Genetic Database That Identified Golden State Killer Acquired By Crime Scene DNA Company (theverge.com) 39
"The crime scene DNA sequencing company Verogen announced yesterday that they've acquired the genomics database and website GEDmatch," reports The Verge. "GEDmatch was primarily used by genealogists until 2018, when police, the FBI, and a forensic genealogist identified the suspected Golden State Killer by tying crime scene DNA to relatives who had uploaded their genetic information to the site. Since then, the platform has helped identify around 70 people accused of violent crimes." From the report: The acquisition makes the relationship between the company and law enforcement explicit, but raises uncomfortable questions for users and experts about data privacy and the future direction of the platform. In response to privacy concerns, the company changed its terms and conditions last spring to only allow law enforcement access to data if users actively opted in. But until now, interaction with law enforcement was still a secondary function to the platform.
The announcement took many in the genetics and genealogy community by surprise, and many genealogists are leaving the platform. "There have simply been too many changes, all of them in the direction of making their data the product rather than the website a service," said lawyer and genealogist Judy Russell in an email to The Verge. GEDmatch users were prompted to accept new terms and conditions indicating the platform's new ownership, and could either agree and enter the site, or remove their data from the platform. Verogen will still allow users to keep their data from any use by law enforcement, CEO Brett Williams told BuzzFeed News, maintaining the opt-in approach. "It will be interesting to see in the future if the new owners will implement policy changes that will increase the number of individuals available for law enforcement searching," says James Hazel, postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings at Vanderbilt University. The report notes, however, that "opt-in is not a foolproof system for data protection." Last month, a Florida detective announced at a police convention that he had obtained a warrant to penetrate GEDmatch and search its full database of nearly one million users.
The announcement took many in the genetics and genealogy community by surprise, and many genealogists are leaving the platform. "There have simply been too many changes, all of them in the direction of making their data the product rather than the website a service," said lawyer and genealogist Judy Russell in an email to The Verge. GEDmatch users were prompted to accept new terms and conditions indicating the platform's new ownership, and could either agree and enter the site, or remove their data from the platform. Verogen will still allow users to keep their data from any use by law enforcement, CEO Brett Williams told BuzzFeed News, maintaining the opt-in approach. "It will be interesting to see in the future if the new owners will implement policy changes that will increase the number of individuals available for law enforcement searching," says James Hazel, postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings at Vanderbilt University. The report notes, however, that "opt-in is not a foolproof system for data protection." Last month, a Florida detective announced at a police convention that he had obtained a warrant to penetrate GEDmatch and search its full database of nearly one million users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"The Constitution isn't what gives you your rights."
Agree with you there.
"You really don't need it, but the founders were wise enough to realize that it needed to be spelled out that there were many things that the government couldn't do."
How is that working out?
Last I checked the government literally does everything that the Constitution says it cannot do. I do not see people really doing anything about it. No one changes their votes, many even cheer on the abuses along with asking for a complete destruc
Re: (Score:2)
Every upload was done voluntarily. No one's rights were impacted.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You literally failed everything.
It is unconstitutional for a judge to grant a warrant that lets you search everything. It does not matter if the people gave that information to a business.
The government is simply not allowed to do it period. But hey, it's not like you are the first moron to have their rights removed from them for not knowing what they mean or how to read basic English.
Re:Constitution? What Constitution... (Score:4, Informative)
You literally failed everything.
It is unconstitutional for a judge to grant a warrant that lets you search everything. It does not matter if the people gave that information to a business.
The government is simply not allowed to do it period. But hey, it's not like you are the first moron to have their rights removed from them for not knowing what they mean or how to read basic English.
Lawyer here.
The Constitution requires that no warrant is to be issued unless it describes what is to be searched or seized. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a warrant that allows a search of a database.
In this case I can easily see a warrant that requires the company to run a certain DNA sequence against their database and to report the results. Such a search would be sufficiently limited in scope, duration, and complexity as required by the Constitution.
tl;dr: You're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is unconstitutional for a judge to grant a warrant that lets you search everything."
You got dunked on due to inarticulate nonsense like this.
I'd tell you to do better and suck less, but you don't know how.
Re: (Score:3)
The "everything" in the context of the discussion was this DNA database. An LEO obtained a warrant to search the entire database presumably for close matches to already known DNA. A warrant for an "everything" search like that will be granted all day every day.
In your scenario, warrants have in fact been issued for the information on those who purchased a given item from a certain store during a given time frame. There is nothing new about that.
The 4th amendment was drafted with an eye toward outlawing "
Re: (Score:1)
The problem here is that your threshold for what is too far is different from mine.
I follow the technical definition. Lets whip this up for inspection.
"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
They can satisfy the "particular" place to search. But they cannot satisfy the particular person to be searched/seized because they do not know who that is. They cannot even satisfy the "particular" thing to be seized. The warrant was a general search as proven
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple of problems in this whole dicussion. The words used by lawyers, unfortunately including the consititution, are "terms of art" / jargon / things that don't mean what you think they mean. The same words (like "everything") can even mean different things in different jurisdictions. For example in US law there is a principle that what you do in a public place can be recorded, and it's very difficult to get Americans to even admit that there's a difference between a) one Policeman watching
Re: (Score:3)
They can satisfy the "particular" place to search. But they cannot satisfy the particular person to be searched/seized because they do not know who that is. They cannot even satisfy the "particular" thing to be seized. The warrant was a general search as proven by the fact that is also ensnared family members. What occurred on that database was a general search, even if the Judge or You do not understand that! Which means the warrant was in fact a "general warrant" but like an ignorant politician making a l
Re: (Score:2)
For example in US law there is a principle that what you do in a public place can be recorded, and it's very difficult to get Americans to even admit that there's a difference between a) one Policeman watching one street, seeing one drug dealer going out and recording and using that fact and b) a set of cameras in all places watching all streets and recording them and a policeman later asking for a list of people who left their house at that time.
That's one of those things that sadly hasn't kept up with tec
Re: (Score:2)
This makes imagine a world where the above sentence is true.
So McBain had the license plate number of the suspected assassin (KILL666) and went to the Motor Vehicle Division. "Whose car is that?" he asked. "Not without a warrant, pig!!" was the predictable reply, so with a weary sigh, he went to see the judge.
"Your honor, I need a warrant to look up KI
Re: (Score:1)
Every upload was done voluntarily. No one's rights were impacted.
Except it was NOT the accused subject that uploaded his DNA it was a relative that uploaded their DNA. That right there speaks volumes... you get "ratted" out by someone else's ignorance. I can control my privacy but this is out of my control.
Re: Constitution? What Constitution... (Score:2)
So I don't have the right to let the police know my DNA sequence? Isn't that a free speech issue? Think of it this way, if the police know a robber has thick eyebrows and assuming I have thick eyebrows if they see me on the street they can ask me if I want to tell them what I was up to. I do have the right to say .. âoehey it wasnâ(TM)t me that did it, but thick eyebrows is a family trait .. my cousin has it too.â
Thats the same thing as GEDmatch .. people who upload their DNA are allowing the
Present terms never matter! (Score:5, Insightful)
Any company that collects data of any kind can spout a set of terms that govern how they handle that data. And the official agreement invariably includes a clause about the company being able to change those terms.
They can swear up and down that they will keep it all private, and the very next day get bought by someone who sells it all. Or just swap out their management for someone who sees monetization opportunities that former management did not. Or just fold to shareholder demands. Or get hit with legal demands to release the data.
Promises of data privacy are not worth the air used to speak them.
Any data about you that you want to control: must be kept to yourself. The moment any other soul has it (or any computer with Internet access, for that matter), you should assume it is public knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
People knew their results would get used for science, projects looking over data US wide
Thats a persons own DNA they offered to science. For a project, science, work...linking...
Its not "all private" when the project is about the results been offered to projects...
Re: (Score:2)
Completely true.
And since it's impossible to control DNA, it's foolish to want to control it, since you are nearly 100% doomed. Not only can it be copied from you easily ("can I bring you a drink, sir?"), but other people have partial copies of it ("hi mom!").
Keeping DNA secret is not viable and anyone whose strategy relies on that, is out of touch with reality. Your DNA isn't a secret and it won't be a secret in the future either. And
This is scary (Score:4, Informative)
So if this DB tags you get ready to lose everything fighting for your life against a prosecutor with unlimited resources. After all, better to convict 1000 innocent men than to let 1 guilty man go free.
Re: (Score:2)
That is literally the objective of the injustice system and majority of governments. In America they know that in order to get jury's to regularly convict people with little to no evidence they need this mindset to be part of the American Psyche from the outset. The real kicker is that this is not very difficult to do either. The real fight is actually making sure that people do not default to this mentality in fact. It takes effort for most folks to not think of anything negative when faced with the co
Re: (Score:2)
There are entire classes on identifying bias during Voir dire. Thankfully many people want to get out of jury duty so bad that the jump at the chance to say things they think will disqualify them. Now they may not come right out and say "I hate black people". But it's certainly possible to derive that through peripheral topics.
Also many people trust the police 100 percent and will proudly tell you they believe without question whatever the cops say. Such people are easy to strike from a jury pool.
At the
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, nothing you have said speaks to a single thing I mentioned.
The subject of Void Dire has very little to do with the premise that people have a guilty until proven innocent approach to live. And my line of questions is a direct statement that most people often have at least 1 bias that makes them this way.
It is also sad that you think the people "Thankfully" seek to get out of jury duty. Jury duty is the single most powerful vote citizens have and they abdicate it while over focusing instead on votes i
Re: (Score:2)
The first paragraph talks about the "ease" with which juries can convict.
Your entire comment boils down to biases (conscious and subconscious), guilty leanings, etc.
My comment was how parties will try to weed that out or use those same tendencies in Voir Dire to try and reduce the very outcomes you're referring to.
Your first reply out of the gate: "Wow, nothing you have said speaks to a single thing I mentioned."
It's extremely relevant because you 1) Mentioned guilt / innocence specifically and 2) Talked ab
Re: (Score:1)
"Your entire comment boils down to biases (conscious and subconscious), guilty leanings, etc."
No, I am talking about the concept that people are guilty until proven innocent. Yes biases might play a role in this but that is not the focus of my comments. My focus was that a bias creates the mentality and that the courts "enjoy" working with that mentality and actively encourage it"
"My comment was how parties will try to weed that out or use those same tendencies in Voir Dire to try and reduce the very outc
Re: (Score:2)
My man, you seem to think I'm a prosecutor. Part of my practice is criminal defense. If someone wants to completely disregard what the state says and find my guy innocent, I'm all for it. Nullify away. Unless of course the person is prepared to believe disregard the law and vote "guilty" no matter what. But you jury nullification types don't ponder that. In your universe people only nullify in favor of innocence.
And if you think the laws are so unjust that jury nullification is necessary, what are you
Re: (Score:2)
A modern society should not have a jury, but a working judical system.
Re: (Score:2)
A modern society should not have a jury, but a working judical system.
Um, huh?
I think this may be a "not really knowing English" comment.
Re: (Score:2)
A jury is an archaic thing most countries don't have.
A state attorney and a judge is enough.
The idea that laymen judge about a person is archaic and idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
imagine each of them are guilty
If you are someone's attorney, and you know for certain
that they are guilty (e.g. they confess information
that only the perpetrator could have known)
then it is perfectly OK to urge them to accept a plea bargain.
Re: (Score:1)
DNA is not a perfect match. There are people that share Genetic markers that make them become false positives. There is also the trouble of law enforcement harassing everyone in or near the orbit of a "suspected" criminal.
I have been handcuffed and tossed into the back of a cruiser myself by law enforcement and used as a fucking hostage to coax another family member to turn themselves in. My crime was being a family member of someone I had no business being a family member of according to these officers.
An Explainer from a Pro (Score:2)
Read this for more information:
https://dna-explained.com/2019... [dna-explained.com]
People gave DNA for use (Score:1)
Dont want your DNA used for science, by police, for research?
Find a different testing brand that will only give the same results back to the person requesting the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. All the DNA labs allow police to submit DNA samples for comparison to other customers' DNA.
Even if they didn't, police can pretend to be a regular customer. Sure, the evidence isn't admissible, but that doesn't matter, because the matches they get are only stepping stones in their research. Once they believe they have the right person, they can then get a new DNA sample the "old fashioned" way, like collecting the person's trash, and compare that to crime scene evidence in police-owned
Yea, they let the user decide alright. (Score:3)
Until the government shows up and demands access. Right now they require a warrant. Eventually it will be "because it's Wednesday and they asked."
I also had to laugh at the part where they delete your data if you don't agree to the new terms. They willingly give away gathered data points? Riiigghhhtt.
And if / when you eventually find out that they lied to you, didn't delete the data, and in fact have commercially exploited it then you can sue them.
Oh wait. You agreed to that arbitration clause, class action waiver, and jury trial waiver. And if you somehow are able to bring suit, you agreed to do it in Deer Tick County, Minnesota.
With apologies to War Games, the only winning move is not to give your DNA.