That's how a local cold murder case was solved last year.
DNA from a 25-year-old crime scene was run against the samples in one of these genealogy databases, and they found a familial match. Police set up a sting to covertly collect DNA from that person's immediate family. They got their DNA match with a brother's water bottle police took from a trash can after he worked a DJ gig at a school.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/us/christy-mirack-slaying-upd...
The now-confessed killer was the DJ at my wedding. He never would have been caught if his brother hadn't done one of these genealogy tests. He wasn't even a suspect in the initial investigation.
I am sure your case was above board but, being born in a totalitarian state, I do not trust law enforcement too much and prefer to err on the side of not solving some crimes. My 2c.
So my solution is to avoid attracting any attention in meatspace. Not doing anything that could generate troublesome records. Such as leaving DNA around. I mean, I certainly leave DNA around, when I go out for stuff. But there's nothing involved that I need to hide.
I also make no effort to hide anything that I do online as my meatspace persona. Because that would attract attention. I do use a VPN service, but that's not at all unusual where I live. And I do torrent some, even when I'm not really after anything. Just as cover.
Anything potentially troublesome, I do via nested VPN chains and Tor. Mirimir just uses nested VPN chains. But then Mirimir just writes about stuff, so hey.
Off to google the term “meatspace” now.
And then Terry Bisson's "They're Made Out of Meat", published in 1990:[0]
> "They're made out of meat."
> "Meat?"
> "Meat. They're made out of meat."
> "Meat?"
> "There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
So yeah, it's a term that we old geeks use.
Recent usage by John Markoff:
> "True Names" by Vernor Vinge (1981): "The basic premise of that was, you had to basically hide your true name at all costs. It was an insight into the world we’re living in today … We have to figure it out. I think we have to go to pseudonymity or something. You’re gonna participate in this networked existence, you have to be connected to meatspace in some way."
And yes, we "have to go to pseudonymity or something". If we care about privacy, anyway.
0) http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
1) http://renaissancechambara.jp/2017/06/14/oprah-time-true-nam...
Goes back to the earliest days of online existence, to distinguish the two.
I’d like to subscribe to your RSS feed of magnet: links.
I am afraid it could cause wrongful convictions as well. Let's say there is a 1 in a million chance of a false positive, if you have an enormous database there is a large probability of a false positive even though your individual risk is low. As far as I understand DNA evidence is often damaged or incomplete, meaning this could be a serious risk.
If ratio of solved crimes is not high enough -- society tolerates wrongful convictions -- because without risking wrongful convictions it is hard to make any convictions at all.
Because DNA testing increases the ratio of solved crimes, it decreases the chances of wrongful convictions.
"The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person." [0]
Oh wow. Really??? Any experts in this field reading this? Would love to hear someone with pertinent authority tell us this isn't true. (Please don't be true)
Genotyping works as follows: there are thousands of regions of “junk” dna in the human genome that don’t code for anything. There is no evolutionary pressure to preserve the exact length of these regions. (They probably help the chromosomes fold up in ways that encourage/suppress the activity of certain genes, help the molecule be more robust, etc).
Since there is no evolutionary pressure to preserve the regions, they tend to be full of hard to copy junk like ATAT..... that tends to change every few generations.
Genotyping works by isolating a bunch of these regions, and using PCR to create millions of copies of each region (with ~one sample per region).
Finally, you put a drop of the each sample and some die on a electrophoresis gel, and apply some current. Different sized molecules move at different rates, so this gives you a crude measurement of the length of each molecule.
To fake a match, all you need to do is produce something that will trick the first step of all this into grabbing molecules of your choice of length, which will fool the rest of the process. If you want to see how that would work, read up on “pcr primers”.
Source: I used to work in a genotyping/sequencing lab as a bioinformatician, and worked on algorithms that did exactly this sort of analysis (not the forgery bit though).
So you could fake everything. Video surveillance, DNA samples, testimony from dishonest informers and investigators, etc. This is just a tweak to parallel construction. And outright framing.
Instead CSI has taught your average juror that it is irrefutable proof of guilt.
Don't underestimate DNA transfer. Your DNA can end up in locations you have never been:
If you're already a "convenient suspect" the police wish to build a case against, they don't need to find you on a consumer genetics database to be able to obtain a sample of your DNA or strongly hint that they expect to be able to use DNA evidence (truthfully or otherwise) to send you away for a very long time if you're not willing to consider moving to plea bargaining territory.
Consider a public bathroom: how much DNA is at that location? How much is relevant to the event?
Consider a corrupt lab tech: The DNA at the event might be reported as DNA from their database. Does a defense attorney get to see the untainted sample?
Consider a corrupt/hacked DNA database: The database might report that the DNA belongs to one individual when it actually doesn't. Does a defense attorney even get to see the source code?
In these scenarios, the link to any individual is either of little consequence, or fraudulent.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-c...
What if it's something we can't quite agree on, or tyranny of the majority? Joe McCarthy happened once, and he didn't give a shit about ex post facto. Presuming someone like him will never come along again is a road to pain and suffering.
Spend ten minutes reading about what Crypto-Judaism is and why it is even a thing. Then look at abuse of power (I've known 2 people who have had LEOs as stalkers). A big part of warrant law is the premise that you don't give people information they don't need 'just because'. Very similar to the computing concept of Principle of Least Power. They prove they need it, you give it to them, but not a moment before, because who knows what they'll get up to.
What's an LEO? My first thought is Low Earth Orbit, but obviously that's not right. Googling "leo" and "leo stalker" doesn't bring up much apart from horoscopes.
Likewise we should develop principles for information which when combined with other information can be used to transgress against 3rd parties' enjoyment of their own privacy.
DNA cannot be thought of any other way whilst we continue to use it for personal identification.
We don't have another mechanism for protecting something uniquely identifying from tyranny.
Perhaps we should, especially as in this case others privacy may be co-dependent on myself, as you noted.
For instance, there's no need to get a warrant to follow you around and pick up something that you discard and then examine that object for DNA.
DNA is also shared, however. A relative can currently choose to reveal private information in their DNA that also reveals information that you consider private in your DNA. This is the way in which DNA has a shared or commons aspect.
My point is that the shared nature of DNA means we have to look outside of individual actions to preserve the privacy rights that many seem to want preserved. In other words, I shouldn't be able to use my DNA to reveal private information about anyone else.
That Dropcam stream Google flagged your facial fingerprint on...not so much.
Music for example. The same poool of musical notes in 100% of compositions. Just arranged in different ways, like DNA
FWIW I can see where he was coming from.
Lol, what planet do you live on? Sounds dope.
The battles to price externalities into markets here on Earth are all hard fought. By default if you can’t see it you don’t pay for it. Anything beyond that needs to be pounded out in the political ring.
It’s incredibly empowering for abuse and completely disrespectful to the individual. The assymetry is staggering.
My understanding is they asked everyone they could find in a specific ethnic community if they would volunteer a sample for a kind of dna dragnet.
The killer was related to one of the many people sampled.
That is a bit morbid.
Some links I've seen for DIY thermocycling [1] https://openpcr.org/ [2] https://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-PCR-thermal-cycler-...
Hope this becomes more of a thing. This is one of the fields where a non-cloud or decentralized solution is more desirable.
Anyway, I wonder if people would be skeptical of the company's motives to the point where they don't want to give up their data or if they'd still just really want that cool DNA sequence art and to have a laugh about having 7% unexpected DNA.
Can a lawyer answer whether or not such promises apply to an acquiring company, should they ever be sold?
This only encourages me. My DNA is on record in various places, and if any relative of mine commits a crime I want the honor of being the person who fucked them and sent them to prison. I would tout the event as an esteemed accomplishment.
Everyone seems to be worried about a sci-fi movie where clones are made from cheek swabs or corporations use DNA to deny certain services.
The former is a pipe dream and the latter is already (partially) illegal in the US via the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
If evilmegacorp is going to break the law today then they'll break it tomorrow as well.
Every conceivable scenario in which DNA can be used to harm an individual can be answered with "well a bad actor can already do that today using different methods".
As far as I'm concerned a database of DNA is no different than a database of mugshots or fingerprints.
Mugshots and fingerprints have both led to false-positives being reported.
"Oh but DNA might lead to a false-positive so it must never be used" differs little from "eyewitness testimony, mugshots, fingerprint analysis, confessions, and every single investigative technique ever used in the history of humanity has unassailably led to false positives therefore they should all be banned".
I’m worried about getting deported to Saudi Arabia (never been) because I drank alcohol in my home country, but happen to stopover in a country that yields to large cash payments to enforce its extra-territorial laws.
I ask because it would help us gauge how worried you are.
All based on one crude comparison between countries. But you don't see the USA arresting too many people for violating other country's laws.
Anywho, even if I think I know I'm safe, a billionaire CFO with far more legal resources than I could dream of has been wrong.
Or you can't get a job because you're closely related to a felon.
Or a loan because you are closely related to someone who filed for bankruptcy.
I could go on. There's more "ors" here than on a viking raiding ship.
If there's a real link between genetics and bankruptcy, maybe we should figure that shit out (with the idea of doing pleasant, voluntary, educational interventions). If there isn't and banks use the info anyway, someone will make a good business out of ignoring the information.
Which isn't to say I approve of the privacy destroying business model these companies are trying to establish.
And is it true that homosexuality is banned throughout the east?
What’s the word for when you are ignorant of something your whole life and then you get enlightened and then immediately feel entitled to point out how much better you are than everyone else who is still ignorant? I feel like that’s what you’re doing here.
(To be clear, I have no problem with your point about homosexuality laws. I’m just objecting to your notion of what’s eastern and western. Seems like a lot of people think western=quintessential liberalism, eastern=Saudi Arabia, which is just xenophobic nonsense)
There's a fair amount of historical and current laws that have arguably zero moral good; Homophobic, Segregationist, etc.. all around the world.
But alas, There's you cheerily pointing out anyone you can help identify because, it's the law after all.
Just imagine if we had the technology to identify that through DNA samples.
My ancestors came to the USA after the Civil War, so _I_ have no real stake in this, but I married into a family from the midwest/south who has been in the US for many generations and I'm regularly floored when I hear people make claims about how the Civil War was actually about states' rights (to own human beings ...) and such. It seems like these people are still mostly concerned with trying to save face, as opposed to admitting that their forbears _royally_ screwed up and trying to learn and adapt from the episode.
https://theconversation.com/fingerprinting-to-solve-crimes-n...
Should law enforcement be prohibited from fingerprinting objects found at crime scenes?
Fingerprints lack scientific basis for legal certainty More research into validity of fingerprint comparisons needed Date: October 5, 2017 Source: Carnegie Mellon University Summary: A new report on the quality of latent fingerprint analysis says that courtroom testimony and reports stating or even implying that fingerprints collected from a crime scene belong to a single person are indefensible and lack scientific foundation.
http://theconversation.com/fingerprinting-to-solve-crimes-no...
Fingerprinting to solve crimes: not as robust as you think
https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/finger...
The main problem with fingerprint analysis is one consistent with many other areas of forensic science: subjectivity. Instead of relying on tested scientific methods, the process is mostly based on the subjective beliefs of the analyst... Despite this subjectivity, fingerprint analysts also typically testify in terms of absolute certainty.
Fingerprints: Not a Gold Standard
So to answer your question: Should law enforcement be prohibited from fingerprinting objects found at crime scenes?
You tell me.
Then there is the issue of transference. Person x dna found on housemate y's underwear... rape or shared washing machine?
As was seen on HN[1], consumer DNA tests are also inaccurate. In fact, up to 40% of gene variants on consumer DNA tests are false positives[2]. False positives happen with criminal investigations and DNA testing[3]. And now, consumer DNA databases are generating false positives[4] that upend and potentially ruin innocent people's lives.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938750
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838
[3] https://gizmodo.com/when-bad-dna-tests-lead-to-false-convict...
[4] https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_1b3a3f9...
DNA tests are inaccurate.
Witness statements are inaccurate.
Confessions are inaccurate.
Thanks to deepfakes, video is inaccurate.
Someone steals your car, eyewitnesses claim they saw them in possession of it, their fingerprints are in it, their hair is in it, a gas station security camera recorded them in it, cops found them in it, and they confessed.
"Your honor that evidence is, in order, a stress-induced misrecognition, a flawed analysis, pseudoscience, tampered with, a setup, and coerced."
What remains?
(a) Discrimination Based on Genetic Information.--It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--
(1) to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee, or otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee as an employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee.
No.
In the US, it is currently illegal for genetic information to be used as a qualification for employment.
Your DNA never changes. Once it's on record it's on record. This isn't like prohibition where as long as you quit before the law comes into effect you are safe.
If there is ever a future time you can be punished for your DNA, the only people who can possibly be 'grandfathered' in are the ones who've avoided submitting their DNA in the first place. Everyone else can be punished after the fact.
I don't support the point of view of the GP but in all fairness, if we come to the society where DNA is used for widespread discrimination, it will probably be semi-voluntarily collected from the majority of the citizens anyway (e.g. want to have a driver's license? submit the DNA)
Your putting the onus on me to prove that it was explicitly the results of my test that caused me not to be hired.
Best of luck.
This entire post read as if there's not dirty cops all over the US doing asset forfeiture, planting evidence, shooting innocents, raiding the wrong houses...why does anyone believe that giving those agents ANOTHER tool, and one that's seen in the general public as even more legitimate? (It's not the accuracy of the DNA match that's the problem, it's how easy it is to create false circumstances using someone's DNA, which is pretty easy to get.)
And all of this in a time when most of those same people (myself included) are decrying how horrible the federal government has recently become under Trump. Again, you want to give Trump and the people in his administration another tool for muddying the waters around his opponents?
Going even further, any of these genealogy companies could pull a full-on Cambridge Analytics like Facebook and just leak all our DNA to some private company operating on behalf of a foreign government.
Police don't really need to plant evidence when they are believed over defendants to begin with. Go listen to the latest season of the Series podcast. Or the Reply All episodes about the police in NYC.
If a corrupt cop wants to take you down, they don't need any of this.
That has been a crime in many places at various times in the past. The non-existence of a DNA database did nothing to prevent the existence of totalitarian governments, and would likely do nothing to promote them.
That's the thing about totalitarians. They don't care about the facts, if they want to get you they'll get you regardless of what the DNA says, in its absence they'll just come up with something else like the bumps found on your skull or distance between your eyes or the volume at which your voice has been measured praising the leader.
Why would a totalitarian system rely on DNA evidence when they can just go "our local comrade commissar has decreed that you are guilty and thus you are" and in regimes where there has to at least be a semblance of a show trial, they would just make up or cover up DNA-related findings to suit their whims.
Saying that DNA is dangerous because it may be used against someone in the future in some hypothetical situation is like saying "a list of person's names MUST NEVER be compiled because in the future a totalitarian leader may decide he doesn't like anyone whose name ends in a -ez or -stein."
Have a drivers license? Murderous regime will know where you live and come kill you.
Use the internet via an ISP? Murderous regime will know what you look at and come kill you.
> Use the internet via an ISP? Murderous regime will know what you look at and come kill you.
This is a legitimate concern for some, hence why things like Tor exist. We don't just throw our hands up in the air and go, "What can be done?" We acknowledge that risk exists and try to mitigate it.
For example, this is from the AncestryDNA (different company) terms of service:
By submitting User Provided Content to AncestryDNA, you grant AncestryDNA and the Ancestry Group Companies a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, sublicensable, transferable license to host, transfer, process, analyze, distribute, communicate, and display your submission for the purposes of providing Ancestry's products and services, conducting Ancestry’s research and product development, enhancing Ancestry’s user experience, and making and offering personalized products and services.
https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/dnaterms_2017_09_22_us?hid...
There's a feel-good statement elsewhere in the document about how the company won't disclose your info to third parties, but this grant of rights pretty much covers anything you'd want to do with a DNA sequence.
Privacy policies change, but grants of rights like this to a service like Ancestry are forever.
I imagine a future in which every casual DNA company has been hoovered into a single powerful corporation. All those rights granted by users will transfer to that new company. That company will be just as mean as Facebook (or Microsoft in its heyday), but 10x more powerful.