The gig is up.
It's a law felons give their DNA in some jurisdictions. Felons have families. Felons have great grand mothers. Felons have 2nd cousins. There are 6.1 million felons. I'd image the US is pretty much mapped out by now.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/mandatory-dna...
Some police agencies (NYC, for example) collect DNA samples on arrest. And if you're found not guilty, the arrest was wrong, or whatever, they still keep the DNA forever. [1]
But it's not like they conduct knock-and-spit dragnets. Oh, wait... [2]
Even worse is that social service agencies do it. Don't be born in California, because the fact that you suddenly exist means the state gets your DNA. [3]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/nyregion/newyorktoday/nyp...
https://www.newsweek.com/police-dna-database-nypd-swab-testi...
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/05/08/california-biob...
As sibling asserts, no you may not refuse. However:
> State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child’s sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child’s DNA. [0]
[0] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/05/08/california-biob...
> The gig is up.
Absolutely. Also the Pentagon has another excellent source: It stores DNA fingerprinting for US armed forces personnel (so as to identify the remains of MIA/ KIA soldiers). If you could get your hands on that it would probably help fill in the family trees of people involved in intelligence work - I think it is fairly common for extended families to have lots of people working in defence and intelligence.
Presumably the Chinese can combine the family trees from these DNA databases with information from scraping Facebook/ LinkedIn etc and data from the Office of Personnel Management breach. IMO they should be able to connect DNA samples to people in the US very effectively, the DNA will map to a person or a few people and the Chinese will know the work - including intelligence work for the US government - that those people do. So, for example, if they pick a suspicious USB key or document they can take the skin cells of those who handled the object and identify them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3722982
Unfortunately felons don't get a say in the matter but the rest of us do.
The Stasi had a whole range of methods and means to try to track down people who said or did anything critical of the East German communist regime. Collecting scent samples was used to try to identify those, for example, who had distributed flyers or who wrote critical graffiti.
When they found a piece of graffiti or a flyer then they took a dust cloth, which was usually yellow, and left it for a while lying next to the flyers covered by a protective piece of aluminum foil and then they had their sample. The cloth was then sealed in a pickling jar and stored. If the Stasi later came across a suspect in the process of the investigation, they tried to get a sample from this person as well -- of course, secretly. A trained dog was given the two smells, and if they matched, the Stasi had a concrete name.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-stasi-had-a-giant-smell-register-o...
Apparently back in 2007, German authorities were using this same method to track activists trying to disrupt the G8 Summit:
In a reminder of methods used by the East German Stasi secret police, German authorities are collecting human scents to trace activists they believe may try to violently disrupt the G8 summit in June. It's proving highly controversial, and there's no scientific evidence that the method is infallible.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/stasi-methods-u...
Have a look at this scene from the fantastic film "The Lives of Others": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkRxvEjprBM
>A DNA sample from one of the men killed in the U.S. drone attack was successfully matched with a close relative of Mansour, the interior ministry statement said.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/pakistan-dna-test-confirms-tal...
[0] https://www.wired.com/2010/09/afghan-biometric-dragnet-could...
[1] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/20...
I like the claims with al-Baghdadi's n-th death being DNA confirmed. US obtained a supposed blood sample of al-Baghdadi from his right hand man in return for a promise of $25 million and US residency for himself and his entire family. Then, someone in a tunnel, unseen by anyone other than a dog, was blown up by an explosive belt, leaving no remains but small chunks that could be identified. These were then DNA confirmed to be identical to whoever the blood sample was taken from.
> The informant also obtained Baghdadi’s underwear and blood sample that was used for the DNA test to confirm his identity before the raid took place.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kurdish-source-provided-k...
> U.S. intelligence tested those samples and got positive DNA matches for al-Baghdadi, kicking the hunt into high gear. The informant stole the underwear about three months ago and the blood sample was taken roughly one month ago, a Kurdish official said.
Curiously the articles suggest they used the blood sample in advance of the raid to confirm it was al-Baghdadi, with no suggestion of what they were comparing it to.
OK, thanks, I was unaware of that. You've changed my mind on the issue that we don't really know who the guy in the tunnel was. So we really did get him.
Captured Feb. 4, 2004 as a civilian and released that Dec. 8 as he was seen as no threat.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19...
https://www.businessinsider.com/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-declass...
> "Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon said in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."
This is also interesting. He didn't start at Bucca:
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/u-s-military-now-says-is...
That's also a way to not mention the fact that he also served time in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison around the same time the reports on the on-going torture there were finalized.
As such there's a very good chance he not only witnessed but also experienced that [0] kind of torture, just like neither Abu Ghraib, nor Bucca were exceptions during that time [1].
In that context, it wasn't just a random coincidence how ISIS paraded their prisoners around in "horrible orange suits", as Trump put it, completely missing the reference [2], like many US Americans.
[0] http://100photos.time.com/photos/sergeant-ivan-frederick-hoo... (NSFW)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_prison_abuse_scandals
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainee_unifor...
I provided a link to an article documenting the evidence he was there and detailing that he was there when they were extensively brutally torturing the prisoners. Abu Ghraib is in the link title.
You could create a culture of - after every injection - sterilising the needles in the presence of the injectee. This would be moderately burdensome but wouldn't avoid the need for blood samples for medical diagnostics so wouldn't really protect against malicious actors taking the role of medical professionals. That sort of behaviour simply shouldn't be acceptable to anyone, not even spies.
As pointed out in other threads, the DNA of your relatives is almost certainly in multiple databases already and that will probably be enough to identify you (or at least narrow things down to a few people). We need laws and cultural standards (in all the cultures) for how that information is controlled and used but I have no idea how we get there.
Second paragraph: if I don't trust the magician/doctor not to make the needle reappear after it goes in the waste basket, I don't see why I would trust them to not substitute some other liquid for the sterilizing fluid. Even an on-site incenerator is hard to trust, if we're assuming CIA involvement. These people actually hired a magician (John Mulholland) to write a document explaining magician stagecraft to CIA officers as part of the MK-ULTRA program -- they tried to destroy it when they realised congress was going to request those documents, but a copy survived and got republished decades later. I wouldn't trust my own eyes to notice when a well trained agent swapped needles in front of me, and I can't imagine any on-site procedure I would trust as much as taking a needle home with me. As for blood tests, I don't see why I should have to opt into these to recieve vaccines. Medicine can be modular.
Third paragraph: I get that the cat is out of the bag for most people in my country -- I have second-degree relatives who are already in the database. This isn't (yet?) the case for many people living in the third world, which is where most of the backlash to this practice actually occured. I also think that insisting on practices that make future generations more difficult to track are reasonable, even if it will take some time for the genetics to get swashed around enough for these efforts to matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree over the possibility or desirability of running low-trust vaccination campaigns. FWIW I upvoted your first comment, even though I disagree with part of it.
Edit: missing word - think
I can happily agree to disagree about such things, but I will point out that you still have to live in a world with crazy idealists like myself who will become potential disease vectors if not provided a low-trust mechanism for vaccinating themselves. That isn't intended as a threat, just food for thought when considering cost/risk analysis from your own worldview.
If you don't think that squads of spies for Russia, China, the US, Israel, India AREN'T working at these companies you are woefully naive.
This is a common misconception, as long as we are talking US companies and US agencies, they don't need to do much of that, thanks to the third-party doctrine [0] they do not even need a legal warrant.
Now add in the fact how popular ancestry tests have become, and how even that data is openly monetized, it's not that far of a reach to assume US intelligence agencies have been building their own aggregated DB.
Given that the intelligence agencies regularly and aggressively hack every telecom and networking company out there, it's pretty likely that they have already hacked the commercial DNA databases, no? Why wouldn't they?
I'd like to think there is someone out there trying to protect my data, but it's much more likely they are just aggregating everything into a single genome DB that will inevitably get hacked or leaked.