Slashdot Mirror
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?"
If you feel the need to object to DNA privacy issues, bear in mind that three men were wrongly convicted of the murder initially and cleared much later before a new investigation finally caught the real perpetrator.
You, out of the pool!
Not only does the cost of DNA testing, but the whole procedure.. throws off a lot of the personal risk..
Now a risk with law enforcement et al.. might be a problem.. but you are already registered (unless you're an illegal alien!) so why does the govt. having your DNA really matter? I guess, if they had a huge database of DNA records for every citizen, that could be a problem
But the problem with DNA is that you need a sample to test against the subject's dna.. what use would this have to a criminal? High-tech duplicating and leaving at a crime scene? The cost alone would leave it to large orginazed crime stuff, and that still doesn't seem to me like it would be a problem.
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Now, I'm well aware of the fact that DNA testing is probably the most vital forensic tool since the finger print, but how exactly does it work? I remember seeing once that all Humans share about 99.9% of the same DNA (Please do correct me if I'm wrong), so what do they look for to say either "Yes, this person did this" or "No, this person didn't do this"?
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
WARNING: Kazaa users. Make sure you vaccuum every last bit of hair, saliva, and skin slough from your keyboard. The RIAA has formed a new bioevidence division and are connecting DNA proven keyboard users with known fileswapping.
Unless the judge/jury have some serious scientific backgrounds, I think the prosecution has its work cut out convincing a SECOND court this is valid.
It might well be reasonable evidence, or even close to undeniable, but there's gotta be some doubt in the minds of those who decide the fate of the accused guy. I mean, they're going to convict this guy of a 15 year old killing on the basis of some extrapolated data out of a lab? Remember these are people who don't browse the same magazines as us...
Tough call finding people to do it once, much tougher getting a second group to confirm it...
DNA Profiling
...it all goes right, this is a GOOD thing :)
I like my privacy as much as the next person, I like seeing evil bastards locked up even more though.
Its obvious from a couple or three replies already up that some of you are not reading the article first.
The dude was not convicted on the DNA evidence alone. In fact, there apparently was no trial. The DNA only lead to a suspect...who then CONFESSED AND PLEADED GUILTY.
I fail to see where there is a privacy implication here. All I see is good police work (which makes up for the initial very bad police work).
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
This reminds us of a problem with DNA testing: it can't distinguish identical twins or clones. Also, inbreeding might increase the odds for a false positive match, and there may be many other real-world factors we don't know about that increase the probability of a false positive beyond what common estimates would lead you to guess.
These problems are compounded by the widespread misapplication of statistical prodecures in the biomedical sciences (most of the FDA drug testing is based on outdated and basically faulty statistical procedures, and it's probably the same in the forensic sciences).
The answer is a statistical one obviously. Some DNA sequences are more common than others.
Depending on how many datapoints they looked at, they could probably isolated it to 1 in 10^7 or better. Combined with other evidence, its probably beyond reasonable doubt.
It may be something like "statistically there should be about 4 people in California that match this profile."
DNA evidence is better for exclusion.
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The odds of a mismatch are 1 in 100,000.
This means that in the USA, if everyone was on record, every single DNA sample would return up to 3,000 false positives.
Coming to think of it, I think it might be a good idea if everyone were on record! Then the database would be absolutely USELESS!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
A recent case here in Canada had me a bit uncomfortable.
A young girl was murdered and police asked Men in the neighbourhood to volunteer DNA samples. About 20 men refused. 19 were innocent and refused for personal reasons. One of these men was eventually implicated in the crime when Police followed these 20 men and picked up "pop cans, et al" used by these men to obtain DNA samples.
This implies - You have no right to refuse to give a DNA sample because one will be taken secretly against your will anyhow.
What happens to these samples? Could I be implicated in a completely separate crime because my second cousin lived NEAR a murder victim who's and had his DNA "stolen" by police?
This can only get scarier without laws to protect us.
...some of you are not reading the article first.
You must be new here. Welcome!
One big issue is that with the pressure often brought to bear on police forces to solve crimes quickly, one could be prosecuted simply because one's DNA was present at the crime scene -- even if just coincidentally. Police officers should need some reason to suspect you first, and THEN match your DNA that found at the crime scene.
DNA on its own should not be enough -- it should be used only to support an existing connection (much like fingerprints).
As far as I can tell, in the U.S., if you throw something away, the police don't need a search warrant to obtain it. They can go through your trash all they want.
It goes likewise for eavesdropping on conversations. There's something called "reasonable expectation of privacy". If I'm talking to someone on a crowded street, then the cops can record my conversation and use it as evidence because I wasn't taking steps that someone would reasonably take if they were trying to keep something secret (as in, secret from everybody and not just from the police).
This DNA thing strikes me as something similar. Just like if you throw a murder weapon with your fingerprints on it into your trash, I think you're "discarding" your DNA if you were to, say, have children. The parallel to "reasonable expectation of privacy" is that, if you were someone who really didn't want their DNA (or half of it) out there running around loose, then you would elect to not have kids.
So, if you have kids, then I think that the cops should, clearly, have a right to use the DNA of those kids (provided they're over the age of consent and provided that they volunteer their DNA) to catch you. What's a little more murky is whether the cops should be allowed to catch you based on DNA from any familial relative... including ones you have no control over the production of (like, your parents, cousins, etc.). Again, I think it would hinge upon whether you had kids. Going back to "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you have kids, then you aren't exercising what little control you have over the dissemination of your DNA... so it must not matter to you that much... so everything's fair game at that point.
Legal issues aside, I must say that this is one really cool thing about DNA. Everybody knows the obvious advantages that DNA has over fingerprints: you get usable evidence from smaller samples, from a wider variety of fluids, smudges, etc. What's less obvious is the idea of "proximity". Two people with similar fingerprints are not necessarily closely related, and two people who are closely related don't necessarily have similar prints. With DNA, that's not the case. With DNA, you're able to tell when you've got some DNA from someone closely related to some "target DNA". Even cooler, you can probably tell how many generations away they are.
And I guess that there might be a spate of people knocking off their relatives too; just to be safe.
If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear
Yes, because as we all know the criminal justice system is completely infallible, and never ever makes a mistake leading to the conviction of an innocent for a crime they did not commit. Honestly, any cop who says "If you're innocent you've got nothing to worry about" to a suspect should be taken out back and beaten.
I have been falsely arrested twice. These two "false arrests" are on my record from my childhood. I'm now 29. Every 3 years I make "total information requests" from everyone from whom I can think of that collects information from me. (credit, mail, email, post office, clubs, memberships, utility, etc)
One interesting thing is my complete "litigation/arrest" history. Essentially my file that the FBI would "examine".
I find it unfair that my peeping tom arrest from 18 (false arrest) & my theft from Walmart at 22 (false arrest) are still even capable of being associated with me. Also, every traffic ticket I have ever gotten, every court case I have been involved in; are all on an easily accessed file. If I were ever accurately arrested for an associated offense, wouldn't I then have a pattern? Even though wiped from my record or not guilty?
For the peeping tom incident I was handcuffed, made to take a lie detector test (failed), and kept in custody for 4 hours from 11pm to 3am. It wasn't until my girlfriend came in and said she was with me and that I wasn't doing it, that I got off. It was all because the next door neighbor girl was jealous of my having a girlfriend.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Guys and Girls there is a RealVideo clip in the web artical that explains in far more detail how the murderer was caught.
Facts:
Victim stabbed more than 50 times.
DNA samples from flat collected 12 years later, hidden under layers of paint on skirting board.
Rare detail in DNA Component "27" linked to youth, DNA collected after traffic offence.
Convicted murderer was youths uncle.
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?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"
I suppose that if you've done nothing wrong in your house, you don't mind if the law enforcement groups come in and take a look. If you've done nothing wrong, you don't need a lawyer. If you've done nothing wrong, you won't be arrested.
The list can go on. I think there needs to be caution before these types of statements are made. DNA profiling (as mentioned somewhere else in this replyset) is not far away...unless it is not allowed to happen by those of us the government is supposed to represent.
DNA is good, but privacy is paramount.
You can have my DNA when you pry it from my cold, dead cells.
To me this story wonderfully illustrates the fact that there is good utility in a powerful police/state. It still worries me though.
Nobody argues that it is a good thing that a murderer was caught.
Many would however object to compulsory collection of fingerprints from all citizens / immigrants / visitors etc. Again, there is no doubt that this would help to solve some crimes and result in some good things. Many of us worry about the prospect because we do not trust our police / state to use those powers only for good. This mostly comes from differring beliefs in what is acceptable (speeding / P2P / looking at photographs by a famous photographer whom some consider to be a pornographer / reading communist literature the list goes on)
We have convinced ourselves that it is OK to keep fingerprints for criminals - though perhaps less so for those never convicted of crimes.
With DNA, this case shows us that when you store the DNA of a criminal - you effectively store the DNA of a family. Is that OK?
the argument is not about stopping criminals. It is about how much power we will grant to that end. It is about whether you believe that power corrupts.
I don't trust my government. Hence my concern.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
A common question.
A good primer: How DNA Evidence Works
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Retaining or acquiring DNA is no more of a privacy issue than retaining or acquiring fingerprints. Use of DNA increases the precision with which we can identify both the innocent and the guilty.
If folks are concerned about DNA privacy issues, perhaps they really ought to ponder the privacy lost when an innocent person is sent to prison because no DNA evidence was available.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
That if instead of matching a kid, if it had been the suspect's brother instead, and he'd been old enough, that "partial" match would have been good enough to convict him if he happened to be the first match in the database.
- DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.
White House seeks to expand DNA databaseThe questions this begged for me when the statement came out from the WH:
It may not pass right away here, but I'd be really surprised if it doesn't eventually. Already DNA samples are collected from suspects. However, AFAIK those samples (collected from suspects) *cannot* be kept in the national DNA DB b/c that DB is supposedly only convicted criminals.
DNA collection is one of the encroachments on civil liberties that scares me the most because SO many people are so unaware of any potentially nefarious results from it (eugenics being the most tame) and simultaneously are so WOWED by how DNA evidence solves cases that they will willingly submit to this new rule WHEN said initiative hits stateside in earnest.
In february, an 79 years old lady was raped and murdered in the wood near the place of Emmen in the Netherlands. 90 men were selected by the police for DNA test. It didn't match. Then 1200 people in the neighbourhood of the house of the old lady were intervieuwed and 120 men were selected (made suspicious by their neighbours?) for another round of dna tests. One week ago a match was found and a 29 year old men was arrested who confessed the rape and murder.
I had been running in the wood and my name was noted by the police at the place of the murder. So i was asked to take a dna test and i took it.
Now i have a nice letter from the police thanking me for the cooperation. It also says my dna sample and profile will be destroyed.
It wasn't until my girlfriend came in and said she was with me and that I wasn't doing it, that I got off. It was all because the next door neighbor girl was jealous of my having a girlfriend.
You're posting on Slashdot, expecting our sympathy for a story that hinges on you having a girlfriend???
Quis metamoderunt ipses metamoderatores?