
Coming Soon to a Police Station Near You: The DNA ‘Magic Box’ - SQL2219
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/science/dna-crime-gene-technology.html
======
eridius
This is really worrying.

> _To illustrate the point, he selected a sample from a 52-year-old Bensalem
> resident who had been pulled over the previous day for running a red light._

They're doing DNA matching against people pulled over for misdemeanors
(speeding and an outstanding warrant for "retail theft"). And this is
apparently now being connected to a national database.

> _To collect DNA, police in Pennsylvania must obtain consent from people
> under arrest. Ninety percent of those asked say yes […] Asked why so many
> people would consent to give DNA, he said: “I have no idea. But criminals do
> stupid things.”_

I know why. It's because you've got someone in a position of power asking
those they have power over for something they don't really understand. People
will say yes because they hope that agreeing to the demands of their captors
means they'll be treated better.

~~~
eridius
Further in the article

> _“We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us
> consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any
> crimes?’”_

The way they're phrasing this makes it even worse. They're clearly not
explaining what this actually means, they're pretending like this is to help
the suspect, and the suspect probably has no idea that this is being compared
to a large database of crime samples.

~~~
eridius
> _Mr. Harran called this criticism “total nonsense.” His officers do not
> target particular groups for DNA collection, he said: “You have nothing to
> fear if you’re not going to be a criminal.”_

This is the exact same argument made against the right to privacy.

~~~
xyxxxx
Yeah, totally ignorant. If there is a database with DNA from everyone, you can
trivially frame anybody.

It is usually easy to obtain DNA from a specific person and put it at the
crime scene.

I'm sure Mr Harran's DNA won't be found in any database.

~~~
gtsteve
My understanding that these databases effectively contain a checksum which has
a very low chance of collision. I don't know if you could actually make DNA
material from that checksum.

~~~
gmarkoff
The comment you replied to did not mention making DNA material. DNA can be
obtained directly from the target.

CCC members has obtained fingerprints from politicians, for example. DNA is no
harder.

Or don't target a specific person, but place random hair found in a public
toilet.

~~~
omeid2
Not only is obtaining DNA contaminated samples not harder than fingerprints,
it is orders of magnitude easier.

------
clarkevans
This doesn't just effect people who willingly give up their privacy. Once a
majority of our citizens are sampled, it'll be easy to paint the lack of a DNA
sample for someone as a suspicious outlier. At that time, the public won't see
the harm in mandating collection for everyone.

Also, consider how DNA evidence is used. If you've got a 1-in-a-million chance
of being matched, the hash might find you as a suspect for a crime. Then,
during the trial, the prosecutor will tell the jury there's a 1-in-a-million
chance they got the wrong person since the DNA matched. Never mind that the
DNA is no longer statistically independent evidence (they used it to find you,
of course it matches). If this approach is successfully challenged because
it's not independent evidence, then, the standard practice will bring in
"parallel construction" techniques. Once you're identified, prosecutors will
use other evidence that doesn't have to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" as
the official reason they found you. Then, they'll use DNA in the trial as if
it were independent evidence.

~~~
michaelt

      Once a majority of our citizens are sampled,
      [...] the public won't see the harm in
      mandating collection for everyone.
    

The government doesn't _need_ a DNA sample for Bob if they've got samples for
Bob's family.

According to [1] the Golden State Killer was found by matching a relative in a
public DNA database. Although obviously if the DNA match says 'sibling' or
'parent' there are fewer suspects to comb through than if the match says
'third cousin'.

[1] [https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/10/12/17957268/s...](https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/10/12/17957268/science-ancestry-dna-privacy)

------
motohagiography
The rare instances where police plant drugs on suspects likely happens more
often than it's caught, and planting DNA at a crime scene or asserting they
got their sample from the scene is only marginally more trivial.

How is an investigator asserting that they found the trace DNA from hair or
saliva they are presenting as evidence at the crime scene any different from
any other assertion?

While these are exceptions, horrible abuses have already been committed by
lying forensic specialists. In Canada, we had a forensic lab fabricate drug
use evidence against mothers, who ended up losing their children.
[http://projects.thestar.com/motherisk/](http://projects.thestar.com/motherisk/)
, similarly, a pathologist was charged for fabricating evidence as well,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Smith_(pathologist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Smith_\(pathologist\))
.

These are low likelihood scenarios, but with an extreme impact that has
consequences for the integrity of the system. These are in recent memory, and
only examples who were caught.

~~~
bsenftner
This is the vector that will be abused the most. There is no way to verify,
other than the officer's word, where the DNA sample came from. Plus the fact
that we shed DNA constantly, littering our own DNA any place we visit makes
random DNA found in a location really just random DNA in the majority of
cases.

------
cbanek
Might as well call it the data leak jackpot. You can change your password, but
you can't change your DNA.

> Unlike DNA labs, Rapid DNA machines do not have rigorous protocols governing
> the handling of samples.

> “There really are no actual rules written anywhere,” Detective Vandegrift
> said.

> With a few clicks, Detective Vandegrift uploaded it to the county database.

> In contrast, county DNA databases are unregulated. In Bucks County, the DNA
> database has begun to include genetic material from people whom police
> consider “even just a suspicious subject,” Detective Vandegrift said. Mr.
> Harran called such cases “one of the greatest uses of this instrument.”

Instead of a movie about changing your grades, now it will be changing a DNA
file and getting them convicted of a crime.

~~~
DrAwdeOccarim
It gets even worse. The way "DNA matches" occur in the judicial system is by
looking at a set of SNPs, not whole genome comparisons (obviously). So all you
need to do it is take the SNP set, the leaked SNP set, synthesize oligos
matching the person you want to frame, then sprinkle the oligo collection at
the crime scene...Guess what shows up in the PCR? You do.

~~~
jghn
I thought STRs were used for DNA fingerprinting? Has that changed with the
advent of cheap SNP chips?

~~~
shubb
Looking at the 'rapid DNA machines' on the market, looks like it is still STR.

Someone should sell them on the idea that they can use SNP to generate an
approximate photofit

------
LarryL
I find this story disturbing & the implications are frightening (many are
addressed in the article).

But one thing strikes me as REALLY worrying: they call it the "MAGIC" box.

IMO, if there is ONE thing that you DO NOT WANT in serious such matters, it is
the propagation of the -common- belief that science/technology == MAGIC.

This is already a problem with computers, as people accept plenty of nonsense
"because the computer said so", and to be fair technologies like computers
have become so complex, it's difficult to NOT have a "magic" feeling to some
extent (let's not get into sciences which are IMO even worse).

Relying blindly on something that you don't really understand (its limits, its
strengths & weaknesses, the context in which it should be used), is a RECIPE
FOR DISASTER.

~~~
renholder
I have a tongue-in-cheek joke about this: " _Data doesn 't lie._"

The problem with most people is that they agree with that notion and never
second-guess it. ...but anyone who's ever modified anything in code or a
database or the like will know that to not be the case.

Considering it "magic" also proves the following posit: The result of the use
of that technology is potentially as faulty as the operator whom doesn't
understand it.

Case in point: " _Tides go in, tides go out. You can 't explain that._"

------
JoeAltmaier
Perhaps now the widespread rape kit backlog can be analyzed?

~~~
dylan604
I've often wondered how much of the backlog was self-imposed. As in, the patsy
might actually go free if the tests were completed.

~~~
MRD85
I don't know how much it's self-imposed, but I imagine if 100% of the samples
were tested and the evidence reanalysed then we'd be seeing a mass exodus from
the prisons.

------
alphabettsy
Local police departments already suffer from a lack of transparency and
oversight, especially regarding evidence collection. This just seems like a
nightmare waiting to happen in too many ways.

------
mhb
Meanwhile - Unsolved Shootings Are Rising:

[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/un...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/unsolved-
shootings-rising.html)

------
Shivetya
Yuck.

I have no issue with collecting DNA from those convicted and sentence of a
major crime. I do have serious issues with collecting from people for traffic
stops or similar. If anything I think it should be unlawful to ask for such
consent without a representation present and it should in no means be
considered probably cause to arrest or detain if consent is not given. Simply
put the general public is not versed enough in the law to give a good
response.

I could see a system whereby you give a one time use consent to clear you of
suspicion, requiring the authorities to destroy the sample and record after it
fails to match. Even then I would suggest a court order being required to
force anyone to provide a sample and not providing a sample does not give them
probable cause or the like.

The sad part is far too many are willing to hand over much of their life and
responsibilities to government in return for free stuff and are willing to see
you are forced to give up the same. be wary of any politician who tries to
frame this as moral duty or requirement because some will

~~~
renholder
>I have no issue with collecting DNA from those convicted and sentence of a
major crime.

While the justice sysem still has gross lapses, I do mind - for the most part.
A guy who gets released after 20 years, because he was proven innocent, is
still going to be in the database.

There are no protections for the accused in that scenario. So, let's assume
that the manufacturing of a specific genome sequence becomes much easier and
much cheaper. What's to prevent a police office, with a justice boner and who
infallibly believes that the guy is guilty - despite evidence to the contrary,
from abusing the information and "discovering" this individual's DNA at
another crime scene?

While it might seem like a far-fetched idea, there's been a history (though it
may be seldom) of people abusing the "solid science" position to frame people.

There's another comment[0] in this thread that demonstrates that this is not
only plausible but it _has_ happened.

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997702](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997702)

------
renholder
>“ _You have nothing to fear if you’re not going to be a criminal._ ”

...and there it is: The rationale that anything is worthwhile, as long as
they're catching the bad guys.

Nevermind that "being suspicious" is warrant enough to get you dropped into a
database, for life - which is something they don't explain, when they're using
the "we just want to rule you out" narrative.

------
dsfyu404ed
I've read the comments here and I have nothing to add other than it's
sickening that the police see nothing wrong with this.

I guess when you're on the side of the blue line that is protected from the
excesses of law enforcement you forget about what the threat it poses to the
rest of us.

------
newshorts
It will be during our time that we apologize to the younger generation for the
world we created

------
fredley
Dr. Lamar: Congratulations.

Vincent: Well, what about the interview?

Dr. Lamar: That was it.

~~~
AstralStorm
Why interview when you know everything you want to know about someone?

They only needed authentication. Or can be the same today except no DNA check,
just papers...

------
SQL2219
I recall a story of a suspect's dna that contaminated a crime scene by a
paramedic. The paramedic had assisted the drunken suspect earlier in the day
and transported him to a hospital. His hospital stay was his alibi.

------
AstralStorm
There should be a way to expire the records from the database with exception
perhaps for convicted felons.

Preferably not collect the data and not store it at all unless aforementioned.

------
Fjolsvith
I did a stint in federal prison. When I went to the halfway house, I had to
wear an ankle monitor that reported my whereabouts 24/7\. At first, I was a
bit irked about it but in a few days there, I could see that it would be a
benefit to me.

There were other guys at the halfway house who didn't have to wear one, and
they were continually tempted to be places they shouldn't have. Too boot, they
couldn't easily prove their innocence when they were falsely accused of being
somewhere they weren't. I never once had that problem or temptation and
cakewalked my stay there.

As long as the nation doesn't turn into a democratic socialist PRC, this
technology will benefit people who are law abiding, even if a person doesn't
have a record in some DNA database.

Unique identity markers aren't the property of an individual.

------
ShorsHammer
Can DNA be forged?

~~~
DrAwdeOccarim
YES!!! A million times yes!

The way "DNA matches" occur in the judicial system is by looking at a set of
SNPs, not whole genome comparisons (obviously).

This is how you frame someone.

1) Take the SNP set the cops use, which is published. 2) Make synthetic oligos
that match the SNP set with SNPs from the person you want to frame. 3)
Sprinkle the oligo collection at the crime scene 4) Guess what shows up in the
PCR

~~~
mnw21cam
s/SNP/STR/, and you're right. They're easy to manufacture.

~~~
DrAwdeOccarim
Looks like they only look at 20 STRs typically. Also mtDNA and Y-chrom STRs.
Maybe a little more challenging to where you would need to grow up some
plasmids to toss around a crime scene, but nothing a first year grad student
couldn't do in their garage for a few thousand bucks. Wouldn't even need to
clean up the minipreps since it's PCR and you'll find exactly what you're
looking for and nothing else :)

------
hnuser1234
Scott Greenfield, a practicing defense attorney, wrote about this and previous
attempts at using "science" to create/identify "indisputable" evidence:
[https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/01/22/junk-science-is-
dea...](https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/01/22/junk-science-is-dead-long-
live-junk-science/)

