Slashdot Mirror


Police Use DNA To Generate a Suspect's Face

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times has a pair of articles about a technology now being used in police investigations: computer generation of a suspect's face from only their DNA. Law enforcement in South Carolina had no pictures or descriptions of a man who murdered a mother and her daughter, but they had some of his DNA. From this, a company named Parabon NanoLabs used a technique called DNA phenotyping to create a rough portrait of the suspect's facial features, which the police then shared with the public.

The accuracy of these portraits is still an area of hot debate — most of them look rather generic. The NY Times staff tested it with a couple of their employees, circulating the DNA-inspired portraits and seeing if people could guess who it was supposed to be. None of the ~50 employees were able to identify reporter John Markoff, and only about 10 were able to identify video journalist Catherine Spangler. But even though the accuracy for a person's entire face is low, techniques for specific attributes, like eye color, have improved greatly. Of course, the whole situation raises a slew of civil liberties questions: "What traits are off limits? Should the authorities be able to test whether a suspect has a medical condition or is prone to violence should such testing be possible?"

9 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Prone to violence? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "What traits are off limits? Should the authorities be able to test whether a suspect...is prone to violence should such testing be possible?"

    Because it's hard to tell if someone who killed 2 people is violent....

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Prone to violence? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the point is if they take a suspect's DNA and show that he's prone to violence, and use that as evidence he committed the crime, rather than taking DNA from a violent crime scene.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  2. That's great! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When that technology will have evolved enough, it'll be able to show what you were supposed to be from your DNA, compared to what you actually are. How your body and face have changed due to your family, education, school, company etc... That technology will contribute to settle the debate "genetics vs environment".

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  3. Parallel_construction by Sparrowhawk7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds more like a case of Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... to me. Its not like the technique is unknown to law enforcement. With all the additional pressure around Stingray (cell site simulator) use, I fully expect these types of techniques to proliferate.

  4. This is creepy! by Aethedor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is privacy so important? Because you don't know what creepy things governments will do with it in the future. All the condition under which you gave away some of your personal information might not apply in the future. And getting your information back at that time will very likely be no option.

    What if your face ends up with this new creepy technology. How can you even possibly defend your self against it? Some, for normal people, impossible to comprehent scientific research apoints you as a suspect. What can you do? This is creepy and scary and not something we should want.

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    1. Re:This is creepy! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think we'd feel much better about it if we used this tool to remove suspicion from people, rather than to add suspicion. For example, this tool could probably rule out that the suspect is black or asian, that it's not a woman, it's not someone over 5'9, etc. Using the tool to generate a crappy portrait is the real bad move, because if you look like that, people will think that's evidence for your guilt. If this tool were only used to exonerate people and to remove them from the suspect list, who could object?

  5. There's still lots of improvement opportunity by dingleberrie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because it searches for correlation between faces and DNA, and it's getting arguably discernible results already. I'm expecting it to improve as it gets more sample data, more processing power, and more researchers identifying distinguishing facial characteristics for it to attempt a DNA correlation to. Further, when they find out how to show examples at different milestone ages, then that would lead to even more interesting applications. Imagine knowing what your baby will look like before they are born... and the societal questions that that brings.

  6. Re:Real helpful by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even very weak evidence is useful, even if it would be too weak for court. If you know* the perp is African-American, you can't go around suspecting everyone who's African American, but you most certainly can eliminate all your white/asian/hispanic suspects.

    *Sadly/amusingly, eyewitness accounts are not sufficient for this.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  7. Re:Future of forencics. by durrr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon we'll be able to grow the criminal himself from the DNA and punish him even he's not found.

    Handing out multiple life sentences will take on a whole new meaning.