
U.S. police may now be able to access online DNA database records - SQL2219
https://theconversation.com/if-youve-given-your-dna-to-a-dna-database-us-police-may-now-have-access-to-it-126680
======
annoyingnoob
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.

~~~
deogeo
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!

~~~
Ogopogostick
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.

------
sysbin
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.

------
xyst
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.

~~~
buboard
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)

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...](https://blog.23andme.com/news/make-that-three-degrees-of-separation/)

------
gwern
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine) if nothing
else?

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Isn’t DNA sequencing my medical information and protected by HIPAA and other
privacy laws? Can the police search my medical records without a warrant?

~~~
i_am_nomad
Not since Smith vs. Maryland, one of the SCOTUS’ truly awful rulings.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-
you-need-to-know-about-the-third-party-doctrine/282721/)

~~~
phkahler
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.

~~~
i_am_nomad
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.

------
hugh4life
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.

~~~
buboard
It should actually be a requirement for police personnel, in the interest of
transparency

------
nabla9
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.

~~~
rmtech
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.

~~~
igetspam
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.

~~~
Sam_Odio
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.

Good luck...

------
jsonne
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.

~~~
inetknght
Who gets the rights when there's identical twins?

~~~
xyst
The term “identical twins” is a misnomer in terms of DNA. If you have two
identical looking people, they will still have unique sets of DNA.

~~~
inetknght
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.

~~~
colejohnson66
Won’t natural mutations give them different DNA after some time?

~~~
wahern
Correct: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/identical-twins-
ar...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/identical-twins-arent-so-
identical-which-makes-twin-studies-harder-119107266/)

And it starts in utero, even at the embryonic stage:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301568/)

~~~
inetknght
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.

------
asdfasgasdgasdg
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.

~~~
sokoloff
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.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
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.

~~~
tw04
>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.

~~~
matz1
Then that is what need to be fixed. Either make DNA information more accurate
or better inform the general public the current state of DNA evidence.

~~~
inetknght
How do you propose to do that?

~~~
matz1
Otherwise you want to stop information ? You want to stop progress of
technology ?

