Twist on DNA Privacy

ConfusedVorlon writes "The BBC is reporting the conviction of a man for the murder of a prostitute 15 years ago. The interesting twist is that his DNA was not on record - 'But it partly match[ed] that of a youth's who was known to the police - but who had not been born at the time of the murder. The teenager, it turned out, was a close relative of [the murderor].' There has been concern in the past at the idea of keeping DNA of those interviewed but not charged with crimes. I haven't previously heard of the privacy implications of being related to a criminal/suspect. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"

Comments

Re:Privacy implications are nill

[Zemran]

There are lots of serious problems with this technology and the problems have already started. If you are on jury duty and the police say "This man is definately the murderer because his DNA matches", would you find him guilty? I think most people would. The problem is that we are dealing with statistics and they are often wrong. As the DNA database gets larger the risk of 2 identical DNA fingerprints gets greater. Add that to the fact that they only match a limited number of markers making the risk of a mistake greater.

As I said, the problems have already Started...

DNA profiling is an inevitable step

[heironymouscoward]

I predict that this will become standard procedure. Say a murderer leaves a DNA trace, but this matches nothing on record. It will be possible to match this DNA against known samples to come up with a fairly accurate picture of the criminal's ethnic origins, facial features, blood type, and much more.
Quite probably police will be able to search for criminals by family or community, much more precise than saying "an asian male did this", more like "we're looking for a young chinese from Guandong province who has long ears and eyes of this and that shape".
Eventually, a single DNA sample will allow scientists to create a detailed facial reconstruction, the only problem for identification being the age of the perp. And that can be pinpointed too, since DNA frays at the edges over time, and this fraying can be measured.
DNA profiling is probably the single most important anti-crime tool of the future. It will make it almost impossible to escape punishment for one's acts.
The big question will be (and it is almost too late to answer this) whether society is willing to pay the price for this security. I suspect the answer is "YES" for most people except theoretical libertarians. I think most people are wrong on this.
The tentacles of the state reach too far already, and that crime is not solvable by a better police system, but by better social structures. I was burglared last month, robbed of about $30,000. The thieves left a cigarette stub on the carpet. Yet would it really be a good thing to apprehend them and put them into prison?
It's an easy answer but prison is like crime college. Lock up a small thief and release a hardened criminal.
Conclusion: the current trend towards giving the state more power, aided by the sword of science, will not result in more security. Technological solutions are not a replacement for social policies that attack the causes of crime, by providing youths with alternative careers, and by dismantling the structures of power that nuture organized crime.

Re:Every so often...

[BiggerIsBetter]

only a fruitcake could redefine a murderers down to merely "people doing a thing we don't approve of"

Only a fruitcake wouldn't see the gradual erosion of rights through social engineering presented by the grandparent post.

As for the murderers to "people doing a thing we don't approve of" process... How many people are killed by "good" people in a war? Was it murder? Were the people who got killed "bad"? Were the people doing the killing murderers or were they saviours? Maybe they were just "doing their job"? Do you approve of it? Do you approve of the other people killing *your* people?

It's all subjective - every one knows "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but no one is prepared to accept that as a reality if it's their people getting killed. Ultimately what it comes down to is exactly that - "people doing a thing we don't approve of".

Mod me down if you like, but the world isn't a nice place, and the systems we have in place are based on old authoritarian structures based on the principle of those in power being "right" and the people by and large accepting that. It's based on the people not doing things that those in power "approve of"; If a gansta disappeares don't expect a big investigation, but if a judges daughter goes missing it'll all be on. Both are IMO Very Bad Things, but only the latter is something that we (society as we think of it) "don't approve of". Equally, to me, a lot of the shit that goes on in the world is "evil", but for some folks, its normal. Just like a woman wearing t-shirts and shorts is normal here.

People are mostly pack animals, and social "approval" keeps us in line, more or less, which is why altering what is "approved" works so well. A few hundred years ago, people were burned alive for being "witches" and this was "approved of" - even today people are still stoned* for crimes - so don't think we can't get equally fucked up (if in other directions) systems in place in the future.

Killing in the name of... Fuck you I won't do what you tell me...

*No not a good kind of stoned. A bad stoned, like having rocks thrown at you.

Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please...

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone knows your DNA they can find out stuff about you that can lead to discrimination. Not so with fingerprints.

Some key details missing in the story

[Zocalo]

It seems to me that the process of getting to the guilty party (who admitted as much in court, BTW), reads something like the Slashdot steps to profit thing. There is a stage they have glossed over somewhat immediately before the line that reads "Arrest!!!". Basically, they get a partial DNA match between material painstakingly recovered from the scene of the crime and another man who was "known to the police". This euphemistically means he has been arrested in the past, or at least was considered a serious enough suspect, to have had his DNA sampled and recorded in the same way as a fingerprint. Now we come to the "???" bit.

Somehow, the police managed to establish a connection between the nephew and his uncle based on the DNA sample. This could have been as simple as someone noticing that the uncle was mentioned in the original investigation (same surname), or as complex as some biological DNA jiggery pokery. Uncles and newphews have a common parent/grandparent respectively, so there will be a sizable chunk of identical genetic material in there (25%) to go on. In this specific case the suspect admitted guilt and justice eventually appears to have been done, but we need details on that missing step. It's all very well saying that the police would still have to prove the that someone identified in this way was guilty in court, but most jurors are going to hear the phrase "DNA match" and think "Guilty!" as their knee bounces off their chin.

On the whole, I have no privacy problems with this, it does seem like some brilliant police work from the forensics team. However, I am left wondering how this might have turned out if the uncle's DNA had been at the scene for a perfectly innocent reason that he could not justify, or if the DNA match was just a coincidence. The key is just how much additional investigative work was there to get from nephew to uncle?

Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would note, that in the United States, the U.S. Gov't required certain information to be on/in the Drivers license database. Some states (Texas, S.C, N.C) then turned around and sold the information to marketeers, and you had to "opt-out" (if the state allowed it) from having your information sold. In my state of N.C., some years ago, they passed the law for implementation on June 30, and you had to "opt-out" by July 4 (hope you were paying attention to the legislature and not partying or on vacation) or your information was sold, and as a practical matter, there was no way to get it back. Only after a large outcry, was the law delayed by 1 year for implementation, but you still needed to "opt-out", and you need to "opt-out" every time you renew your license.

But this isn't the worst abuse, SlashDot had a story a couple years ago, about how S.C. sold/gave its driver license database to a Mass. company to digitize the photos, and "verify the identity" of its citizens. It was pitched as, "you would not need to be concerned about verifying yourself to stores, banks, etc." as this database would verification for you. The S.C. citizens were supposed to be enthralled about the S.C. gov'ts ability to track their financial movements. Only after a large outcry, was the program suspended, but I don't know if the database was purged by the Mass. company, and the citizens' personal information, protected.

So it isn't paranoia, as some states have viewed your personal information, which you are required to give to get a license, as an exploitable resourse. It reminds me of the online web privacy story from Thursday, where online companies have changed their privacy policies rectroactively, and have then started selling your personal information. This also disregards the much worse effects of the "war-on-terror".

Re:No Knee-jerk Privacy responses please...

[Hatta]

Listen. Men who are suspected of crimes may desire to have their DNA tested against the evidence to clear their name. No one would argue this point. However, as a common citizen you have no business collecting evidence on me. How many wrongfully convicted people would have not been convicted if we had wiretaps on every line?
But we don't do this. Because we don't treat citizens like criminals. Neither should we collect DNA for the same reason.