compare samples for violent crimes, against consumer DNA databases, by becoming a customer of those consumer databases.
You still (Score:2)
Should NOT get those DNA tests from ANY of those Genealogy sites. LE -WILL- get your DNA and use it inappropriately without your knowledge. This ruling will mean NOTHING!
Those test are really useless anyway - they only tell you percentages of where your ancestors come from. If you can track your family members and find their birthdates and birthplace - you can figure that out WITHOUT a DNA test.
Don't waste your money on these "tests", don't risk your DNA getting into the wrong hands.
Just say NO to DNA tests
Re: (Score:1)
You're talking very generically about haplogroups that are only a small component of DNA testing. There are Y-DNA and mtDNA tests that can trace paternal and maternal lines quite far back, with atDNA tests (that you touch on) providing some of the ethnic results which you refer to. atDNA has a "half-life" (if you will), where remnants of DNA from ancestors recombine each generation, thus (roughly) "losing" 50% each generati
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about being tracked by police if you submit your DNA to one of these sites, it's already too late for you.
Police don't need YOUR DNA, they only need DNA from some of your relatives. This is enough to triangulate and find out through a DNA test.
When a typical US resident submits their DNA to one of these sites, they usually get a list of about 500-1000 matches. You likely would too, if you signed up. What that means is that police already have access to DNA from 500-1000 of your relatives,
Bass Acwards (Score:1)
There are a couple of reasons for this... (Score:1)
This policy is used to "officially" restrict t
Re: (Score:2)
That was literally the first case I thought about when I saw this. Why would we not want to find people that committed crimes, especially felony level crimes.