Personally I'm glad they are catching murderers and rapists this way. It's fantastic and as far as we've seen there is no downside when this tool is applied within the context of a state that has rule of law. Even in a totalitarian panopticon like China, it's hard to picture exactly what downside a complete dna database would have. I mean we can contrive scenarios. Maybe a resistance cell is busted while everyone is out and the government is able to deduce the members from dna traces. But it seems far fetched. Even in that scenario, traditional policing techniques are likely to be more effective. I.e. wait until resistance members are present THEN attack the cell. Interrogate prisoners to give up accomplices etc.
Dna identification is pretty cool because the vast majority of cases where it's useful are cases where traces have been left at the scene of the crime or on a victim. That fact, the mere existence of a scene or a victim, constrains the use of the tool mostly to legitimate circumstances.
If my dna were used to lock up a relative who commits a rape or a murder I would be sad but I would consider it justified. I'm not going to do either of those things so I am not worried about whether the police would use dna to identify me. And considering the lack of scenarios where DNA could be misused, this is actually one of those situations where the innocent have nothing or next to nothing to worry about.
Have you never been in a place where a murder was later committed? Have you never had personal contact with someone later raped?
There’s a temptation to compute “1 in a billion” probabilities, have a computer or science wizard process spit them out and for investigators to conclude the person who matches is the one. I’m more worried about the possible lazy or sloppy interpretation and curve-fitting aspects of the tech than I am worried about me flipping out and committing a felony offense.
I am likewise glad for the cases where it is helping to correctly solve crimes, of course.
There is always the possibility that you will be incorrectly identified by an investigative technique, dna or otherwise. This is not a remote chance; it happens all the time. In my view, this does not increase that probability very much, but it massively improves the odds of finding criminals. Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction. There is still the matter of alibis, motives, and all those traditional avenues of forensic inquiry.
As to your questions, as far as I know, nobody has ever been murdered in a place where I've been. Maybe on the sidewalk somewhere, but that is not a scenario where DNA is going to be any help, unless the perpetrator leaves behind blood or skin on the victim or the ground. And I've never had sexual contact with anyone who was subsequently raped, nor anyone who didn't already know me for that matter. But it hardly matters whether those things have happened to me personally. What matters is how often that happens in the world, and what fraction of the time this leads to incorrect prosecution.
> this does not increase that probability very much
That depends[1] strongly on what question you are asking. Matching an unknown sample against a small number of suspects is a very different question than searching a database with millions (or billions) of records. The latter is almost guaranteed[2] to return false positives.
> it massively improves the odds of finding criminals
That's a strong claim that requires equally strong evidence.
>Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction.
That's awful wishful thinking. The general public is of the opinion that DNA evidence is 100% accurate and the government does a great job of continuing to present that farce. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to face a jury of their peers in the face of DNA evidence saying I committed a crime. Regardless of my alibi... I wouldn't trust the lay person to understand or get it right.
I would love to see some test cases of that. Call in an unknowing jury by normal procedure, conduct an apparently-real trial, present evidence that a) DNA means X did it and also b) X has three friends who swear to an alibi.
People have been harassed and even arrested for sharing how bogus a polygraph is (by showing how to beat it). Good luck convincing people DNA evidence isn’t 100% accurate.
Alternatively if intervention techniques can be found that work, these people can be treated before they go on the path to anti social behavior and may become “habilitated”.
Obviously there is a big red flag about what gets classified as this criminal behavior, but if we can keep it to immediate acts of violence, then it may possibly be worthwhile.
It depends. If it’s somewhat deterministic like disease, and there are no adverse effects or if there are they are overridden by the benefits then I don’t see why not investigate that avenue.
Obviously if it remains guesswork then the reason to pursue this option doesn’t exist.
Who gets to define what counts as an "adverse effect"?
> if there are they are overridden by the benefits
Benefit to who? You? Society in general (by what definition of "society")? The doctor that defiantly isn't getting free lunches and other "gifts" from the company selling the treatment? The person receiving the treatment?
How are you judging the magnitude of the beneficial and harmful effects? Who gets to define what type of arguments are allowed to be considered when making that judgment?
Just because a there is a law or policy doesn’t mean it’s not abused or the policy is 100% effective. China is a great example of bureaucracy and keeping up appearances while the reality is starkly different, but it happens in the US too.
You don't need dna to perform an ethnic cleansing. It's not even really that helpful. We've been doing those as a species for centuries, long before we even knew what DNA was.
In the case of the reverse: doesn't that just strengthen my point that this tool should be used to narrow the set of possible perpetrators?
Btw, I find the "this is a really bad take" verbiage to be rude and unnecessary. You could just leave it out and it wouldn't make your argument weaker.
I'd bet it would have been quite sufficient information for the likes of Heinrich Himmler—and if you'd lived back then and if he could have gotten his hands on you then you'd be history!
That's why putting one's DNA on line is so dangerous and so bloody damn stupid!
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily put their DNA on any database when it's been so damn obvious for many years—from the very start—that police, governments, life insurance companies and crooks etc. are just dying to get their grubby little paws on this valuable information.
What annoys me even more is that people who put their DNA on these databases do so without consideration of those who are genetically related to them. When a person puts their DNA on a database, ipso facto, they are also violating the privacy of their near (and no-so-near) relatives, who in most instances, have never given their consent to do so.
Frankly, I consider this a terrible state of affairs and there should be strict laws against people doing it. Seems to me that now that the cat's out of the bag the only thing that can be done is to seed these databases with cleverly engineered noisy/disruptive profiles that would make tree analysis much harder to decipher.
No, I'll let you do that and then I'll show you that, irrespective of what you do—assuming the database isn't encrypted and with the DNA owner holding the key to his/her record—then you'll end up overriding the autonomy of individuals—people in our societies will be less free than they are now.
As usual, few bother to think important stuff like this through before it becomes a done deal. It would be interesting to see a class-action lawsuit against DNA database holders by those who consider their privacy invaded.
If governments don't step in to control and regulate this unholy mess soon then I'd reckon it won't be long before the lawsuits begin. I'd put money on it.
Okay, I'll start. How about ridding humanity of all manner of disease? How about designer drugs, custom made for your particular DNA? How about, to the extent intelligence is determined by DNA (80% by some estimates), increasing the intelligence of the population, furthering our understanding of the universe? How about my dad who suffered years of paralysis until a 23andme test revealed a genetic mutation his many, many doctors didn't consider and now he's mobile and active again just by taking inordinate amounts of B12 vitamins?
I'm a little concerned about things like insurance, but as long as our country still has plenty of guns I'm not worried about Hitler 2.0. Your country might be different.
There are many ways around that problem that don't involve exposing one's DNA to police, government or anyone else.
One would be for everyone to have a secure certificated [not able to be forged] anonymous hierarchical ID where those who have access to the ID/database are ranked/rated. For example on a rank of 10, the user would rate 10, your doctor 7 the government would rate say 5, your bank say 3. Such a ranking system would set the level of access and what data could be taken from the user's record.
There are many other solutions too which I've not go time to go into here.
Unfortunately, governments won't like such a schema because it puts citizens back in charge (and bureaucracies have never liked that)
People won't use such a scheme because it's too complicated. And the people doing medical research need everyone's DNA in a big database so they can analyze it in bulk. There's relatively little scientific benefit in just a few people's DNA. And that concentration of information is where your concern is.
How about, if you want socialized healthcare, you pay the cost of privacy. We guarantee to pay for your healthcare, but your DNA is freely available in everyone's database? Signing up for Medicare/Medicaid? Submit a DNA sample. That will give a huge population for study and the rest, people who aren't on socialized healthcare, can protect their DNA if they want. If the government is paying for your healthcare, you already lost your privacy to them anyways.
Texas is about to execute a man who was convicted on DNA evidence[1].
His crime? Having an affair with a cop's wife. His DNA was found in the victim's body.
There is sworn testimony that the husband confessed to the murder of his own wife.
I'd hate to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time, or to have left garbage somewhere a crime was committed, or to have had sex with someone who later has a crime committed against them.
If you are a criminal, it might be wise to send them someone else's DNA in your own name. From someone who is not in the register and never gets there, maybe dies soon. When they start to eliminate suspects based on DNA you get dropped.
That wouldn't work. If you are already a suspect, the police will retest you, not rely on what's on the database.
What you actually want to do is send your own DNA in someone else's name - preferably someone who is demographically similar to you, but who has essentially no connection to you (better still, someone who is dead)
If none of your relatives use the service then this might work.
Suspicion is not always sufficient for a warrant and tapping you for DNA isn't the same as searching your car, which requires probable cause. I don't know how DNA db srach warrants work but if they're blind matches, submitting bad data could be an effective smoke screen. You just have to make sure you submit DNA from someone who isn't going to make you a false positive march later.
Most cases are not caught because there is a direct march, but because there are multiple distant relatives that match and allow detectives to triangulate the suspect. Final confirmation is done w/ direct testing after probable cause.
Faking your own dna has little effect on this process of triangulation and can easily be identified as you won’t share expected traits with relatives.
I’m not sure if I trust people enough to be using DNA in the legal system of today. Let alone police with the bad actors that are attracted to the career.
The one law protection service I wish would be created is a way for opting-in to have my iPhone track location & record audio 24/7; with the guarantee of privacy for the data and able to be viewed only with consent (whenever being alleged to have committed a crime). It’s a work in progress thought I’ve been thinking about because I’ve been in a few situations where having a recording could have been potentially life changing in benefiting my recollection of what happened. Police don’t even let you audio record interrogations with your own personal phone. Although one should never even speak to the police and just request their lawyer on the spot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it always been 100% clear that police would be able to search online DNA databases easily, through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine if nothing else?
The police can ask you for something without a warrant. You can say no. When they ask a 3rd party like the phone company they are free to say yes and comply if they want. I dont think that would apply to data protected under HIPPA though, which by law is not to be shared without the persons comcent. But IANAL.
The problem is that the data obtained via a third party, without a warrant, is admissible in court. And IANALE, but HIPAA has exclusions and exemptions for law enforcement.
HIPAA doesn't apply to everyone. There's a definition for "covered entities". For example, if you tell me about your medical condition, I can tell anyone I like.
I can't find any reference to HIPAA in 23andme's privacy policy and I don't believe they are currently considered a covered entity. I don't even know if their data is considered medical information in the same way a diagnosis would be.
> Isn’t DNA sequencing my medical information and protected by HIPAA and other privacy laws?
It would depend on the context of how the DNA sequencing was provided.
If your Doctor ordered it as part of a treatment plan and billed your health insurance, then yes, it's a medical record covered by HIPAA.
If you personally ordered DNA sequencing and gave the results to GEDmatch, then HIPAA does not apply. GEDmatch is neither a Covered Entity[1] nor Business Associate[2] of a Covered Entity. From a legal perspective the DNA database at GEDmatch is no different than phone or banking records.
Yeah, the cops can search your medical records if you printed them out and left them with a friend and that friend gave the cops access to them.
HIPAA only applies to "covered entities" and their business partners, which are (1) health plans, (2) health care clearinghouses, and (3) health care providers who electronically transmit any health information in connection with transactions for which HHS has adopted standards. GEDmatch is none of those.
A power database for genetic geneology could be developed just with the DNA of police officers. The government should be providing incentivizes to people who make their DNA information open for genetic genealogy searches rather than resorting to warrants on information people didn't agree to it.
In 2019, when we have huge databases that we can search quickly, the Third-Party doctrine no longer fits/works. We share vast amounts of very private information with third parties, it goes way beyond the meta-data of a PSTN phone call.
There is a big difference between asking for the call records of particular phone numbers and searching an entire database for whatever you want. With phone records you are asking for specific details, details that could provide direct evidence of a crime, the database has a perfect match for the search and that is known ahead of time. With DNA DB searches you are fishing for potential links, at least for now the DB isn't likely to have a perfect match and that is known ahead of time. Everyone in that DNA DB becomes suspect. I should not need DNA evidence to clear my name every time someone commits a crime.
The third party doctrine was always a disgusting mess. Sharing my information with entity A does not even remotely imply I'm okay with sharing it with B, and even less that A may be compelled to reveal my information against my and their desire. So often we hear that "corporations are people" - so can people be compelled to inform on others, without a warrant? They're a third party, after all!
Your comment looks like it's getting downvotes but the idea seems worth considering. I almost never hear corporate personhood brought up in good faith, it's usually just a rhetorical device these days, but it's worth remembering that the general idea behind it is that Corporations are just organized groups of people and therefore they should (should in the view of the relevant laws) not lose protections (compared to the individuals that comprise the group) simply for acting in a coordinated fashion.
I think we need a DNA GDPR. The notion that your unique genetic makeup and data derived from your DNA is yours to do with what you will that you can revoke at any time.
You are wrong. I'm not talking about "identical looking" people. I'm talking about _monozygotic twins_. They have identical DNA because they're two people spawned from one zygote and therefore have identical DNA.
The markers in CODIS (law enforcement DNA database) don't cover the whole genome. The markers sold by commercial genetic genealogy databases also don't typically cover the whole genome.
The likelihood of the few in utero polymorphisms occurring at one of the covered markers is very low. That means a whole genome would need to be sequenced to determine which twin DNA evidence came from.
I feel bad for all of the suckers that paid for and freely submitted their DNA to these private companies.
I have been saying this for years, but your DNA and health should only be viewed by you and your healthcare providers. With this contract, you are protected by strict federal and state laws (ie, HIPAA)
Using it for vanity bullshit like “I just found out I am 2% Cherokee” is absolutely insane.
I did and dont feel bad. Unfortunately, these services will be outlawed or regulated for whatever reasons, witholding people from information they should be able to have. I was lucky enough to have had health reports before it was outlawed. I know how imperfect it is , but i think the bans violated my rights. I now have a file with my SNPs - uncensored- to play with as i wish. (I wouldn’t rule it out that these companies will be forced to censor SNPs that some groups don’t like in the future)
Conversely, I was able to use a service of this kind to reconnect branches of my family separated by genocide. And I personally don't mind if the police have my DNA. If some cousin of mine committed a crime, and this helps them somehow, all the better in my view. You can make your own choices for yourself but I don't feel like a sucker at all.
63 comments
[ 12.9 ms ] story [ 2747 ms ] threadDna identification is pretty cool because the vast majority of cases where it's useful are cases where traces have been left at the scene of the crime or on a victim. That fact, the mere existence of a scene or a victim, constrains the use of the tool mostly to legitimate circumstances.
If my dna were used to lock up a relative who commits a rape or a murder I would be sad but I would consider it justified. I'm not going to do either of those things so I am not worried about whether the police would use dna to identify me. And considering the lack of scenarios where DNA could be misused, this is actually one of those situations where the innocent have nothing or next to nothing to worry about.
There’s a temptation to compute “1 in a billion” probabilities, have a computer or science wizard process spit them out and for investigators to conclude the person who matches is the one. I’m more worried about the possible lazy or sloppy interpretation and curve-fitting aspects of the tech than I am worried about me flipping out and committing a felony offense.
I am likewise glad for the cases where it is helping to correctly solve crimes, of course.
As to your questions, as far as I know, nobody has ever been murdered in a place where I've been. Maybe on the sidewalk somewhere, but that is not a scenario where DNA is going to be any help, unless the perpetrator leaves behind blood or skin on the victim or the ground. And I've never had sexual contact with anyone who was subsequently raped, nor anyone who didn't already know me for that matter. But it hardly matters whether those things have happened to me personally. What matters is how often that happens in the world, and what fraction of the time this leads to incorrect prosecution.
That depends[1] strongly on what question you are asking. Matching an unknown sample against a small number of suspects is a very different question than searching a database with millions (or billions) of records. The latter is almost guaranteed[2] to return false positives.
> it massively improves the odds of finding criminals
That's a strong claim that requires equally strong evidence.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/dna_matching_... ( http://archive.li/M0SeV )
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
That's awful wishful thinking. The general public is of the opinion that DNA evidence is 100% accurate and the government does a great job of continuing to present that farce. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to face a jury of their peers in the face of DNA evidence saying I committed a crime. Regardless of my alibi... I wouldn't trust the lay person to understand or get it right.
I'll bet X gets convicted.
Obviously there is a big red flag about what gets classified as this criminal behavior, but if we can keep it to immediate acts of violence, then it may possibly be worthwhile.
Obviously if it remains guesswork then the reason to pursue this option doesn’t exist.
Both real life and those dystopian movies have taught me that this is _never_ the case. There's literally a 0% chance of no adverse side effects.
Who gets to define what counts as an "adverse effect"?
> if there are they are overridden by the benefits
Benefit to who? You? Society in general (by what definition of "society")? The doctor that defiantly isn't getting free lunches and other "gifts" from the company selling the treatment? The person receiving the treatment?
How are you judging the magnitude of the beneficial and harmful effects? Who gets to define what type of arguments are allowed to be considered when making that judgment?
This is a really bad take, because we already know that China is running an ethnicity-based genocide and cultural obliteration programme in Xinjang.
You might also want to consider this case, which is the reverse: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ray-cromar... - refusal to perform DNA testing even when the defense demands it.
In the case of the reverse: doesn't that just strengthen my point that this tool should be used to narrow the set of possible perpetrators?
Btw, I find the "this is a really bad take" verbiage to be rude and unnecessary. You could just leave it out and it wouldn't make your argument weaker.
That's why putting one's DNA on line is so dangerous and so bloody damn stupid!
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily put their DNA on any database when it's been so damn obvious for many years—from the very start—that police, governments, life insurance companies and crooks etc. are just dying to get their grubby little paws on this valuable information.
What annoys me even more is that people who put their DNA on these databases do so without consideration of those who are genetically related to them. When a person puts their DNA on a database, ipso facto, they are also violating the privacy of their near (and no-so-near) relatives, who in most instances, have never given their consent to do so.
Frankly, I consider this a terrible state of affairs and there should be strict laws against people doing it. Seems to me that now that the cat's out of the bag the only thing that can be done is to seed these databases with cleverly engineered noisy/disruptive profiles that would make tree analysis much harder to decipher.
As usual, few bother to think important stuff like this through before it becomes a done deal. It would be interesting to see a class-action lawsuit against DNA database holders by those who consider their privacy invaded.
If governments don't step in to control and regulate this unholy mess soon then I'd reckon it won't be long before the lawsuits begin. I'd put money on it.
I'm a little concerned about things like insurance, but as long as our country still has plenty of guns I'm not worried about Hitler 2.0. Your country might be different.
One would be for everyone to have a secure certificated [not able to be forged] anonymous hierarchical ID where those who have access to the ID/database are ranked/rated. For example on a rank of 10, the user would rate 10, your doctor 7 the government would rate say 5, your bank say 3. Such a ranking system would set the level of access and what data could be taken from the user's record.
There are many other solutions too which I've not go time to go into here.
Unfortunately, governments won't like such a schema because it puts citizens back in charge (and bureaucracies have never liked that)
How about, if you want socialized healthcare, you pay the cost of privacy. We guarantee to pay for your healthcare, but your DNA is freely available in everyone's database? Signing up for Medicare/Medicaid? Submit a DNA sample. That will give a huge population for study and the rest, people who aren't on socialized healthcare, can protect their DNA if they want. If the government is paying for your healthcare, you already lost your privacy to them anyways.
His crime? Having an affair with a cop's wife. His DNA was found in the victim's body.
There is sworn testimony that the husband confessed to the murder of his own wife.
I'd hate to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time, or to have left garbage somewhere a crime was committed, or to have had sex with someone who later has a crime committed against them.
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/15/opinion/texas-may-soo...
What you actually want to do is send your own DNA in someone else's name - preferably someone who is demographically similar to you, but who has essentially no connection to you (better still, someone who is dead)
If none of your relatives use the service then this might work.
Faking your own dna has little effect on this process of triangulation and can easily be identified as you won’t share expected traits with relatives.
Good luck...
The key was that the DNA of his relatives led them to him. Once you are in that position, you are already done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
The one law protection service I wish would be created is a way for opting-in to have my iPhone track location & record audio 24/7; with the guarantee of privacy for the data and able to be viewed only with consent (whenever being alleged to have committed a crime). It’s a work in progress thought I’ve been thinking about because I’ve been in a few situations where having a recording could have been potentially life changing in benefiting my recollection of what happened. Police don’t even let you audio record interrogations with your own personal phone. Although one should never even speak to the police and just request their lawyer on the spot.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-...
I can't find any reference to HIPAA in 23andme's privacy policy and I don't believe they are currently considered a covered entity. I don't even know if their data is considered medical information in the same way a diagnosis would be.
It would depend on the context of how the DNA sequencing was provided.
If your Doctor ordered it as part of a treatment plan and billed your health insurance, then yes, it's a medical record covered by HIPAA.
If you personally ordered DNA sequencing and gave the results to GEDmatch, then HIPAA does not apply. GEDmatch is neither a Covered Entity[1] nor Business Associate[2] of a Covered Entity. From a legal perspective the DNA database at GEDmatch is no different than phone or banking records.
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities...
[2] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance...
HIPAA only applies to "covered entities" and their business partners, which are (1) health plans, (2) health care clearinghouses, and (3) health care providers who electronically transmit any health information in connection with transactions for which HHS has adopted standards. GEDmatch is none of those.
There is a big difference between asking for the call records of particular phone numbers and searching an entire database for whatever you want. With phone records you are asking for specific details, details that could provide direct evidence of a crime, the database has a perfect match for the search and that is known ahead of time. With DNA DB searches you are fishing for potential links, at least for now the DB isn't likely to have a perfect match and that is known ahead of time. Everyone in that DNA DB becomes suspect. I should not need DNA evidence to clear my name every time someone commits a crime.
And it starts in utero, even at the embryonic stage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/
The likelihood of the few in utero polymorphisms occurring at one of the covered markers is very low. That means a whole genome would need to be sequenced to determine which twin DNA evidence came from.
I have been saying this for years, but your DNA and health should only be viewed by you and your healthcare providers. With this contract, you are protected by strict federal and state laws (ie, HIPAA)
Using it for vanity bullshit like “I just found out I am 2% Cherokee” is absolutely insane.
Also , it is futile to think you re not already affected, after all we re all connected with only 3 degrees of genetic separation: https://blog.23andme.com/news/make-that-three-degrees-of-sep...