Beware: FBI, Other Agencies Might Go After Your Voluntary DNA Records (theneworleansadvocate.com)

Kashmir Hill reports at Fusion that DNA results from companies like 23andMe are being requested by law enforcement agencies, something that is likely to start happening more and more. From the article: Both Ancestry.com and 23andMe stipulate in their privacy policies that they will turn information over to law enforcement if served with a court order. 23andMe says it's received a couple of requests from both state law enforcement and the FBI, but that it has "successfully resisted them." ... Ancestry.com would not say specifically how many requests it's gotten from law enforcement. ... "On occasion when required by law to do so, and in this instance we were, we have cooperated with law enforcement and the courts to provide only the specific information requested but we don’t comment on the specifics of cases,” said a spokesperson. (Related Wired article here.)

Comments

You should have expected this.

[thedarb]

I did.

Re:You should have expected this.

[mwvdlee]

Law enforcement will use any means possible, no matter how unlawful.

Re:You should have expected this.

[TWX]

This is why I wonder about the 4th Amendment and if there was an expectation that it was supposed to restrict the amount of records that the Government was to keep on the citizen in addition to being intended to prevent the Government from seizing private records.

At the time the amendment was crafted there were limits on the storage capability of records simply due to the medium on which they could be stored. Now that limit is essentially gone due to electronic storage.

Maybe we need limits on what the Government is allowed to store on any given person unless there's an actual legal investigation of that person, assigned to a human investigator, where that human investigator has to commit regular individual reports on the state of such investigation back to the record for it to be maintained.

Re:You should have expected this.

[PRMan]

As long as there is a warrant and it is for a single suspect's DNA then it is lawful and I am fine with it. Without a warrant is a different story.

Re:You should have expected this.

[easyTree]

Law enforcement will use any means possible, no matter how unlawful.

I propose that we stop using the term 'law enforcement' to refer to those who *rule* by force and miscellaneous coordinated thuggery.

My experience, and you may check this for yourself on youtube, is that they neither know the law nor attempt to enforce it. Of course, there are exceptions; those aspects of 'the law' which may be used to extract fines or coerce required behaviours, are known in great detail.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, I am absolutely astonished that this is being abused. Especially given that the co-founder of 23andMe was married to Google's Sergey Brin. Why, who ever could have called that? Oh - fucking everybody.

"but I hurpa durp nothin to hide hurpa durp search me"

Re:You should have expected this.

[reboot246]

Exactly. Criminals and terrorists are usually too smart to voluntarily give their DNA to anybody. The FBI would really be wasting its time if they were looking for bad guys. I suspect they're just wanting the DNA records for future mischief and/or blackmailing.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

We are currently in a state where we are shifting our private info, our "papers" in 4th Amendment terms, outside our houses and into the hands of others, and anachronistic Supreme Court rulings have held we have no expectation of privacy in such things held by 3rd parties.

This needs to change, given people view themselves as holding a virtual presence out there on the nebulous Internet and in the computers thereon. It may need another amendment, but the Supreme Court could clear it all up tomorrow.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Criminals and terrorists are usually too smart to voluntarily give their DNA to anybody.

Don't forget that DNA can be used to identify family members. For all we know the FBI is giving a DNA sample to these companies and asking for any records that match as being from an extended family member. I expect lots of warrant-issuing judges would rubber-stamp something like that.

Re:You should have expected this.

[ShanghaiBill]

Criminals and terrorists are usually too smart to voluntarily give their DNA to anybody.

Do you know any actual criminals? I have met many, and few of them are "smart". Also, they don't have to get the DNA of the suspect. They can identify someone by looking at the DNA of a sibling or parent.

Re:You should have expected this.

[ShanghaiBill]

As long as there is a warrant and it is for a single suspect's DNA then it is lawful and I am fine with it.

That is almost useless. If they have a specific suspect, and probable cause, then they can use a warrant to demand a hair or blood sample directly from the suspect. What is far more likely, is that they have the DNA sample, but have no idea who it belongs to. So they give the sample to 23andme, and say "Who matches this?" Then they get back a match, or maybe a partial match of a brother, sister, or cousin. That could narrow the suspects way down.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I know three cops, including one family member. ALL of them operate on the belief that they are part of the authority caste and that regular citizens are part of a lower caste. ALL of them believe it's absolutely fine for a cop to detain, rough up and arrest anyone that is part of the lower caste if they've done anything to draw the ire of a cop (regardless of whether a crime was committed). ALL of them believe that cops should be totally free from any kind of oversight or judicial consequences when they use deadly force against anyone for any reason, including unarmed people who are not a threat in any way.

If we actually had law enforcement in the United States, there would be a shitload of cops in prison.

Re:You should have expected this.

[rgmoore]

Criminals and terrorists are usually too smart to voluntarily give their DNA to anybody.

Terrorist and some professional criminals perhaps, but they make up a small fraction of the criminals out there. There are plenty of petty criminals who wind up in a life of crime because they can't hack regular employment. There are even more people who commit crimes because they're temporarily blinded by rage, greed, or drugs into doing something that they would never do if they were in complete control of their faculties.

Re:You should have expected this.

[TheRealMindChild]

assigned to a human investigator, where that human investigator has to commit regular individual reports on the state of such investigation back to the record for it to be maintained

I don't think more bureaucracy is necessarily the right idea. We need to change how things work fundamentally, not by putting another gear into the machine

Re:You should have expected this.

[TWX]

One would think that, given Citizens United giving corporations many of the rights that natural persons are supposed to have, that corporations would enjoy 4th Amendment protections.

Re:You should have expected this.

[TWX]

Why not? Isn't a large part of what constitutes criminal law proceedings based on proper procedure being followed? If we don't have procedures we have no more standing than the Salem Witch Trials.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Mikkeles]

Why are they keeping any records after they have done your analysis? Only you need have a record.

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

I've thought about this some more and, you know what? It'd be damned neat to be able to just have a cheap machine at home that attaches via USB and can run a test. Then you can use an online comparative (willfully, with privacy controls) and see what matches, where things branched off, make assumptions/guesses about your heritage and history, see where you split from the tree and where (if) you rejoined in a new place, find your guessed major ethnicity, etc...

I was recently re-watching the NOVA series about where we came from and it was kind of neat. There was a dude on the show, from Sweden maybe, who was helping them out - for instance he was able to help the Aboriginals in Australia and some Amerindians in the PNW with their legal case about a pile of bones.

It was kind of fascinating to learn and watch. I don't really watch to get an education but some rubs off on me by mistake. I don't usually remember all the details but enough to be conversational. I think it may have been called "Humans, Where do We Come From?" Something like that. It's maybe a five or six part series. If anyone's actually interested then I can dig it out of my YouTube watched history but that will take a few minutes.

Anyhow, as I was saying, it'd be nice to do this from home and have control of the data. I don't see that happening for a very long time, if at all, but it would be nice. I willingly gave up my DNA - I had to give a blood sample when I joined the military. I'm not sure if that would have made me pause, knowing what I know today, then but there's not a damned thing I can do about it.

I wonder, I have no idea, if the Red Cross could have something like a man in the middle? They use a unique identifier that's tied to your real identification because they send you a letter later to tell you if you've got AIDS or whatnot. I actually haven't donated blood in a while. I think I saw a sign in an area not far from where I'm at. I should go look into it tomorrow.

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

They probably do have that protection - in fact, I'm pretty sure they do. However, they willfully give it up when they cooperate with the police. It's probably a balance sheet issue - it's cheaper to comply than to fight it. Ethics aside, you may make different choices than you think you'd make were you in their shoes.

This is not, of course, an excuse for it - it's just an observation. They don't have to give up the data, necessarily. They may willfully comply with requests because it means less money spent on a legal department. You didn't expect them to spend money to preserve your privacy, did you?

Re:You should have expected this.

[Cinnamon Beige]

Why not? Isn't a large part of what constitutes criminal law proceedings based on proper procedure being followed? If we don't have procedures we have no more standing than the Salem Witch Trials.

I think the point is that this is more a case of having too many 'gears' in the process already--which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, particularly since I'd be actually okay if my DNA report is being used for certain processes. For example, if what they're trying to do is figure out if J Doe #23 is me, I have no problems--especially if I really am J Doe #23.

I'd certainly like to be notified, however, on the off chance that I'm still alive, and given the opportunity to call the department requesting a copy of my DNA and go "Guys? Reports of my death are highly exaggerated." I'd even put it that way, because how often do you get to make that complaint?

If they're using my DNA because they're trying to ID a relative of mine, I'd rather they ask first--last I knew, it was perfectly acceptable to the courts if I grant the authorities permission, and there's no good reason for me to not agree if we're talking about pretty much any of the legit reasons for them wanting my DNA. (Particularly since if a relative of mine is suspected of being a serial rapist and/or murderer, I'd like them to clear themselves. Or confirm. I'm not terribly picky about which, just let me know if it's safe to let them watch my kids/pets/house.)

Otherwise, it really should fall under the same rules required to obtain any other sort of medical record--there's reasons to prefer to get a copy of an already-run DNA test, but those mostly fall under being able to be relatively sure it's the right person...and the fact it won't take months to get the results back, since the labs really are that backed up. (Yes, somebody's managed to actually get somebody else's blood taken for a DNA test, and even managed to pull it off on camera. It took surprising him with where they drew the sample from to actually get a sample of his blood.)

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

Actually, I was younger and a drunk. I spent a couple of nights in various drunk tanks or waiting to be bailed out in the morning for things like assaults or simple drug possession. I think you're mistaken or have had some warped view of them - at least in the western world. There seems to be a higher percentage of smart people in jail than outside of jail.

Now, with that comes the caveat. See, the dumb ones are really dumb. They kind of balance it back out. But, per capita, there seems to be a higher percentage of people who are smart. They're brilliant and talented - you should read their books and see their artwork. The thing is, they have to get lucky every time - the law only needs to be lucky once.

Actually, there was a recent article (not long ago) on this very site about some inmates who beat the #1 rated Ivy League Debate Team. They didn't just beat them - they gave them a smack down. On top of that, they did so on the side of the argument that you'd expect to be difficult for them.

I played chess, pinochle, spades, hearts, and a variety of poker games. They're brilliant. They're articulate and genuinely human. Now, sure, there are some really stupid people in jail - and rightfully so. But, per capita, it seemed like a higher percentage were smarter than what I'd experienced on the outside. I think I've even read studies that showed this and that some smart people had a strange predilection to commit crimes - I think they concluded that it has something to do with them not fitting into society well. I'm not sure if it was a study (or a bunch) or a documentary (or a bunch) but I do recall this.

So, yeah... I'm not sure I buy your claim that only a few are smart - comparatively speaking.

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

Hmm... Not sure if serious... I know a similar, slightly higher, number and exactly zero match your description. While absolutely none of them are my friends they are acquaintances and I've had a number of conversations with them about many different things over the years. Now, I suppose, they could be putting on a face/front for me but that seems unlikely and I've seen a couple of them pretty drunk and talked to them while they were inebriated.

I feel icky defending the cops but...

Yeah, exactly none seemed to have that mentality. One had used his service weapon in defense and openly wept about it while drunk. Others indicated they hoped they'd never need to.

Maybe you're just an asshole who brings out the worst in people and assumes they treat you like shit because they have an innate trait? Do you find that most people you associate with are clueless, selfish, pricks who are contrary? I'd not be too terribly surprised if you did - and I bet you'd see it as their character flaw.

Ugh... Cops suck but, yeah, most of them are just humans doing their job. Some of them are actually good people. Do you paint black people with such a large brush? Are you the AC who has been ranting about Jewish people over the past few days?

Re:You should have expected this.

[Cinnamon Beige]

As long as there is a warrant and it is for a single suspect's DNA then it is lawful and I am fine with it.

That is almost useless. If they have a specific suspect, and probable cause, then they can use a warrant to demand a hair or blood sample directly from the suspect. What is far more likely, is that they have the DNA sample, but have no idea who it belongs to. So they give the sample to 23andme, and say "Who matches this?" Then they get back a match, or maybe a partial match of a brother, sister, or cousin. That could narrow the suspects way down.

As I mentioned a bit farther up, we've already caught somebody managing to slip a sample of somebody else's blood--repeatedly, actually, and I've seen camera footage from one of the later attempts to get his blood from him. (They didn't say how they figured out it wasn't his blood, so I can only guess that the 'donor' he chose was obviously not him--the equivalent of a male druggie trying to pass off a pregnant woman's urine as his own.) It's more reliable to go to somebody like 23andme since the odds of that single suspect having sent somebody else's blood or hair to there is lower--or you could use it as a way to confirm that the sample you got personally from the suspect is indeed theirs.

The other issue is that you have to wait to get the fresh sample run, and that can take months--I've heard of a few places being backed up enough that it can be over a year before you see results. That certainly would be a reason to want to see if the person has already had their DNA profiled, though asking and seeing if they offer to grant you permission is worthwhile. Set it up right, and it ought to be in your favor to do so if you're innocent as it gives you a way to clear yourself quickly.

You're more likely to get a warrant for the situation you're talking about when you're trying to ID a J Doe victim, and that's something I'd actually be fine with encouraging, though I'd want more transparency. It'd be as simple as letting me (or, if I'm the one missing and it's been long enough, my next-of-kin) have the ability to arrange to have a copy of my profile added to a database of missing persons & relatives of missing persons, preferably one set up so getting a name only happens once you've gotten a match.

Basically, there's legitimate reasons to want to get to use a profile that's already been done--the concern should be that the fact that the warrants get tossed means that they're almost certainly not using those.

Re:You should have expected this.

[fyngyrz]

t's probably a balance sheet issue

Typically it is. This is why in the sense that "corporations are like people", the people they are "like" are sociopaths and psychopaths. And you know what happens to the rights of sociopaths and psychopaths... that's exactly what should happen to the rights of corporations. We could call the rules that govern these changes in the status of their rights... hmmm... how about regulations? It's not punishment, we just know they're out of their fucking minds, so for everyone's good...

Re:You should have expected this.

[sjames]

Even if it is given to a 3rd party, it then becomes "their" property.

That is the current convenient interpretation. But I note that when I rent something and it goes to my house, it doesn't become my property.

When my car goes to the mechanic's for a day, it doesn't become his property.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing with this line of thinking is that corporate interests don't care about the validity, only the necessity of law-enforcement requests. Hand out information without a warrant, and your company goes down in flames for privacy breeches, especially sites like ancestry and 23andme who know really-specific information about you that only you would have. There is no legal reason for LEO's to have any access to genetic information whatsoever. If an active crime in being investigated, and the LEO has genetic information and wishes to ask 23andme/ancestry/etc if there is a match in their database, they can do so without the LEO being able to just look up their mother-in-law in the process. That's all you need is an insurance investigator to deny you health coverage because your genetic profile suggests there is a genetic predisposition for an illness.

Since 23andme's entire business model is DNA, allowing anyone to have access to unfiltered information is going to go badly. If a LEO submits a DNA check to 23andme and 23andme finds a positive match they can go back to the LEO and say, do the legal paperwork and we will tell you if there is a match. If there is no match, they let the cops do the run-around to get the legal paperwork, but they just give the LEO a "no match found" , or whatever close family matches exist.

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

Reasonable regulation is good. No arguments here. Not by default at any rate. I think accountability would be nice, for starters. I also suggest we stop letting them store their funds off-shore and tax them for it appropriately.

Re:You should have expected this.

[kwbauer]

This such a patently false statement. I truly wonder about the motivations of people who repeat it.

The courts long ago ruled that your property, papers and effects do not become the property of somebody else just because you asked them to store them for you. Banks don't simply open safe deposit boxes without court orders (warrants). Rented storage units also require search warrants.

The problem is that so many people give in to the anti-gun position of "if it is modern, then the Constitution doesn't cover it" bullshit reasoning that we are completely losing our rights on all fronts.

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

Hand out information without a warrant, and your company goes down in flames for privacy breeches, especially sites like ancestry and 23andme who know really-specific information about you that only you would have.

Yet here we are. No, no... I somehow don't think very many people will care. Sadly. Look at all the riots after the Snowden leaks... Oh, wait...

Re:You should have expected this.

[Mr.CRC]

No, I'd say they do know the law very well and use the widest possible interpretation of it to develop any excuse they can to stop and detain people. Once detained they will attempt to provoke you. Then they will arrest you for disorderly conduct or something, and when you protest you get beat up and charged with resisting arrest. Which of course is ridiculous since you wouldn't have gotten an attitude in the first place if you hadn't been threatened with arrest for no good cause.

At this time, if you simply call the cops to complain about something, and they come to your house, you stand a very good chance of getting beaten up and arrested.

On principle since you lodged the complaint, you should be able to order the cops off your property at any time, whether politely or with curse words, and it should be a serious crime for them to not immediately comply. But in reality, if they don't want to leave, your ordering them out will be interpreted as a threat to them. They will then arrest you for resisting arrest, and beat the shit out of you in your own home.

All of this is fueled by the law, both legislation and case law. Laws are interpreted in ways never intended, to turn ordinary people into criminals.

Everyone must understand, that the state doesn't give a shit about crime, the common good, or any such nonsense. The state is an entity composed of people, who act according to the incentives they face. For cops, it is simple: They are rewarded for arresting people. Period. They can paint "to protect and to serve" on their cars, but their true purpose is to arrest people. And so they will arrest people for any fucking reason they can find, and go to great lengths to find ways and means of arresting more people. Including by subverting the law and Constitution which protects citizens.

Even if they break the law, the usual consequence is that you will be bankrupted to defend yourself, and case law may result that will make their overreach unlikely to affect someone else. Even if you sue, and win, it won't be the cops who pay. It will be the municipality. The taxpayers. The victim!

Even the laws which are designed to protect you will be used against you. E.g. "wiretapping" laws were intended to prohibit only the state from recording your communications without a warrant. Then it was turned around and used to criminalize people for recording private conversations without consent.

It's to the point now where everyone is conditioned to believe that this is acceptable. When the opposite should actually be true--anyone should have the right to record freely any communication directed at them from any source, regardless of consent.

Additional insanity prevails with the shit about kids sending their nude photos and getting busted for "distributing child porn." when it's their own fucking bodies! Then if you happen to be a recipient of such a photo, of a minor, you can get busted for possession regardless of intent to acquire such a thing.

The only law that should apply here is that kidnapping, extortion, etc., ie., any form of *coercion* to obtain images of anyone, adult OR child, against their will (and psychological manipulation of a child by a caretaker would constitute coercion)--that and only that can be a crime. As it stands we have instead criminalized nature itself (nudity cannot ever be a crime, as it is simply nature) and/or the collection of light waves travelling through space.

By the simple fact that these are logical absurdities one can confidently predict that unless we stop this shit, and instead generalize and simplify our laws around a small set of fundamental prohibitions that when violated clearly deprive a victim of life, liberty, or property, then we will continue marching on toward dystopia. As for the cops, first the unions have to go. Next, violations of fundamental rights of citizens must carry the same criminal AND civil penalties that a normal person would face, and where the individual cop can be exposed to full personal liability after getting fired.

Re: You should have expected this.

[easyTree]

Hmm... Not sure if serious...

I know a similar, slightly higher, number

Appeal to authority / one upmanship

and exactly zero match your description.

Rebuttal

While absolutely none of them are my friends they are acquaintances

Introduce apparent impartiality

and I've had a number of conversations with them about many different things over the years.

They really do exist and are absolutely not fictional characters brought to life with a single purpose in mind

Now, I suppose, they could be putting on a face/front for me but that seems unlikely and I've seen a couple of them pretty drunk and talked to them while they were inebriated.

There is to be no doubt on the quality of their characters

I feel icky defending the cops but...

You say bad things about the police not because they're true but because you have some reason to dislike them; I'm like you, a cop-hater and so the fact that I find no wrong-doing when my dislike of them causes me to look extra hard means that they are beyond suspicion

Yeah, exactly none seemed to have that mentality.

Natural-sounding echo of earlier rebuttal

One had used his service weapon in defense and openly wept about it while drunk.

Despite being saints, they do a difficult job and try to retain their humanity

Others indicated they hoped they'd never need to.

Maybe you're just an asshole who brings out the worst in people and assumes they treat you like shit because they have an innate trait?

I am finding it difficult to remain in character - I hate having to trawl all over social media astroturfing over legitimate grievances caused by my out-of-control colleagues. I need my job and therefore I must attempt to discredit you as I have a mistaken belief that this somehow alters the self-evident truth of your anecdotal statements

Do you find that most people you associate with are clueless, selfish, pricks who are contrary? I'd not be too terribly surprised if you did - and I bet you'd see it as their character flaw.

Really struggling to discredit you to the extent that is necessary given my intimate knowledge of the extent of the stupidity and corruption that is rife amongst our ranks

Ugh... Cops suck but, yeah, most of them are just humans doing their job. Some of them are actually good people.
Do you paint black people with such a large brush? Are you the AC who has been ranting about Jewish people over the past few days?

My manager has told me that I must move on to the next post now so I'll finish with a flourish of: Attempt at empathy with your disgusting position / Couple of attempts at reproducing generalisations made by normal humans I've seen on TV / Couple of further attempts to destroy your character in the belief that the truth is thus modified - respectively.

Re: You should have expected this.

[easyTree]

There should be penalties for acting against the spirit of the law

Re:You should have expected this.

[PlusFiveTroll]

Well....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You do have to pay for it or it can become his property.

Re:You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

I am kind of the example of that. I had to pay for my education by joining the Marines and then going back in for another four years to get more GI Bill loving. I was very lucky and while preparing my defense my professor put me in touch with the State Highway Department which happened to be getting ready to do some work. I was modeling traffic. So, it turned into a job which turned into a business. Eventually, I expanded and modeled pedestrian traffic - think malls, supermarkets, even public spaces, etc... This had always been done, to some extent, but we did it "on a computer."

The business was sold to a parent company that does nothing but fill government contracts, pretty much. They do service, support, tech, and even security. You probably can figure out who they are which means you could go back through the papers and online journals and figure out who I am. Which one could then dig into the finances and figure out how much I made. It was lucrative and I don't think I could actually spend all of my money unless I worked really hard at it - I mean, I make more in interest and through investments than I spend so I donate a lot and I try to help those who need it.

I'd never call myself 'self-made' or anything. I was just damned lucky, undeservedly so, and in the right place, at the right time, and in a position where I could risk going out on my own. I think I say that because, while exceptions - I'm not exceptional. I worked my ass off but I can assure you that I didn't work as hard as many who had less success. I think, mostly, I just wanted to clear that up. As you can see, from my prior posts, I'm simply a human and prone to making mistakes. I was just lucky, that's really what it comes down to. There are smarter, harder working, and far more deserving people.

Now, I do think it has something to do with finances. Agreed. Poverty is certainly a primary motivator. I do seem to recall that being discussed (it may have been a TED talk?) in at least one documentary or paper. I do believe that another topic was the intellectuals being uncomfortable or unable to adapt - I presume this is as much speculation/observation as any soft-science really is. Some of them did not appear all that impoverished whilst incarcerated and I didn't go around asking for a list of offenses or compile data - I am pretty sure that would have been frowned on.

I should also add that my longest stint was just over a weekend due to punching a police officer. Some dude was beating on his girlfriend so I did the stupid thing and jumped on him. Someone grabbed my shoulder and yanked and I hit them. The case was reduced to (and I plead guilty to) a simple assault (two counts technically) because he failed to identify himself as a police officer thus I had no way of knowing he was a police officer and was simply defending myself - in a position where there's some legal gray area in North Carolina.

As for the above story, well, I ended up in civil court paying for a whole lot of shit. I mean a lot... A wired jaw was the most expensive plus all of his lost time from work. Then the jackass that was beating on his girlfriend sued me. His girlfriend testified against me. He was arrested with me but she refused to press charges or testify against him as I understand it.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is. The judge was displeased but ruled in his favor. I was kind of pissed. North Carolina has some "defense of third party" statutes but I guess when I'd taken him off of her and was sitting on his chest and smacking him around (I was very drunk) was beyond what was considered defense. So...

Anyhow, exceptions yes. Not exceptional, by any means. And I really don't know much more other than what I've experienced and have read or seen. I'm absolutely positive that some of it is due to finances but sometimes it doesn't seem to matter. Hopefully that makes sense?

Re:You should have expected this.

[ShanghaiBill]

If they only check for the DNA-fingerprint that the cops normally use, there is a 1 in million change of a false positive. That means in the U.S. there will be 300 people with the exact match (according to the fingerprint) of your DNA.

Sure, but of those 300 people, 299 will live in a different city. One will be the next door neighbor.

Re:You should have expected this.

[dryeo]

The problem is that so many people give in to the anti-gun position of "if it is modern, then the Constitution doesn't cover it" bullshit reasoning that we are completely losing our rights on all fronts.

It works the other way as well. How often have you heard someone say that a vehicle is a privilege rather then a right? Same with other transport such as airline where the government can deny you the "privilege" of traveling on a whim without telling you.
I've very seldom needed a gun, once to take out a bobcat that was in the chicken coup and a couple of times for food. Where I live and in much of the country owning a vehicle and being allowed to use it is basically a necessity.
Funny enough, in my country owning a firearm is not a right but it takes a Judge to deny my privilege of being able to own a firearm (law does limits the types) whereas my driving privileges can be removed through simple administrative process. And of course I wouldn't be allowed to own a firearm in the States due to one stupid thing that was not firearm related that I did close to 40 years ago rather then having to have a Judge purposely remove my firearm privileges which only happens when you've done something stupid with a firearm here.

Re:You should have expected this.

[chihowa]

Well, DNA is hereditary, so if theres one in a city, there will likely be many more there too. Our genetic makeup isn't randomly distributed across the population.

Re: You should have expected this.

[KGIII]

I tend to treat them like big dumb animals, herd animals at that. It works. Keep eye contact, don't show fear, don't turn your back, speak firmly but clear, etc... The whole Kansas thing was just them being way over the top and, at that point, I knew they were just trying to find me doing something stupid. They weren't pleased and told me to get out of Kansas, never return, and if they ever saw me again they were going to arrest me - none of which was even remotely possible legally but I amused them and left. I was leaving anyhow.

Re:You should have expected this.

[dablow]

Assuming your story is true, you are the first rich person to confirm what I have suspected for a long long time (and tried to explain to others).

That (financial) success is a result of 1 of 2 things:

              1- Inheritance/connections; either your where born rich and had opportunities handed to you that others do not (which in turn allows you to take risks the rest of us can't), or rich enough that your family/friends people that surrounded you gave you the connections/opportunities the rest of us do not.

            2- Luck; just being at the right place at the right time with the right idea; I could do exactly what Steve Jobs or Bill Gates did and not strike it rich, most likely go completely broke. If I tried to create my own OS or computer company in my basement there is no wayyyy I would succeed (using tech already available), and I cannot myself fund any kind of R&D to come up with a breakthrough in the tech field.

Does hard work play a role? Of course in both cases it does. Does being smart help? Of course it does, but I actually believe being too smart can also hinder you (example a smart person knows that taking a $60k/year job for life with retirement and benefits is the smarter route than risking everything to get a startup going. 99.9% of the time it works out better for the majority of people in the long run, so as a smart person how do you justify the risk when the odds are similar to winning the lottery?).

Some of the hardest working folks I know are also some of the poorest. Often times due to a chain of events out of their control (ex mother died racking up massive bills, brother with gambling issue that needed help etc.)

As for in people in prison, it's not as simple as they where bad and deserved it. Anybody who thinks in such black and white terms is an idiot. The world is full of shades....

Re:You should have expected this.

[Mashiki]

Do you know any actual criminals? I have met many, and few of them are "smart". Also, they don't have to get the DNA of the suspect. They can identify someone by looking at the DNA of a sibling or parent.

I've known a few in my time, including several who were in the Hells Angels here in Canada. Most aren't hmm better word would be intelligent, but many of them are as sly as fuck and that can make all the difference in the world. It would be much closer to book smarts vs street smarts, the difference between the two of them is theoretical vs real-world application. That of course also applies to many people who've made it big. They have theoretical knowledge but what they've learned out in the world has let them apply that to leverage an advantage.

Re:You should have expected this.

[cardpuncher]

The UK biobank was set up to collect medical information (including DNA) from about 500,000 people in the UK between 40 and 69 as part of a long term programme to get a better understanding of the factors promoting different tyes of disease.

As part of the solicitation process they produced a Q&A and one of the points they had to cover, obviously, was privacy. And basically all they could say was "we'll do our best" - they'd have to comply with any court orders and they couldn't foresee what future changes in legislation might require them to hand over the data. They still managed to hit their recruitment target, so I guess people other than me didn't care. Or thought they didn't care.

And that's the real danger - if mass use is ultimately made of this data and it starts to have unexpected consequences for the participants it will deter people not only from participating in medical research but even from seeking medical treatment. It's not just privacy that will be the ultimate casualty.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Cederic]

A vehicle is not a right. Freedom of movement perhaps, but not at 80mph.

Where I live and in much of the country owning a vehicle and being allowed to use it is basically a necessity.

Which is total utter bullshit. Humans have survived for millenia without vehicles.

Re:You should have expected this.

[nbauman]

We haven't had privacy of medical records in this country since Monica Lewinsky's psychotherapist gave her treatment records to Kenneth Starr.

I talked to a few health care lawyers about the privacy of medical records. Bottom line: Any judge can order the production of records "in the interest of justice."

There are state protections for things like DNA tests, but they don't protect you against federal investigations.

The medical privacy law (HIPAA) allows doctors and hospitals to disclose medical records to law enforcement requests.

I knew a doctor who treated AIDS patients at the beginning of the epidemic, before they had good treatments, and patients could lose their jobs, their housing, and their families if that information got out.

He said that he had promised confidentiality to his patients, and "I will burn my records" before he would violate his promise.

The lawyers told me that you don't have to identify yourself to get medical treatment. You can pay in cash and use a pseudonym.

Re:You should have expected this.

[Askmum]

How can anybody in their right mind expect that information divulged to a third party will be hidden/secret from the government. Of course you should have expected this. This was a question of when, not if.

Re: You should have expected this.

[Mr.CRC]

No. There is no objective definition of the "spirit" of anything. Law must not be subjective, or else it is impossible for anyone to ever be sure that they are not breaking a law.

A law was passed making it is a crime to intercept someone's phone conversation by "wiretapping" (well understood to mean law enforcement authorities going to the phone company and plugging their recorder into your line) without a warrant. The "spirit" of this law was in fact to protect people's constitutional rights. That is often how laws are sold. The unintended consequences are rarely understood in advance.

But the authorities decided that the "spirit" of this law meant something entirely different--that if an ordinary person records a phone call without informing the caller, then they are guilty of wiretapping.

99% of people now accept this like some sort of religious dogma. But it is utterly insane. It's not a crime for me to remember what a caller said using my brain right? But the moment I add a recorder, I become a felon?

What kind of website name is that?

[JoeyRox]

23andme? Sounds like a site name a 40 yeard-old web-wannabee would use to throw up a quick site about snail collecting or something. I understand it refers to chromosomes but that's a bridge too far to accept.

Re:What kind of website name is that?

[bmo]

It's also better than penisland.net

Which actually does sell pens.

--
BMO

Re:What kind of website name is that?

[easyTree]

Once you understand that they've had a long-standing entry in the IINC (internet ironic names contest), it's ok.

Disclaimer: I've not been to EE for years - my memory is of a 'membership wall' above the 'solutions' which could be defeated using a mouse wheel and finger !

There's a surprise...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given the combination of convenience(the samples are already collected for you; so it's just a request for a copy from some database) and the '3rd party doctrine' eliminating any pesky 4th amendment issues; the far greater surprise would be the feds not taking advantage of the situation.

Re:There's a surprise...

[MightyMartian]

Posting to remove accidental redundant mod.

Re:There's a surprise...

[KGIII]

They took my blood when I went in the military. I'm pretty sure that sample still exists somewhere with a number on it and my name attached to it. They may have already run it. However, I am not going to go out of my way to give it to additional third parties.

Re:There's a surprise...

[olsmeister]

Maybe there is one already, but if there isn't someone needs to start a company that performs this service but destroys the sample and the DNA data afterwards, providing you with only the ancestry and relational data that you originally asked for. And probably not even retaining a copy of that. Problem solved, and they could market themselves as having assured privacy.

Re:There's a surprise...

[bill_mcgonigle]

performs this service but destroys the sample and the DNA data afterwards

that's a good idea. They'll create a market and then get an National Security Letter saying they have to keep the data anyway, but can't tell anybody, and maybe if they're lucky they'll get a motivation payment, like RSA got from the NSA for making the weak PRNG a default in their products.

They can charge their customers a premium and also make some extra on the side. Fascist USA is best USA.

Oh - that new genomics company with very cheap tests and only a drop of blood? Henry Kissinger is a board member. They're not even subtle about it anymore.

Re:There's a surprise...

[akgooseman]

They'll have a difficult time giving customers ancestral or relational data if, for privacy or other purposes, they destroy the customer's sample and DNA data after processing it. The company won't have any data on ancestry or relations upon which to base their product.

Re:There's a surprise...

[Cinnamon Beige]

Plus, since these companies have generally taken the position that they are too cool and disruptive for the FDA, it's not unlikely that the data they've collected are also without whatever (probably inadequate but not entirely zero) obstacles that HIPAA-covered records would pose to law enforcement requests.

The fact that they're not HIPAA-covered should, really, be enough reason to not let them handle your sample--not that law enforcement wants access, there's legitimate and sometimes even mutually desirable reasons for that, but that there's nothing keeping them from selling your profile and its contents. They can even make a show of keeping government out--when it uses a warrant instead of paying for access to their records like everybody else.

Regardless of if HIPAA is adequate or not, it's still better than nothing, especially since I don't think anybody's yet managed to get it pinned down firmly if a 'privacy policy' creates a legally binding contract or if it might as well be a used tissue. (If anybody knows otherwise, please do give me a citation, I want to read the case law involved.)

Re:There's a surprise...

[ProzacPatient]

The fact that they're not HIPAA-covered should, really, be enough reason to not let them handle your sample

Even then the government doesn't seem to pay much attention to HIPAA given the SAFE act in New York and similar legislation in California where they presume people are automatically guilty by mass searching through health records that meets some vague criteria like if you were ever referred to a mental health specialist by your general doctor because you had trouble sleeping at night and needed something to relax.

I had an oral swab done once as part of a diagnostic lab work by my doctor so I'm sure I'm in some CODIS like database somewhere.

Re:There's a surprise...

[Cinnamon Beige]

The fact that they're not HIPAA-covered should, really, be enough reason to not let them handle your sample

Even then the government doesn't seem to pay much attention to HIPAA given the SAFE act in New York and similar legislation in California where they presume people are automatically guilty by mass searching through health records that meets some vague criteria like if you were ever referred to a mental health specialist by your general doctor because you had trouble sleeping at night and needed something to relax.

I had an oral swab done once as part of a diagnostic lab work by my doctor so I'm sure I'm in some CODIS like database somewhere.

Having looked up the law you did provide sufficient information about, odds are incredibly good that New York and California not only aren't enforcing those provisions, but pretty much know that nobody is going to cooperate--and I doubt you've actually looked at even the Wikipedia pages, given what the SAFE act requires is given as:

Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

The VA flat-out announced that because this violates federal law they will do no such thing--it seems to be a rather polite 'shove it up your ass' actually--and from the looks of it, New York is fully aware that if they tried to fight the VA on this, the VA can and will make sure it does get shoved, and it will be a very public example of the sans lube version because either that requirement was utterly symbolic or they somehow actually thought they could enforce it.

The only way they'll actually get mental health professionals to do that is somehow convince them that New York somehow has the authority to require you violate both the ethical rules required to keep your license and federal law...and that New York has your back when you get in hot water over having done both. While I can't check, I suspect the same situation applies in California.

I suppose that if you were insanely lucky, you might manage to skate from suffering federal consequences, but you're just not ever going to see your license again--and getting those is hard enough that, really, everybody is probably thinking what the VA said, and probably in less polite terms. Those who don't want to be caught between state law and professional standards & federal law are probably GTFOing, meaning that New York and California might have trouble with getting people who are qualified to provide mental health services. Great job, New York and California!

(Remember, kiddies: federal law trumps state, and I don't think you could find a lawyer who'd want to try arguing otherwise now...)

And then there's california...

[Anonymous Coward]

Although CA governor Jerry Brown just signed a bill requiring warrants to search electronic devices (and has signed simular such laws in the past), there's still that dumbass Proposition 69 bill that the CA public actually voted into law-- an unforced error-- in 2004. It basically says that if you are ARRESTED (not convicted, arrested), when they do the whole fingerprint thing, they can also grab your DNA and add it to their database. So you know, arrested for political protesting? All your DNA belongs to US.

bigger brother

[harvey the nerd]

our Big Brother just keeps getting bigger.

Re:bigger brother

[easyTree]

The only logical solution is for everyone to join the TLA/government - when there's no more 'them' for the them-and-us, what then?

What's A Criminal To Do?

[JimSadler]

Seriously it is going to get harder and harder for people to be criminals. Technology is going to catch people that feel secure in the nonsense that they pull off currently with little fear of getting caught. It will also create a situation in which the government appears to be more and more corrupt. For example there are clearly criminal phone sales rooms that cops often leave alone as it brings in money to the town and the calls steal money long distance. The mayors don't want the cops making the arrests as it turns off a money supply and on top of that it costs money to arrest and jail all of the phone salesmen.

Re:What's A Criminal To Do?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is going to get harder and harder for people to be criminals.

On the contrary: with more and more laws in your face, it's going to get easier and easier to find yourself on the wrong side of one.

Re:What's A Criminal To Do?

[easyTree]

Seriously it is going to get harder and harder for people to be criminals. Technology is going to catch people that feel secure in the nonsense that they pull off currently with little fear of getting caught.

You're quite right; if NSA records indicate a high probability that you were in the vicinity of a crime, today's modern technology would mean that you'd be half-way convicted before they've finished planting your DNA at the scene!

Re:What's A Criminal To Do?

[7-Vodka]

Recall that in a lot of cases, criminal and terrorist just means you disagree with the government gang.

Re:What's A Criminal To Do?

[Dunbal]

On the contrary it is easier and easier to be a criminal. Many things are crimes now which were completely normal behavior when I was young. In fact I'm willing to bet that we are all pretty much criminals at this point.

Re:What's A Criminal To Do?

[AHuxley]

The next fun part around the world is standard "free" health service blood DNA tests.
Your is too "low"or "high", find out in a few weeks if it is from both parents, one or none, want to take the free DNA test?
The use of public data for the "Selective Service" (what was military conscription) in the US in the 1980's showed what could be done with any data "found" by the US gov from simple lists to now complex datasets.

Higher moral authority

[easyTree]

I propose that all instances of 'required by law' be replaced by "required to satisfy the whims of a certain section of the population".

Let's stop pretending that some higher moral authority has decreed a common set of rules known as 'the law' and that they are open to modification in order to correct injustices.

This is not shocking...

[NicBenjamin]

Really. Really. Not shocking at all.

Any record of you is accessible by a court-ordered warrant. That is the entire point of those Court Orders, they can make people give data about you to law enforcement.

And in fact, even under HIPAA, a mere subpoena will legally require them to turn over the information if it's signed by the right guy.

The nightmare scenario (your brother rapes a women, and you get convicted because 23andme had your blood sample, not his) is virtually impossible in the real world for anyone who can afford an attorney*, because if your lawyer points out that their evidence could also apply to him there's 50% doubt, and generally Juries think 50% doubt is reasonable doubt. To actually be convicted you'd have to either have a lawyer so inept that he wouldn't bring this shit up, or be in a very unique circumstance (ie: you're identical twins who went clubbing together that night, and the victim is also pretty sure you're the twin who drugged her) which would lead to your conviction anyway.

*As the Founders intended, it is virtually impossible for a person too poor to afford their own lawyer to successfully use any of his Constitutional rights.

Re:This is not shocking...

[7-Vodka]

Your nightmare scenario is so dumb.

What about the government decides they don't like your opposition to fracking and they use your information to poison you with peanut allergy, or give you a pre-disposed diabetes condition that distracts you from your activism.

Or they trace the fact that you are the product of your grandfather's slave raping and just put it out there during an election year.

Or how about they threaten to take one of your children into a mind control program and break them into schizophrenia since they've found out they have a pre-disposition.

Maybe they deploy sensors around town in the future and restrict your movement, mating partner or your career based on your genetics. I could see eugenics coming back around as a 'for the good of the collective, think of the children' idea. Vaccines have, people are forced to have their children vaccinated as if there were no health risks (and I don't mean autism).

How about they develop a genetic virus that kills you and everyone related to you based on your info.

Or they create pre-crime a la minority report based on genetics?

Or you can't afford a lawyer and you get convicted of that case where someone with similar genetics left a partial match.

Re:This is not shocking...

[Cinnamon Beige]

Actually, it's virtually impossible to be too poor to afford your own lawyer. The trick is getting a halfway competent one--and I've seen some relatively expensive defense lawyers who...aren't anywhere near as good as even the most indifferent public defender. (If I got stuck with one of them I'd likely ask the judge if I could please have my lawyer required to take his meds because while I think he's hoping to get me off on appeal for having a lousy lawyer, I'd like to be certain that if my lawyer is talking to an invisible giant rabbit that rabbit exists. Especially if said rabbit is supposedly his co-counsel.)

Re:This is not shocking...

[nbauman]

because if your lawyer points out that their evidence could also apply to him there's 50% doubt, and generally Juries think 50% doubt is reasonable doubt.

You give me $10,000 and I'll get an expert witness who will convincingly argue before a jury that the DNA test is absolutely certain, and that the odds are a trillion to one against a mistake.

He will at least be able to throw enough confusion into the case to give the prosecutor a good chance of convincing the jury that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The files of The Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys are filled with cases like that.

Re:This is not shocking...

[NicBenjamin]

You think DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape? Let me introduce you to Nelson Bernard Clifford, who managed to convince three juries in three years that three near-identical sets of allegations, with DNA evidence, were actually consensual sex. Fifth time turned out to be the charm for that guy. I suspect they won that one because he ran out of money for decent defense attorneys, not because their case was actually stronger.

The databases you mentioned are filled with files from shitty lawyers, generally over-worked public defenders who don't have the time to deal with evidentiary hearings and can't pay 23andme $10k to send their witness over to explain why the test doesn't work the way the prosecution says. Hell, most of the time a public defender won't have the budget to schedule a phone call with the guy at 23andme who would know which person you'd need to talk to to effectively rebuke a prosecution case.

Re:This is not shocking...

[nbauman]

I never said that DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape.

The cases of Nelson Bernard Clifford show that you also have to prove lack of consent. I don't have the details of the case, and I can't understand why the jury would acquit 4 times based on the evidence as reported by the Baltimore Sun. But it looks like he had a good defense lawyer.

I know some of the lawyers at the Innocence Project and the National Associaton of Chriminal Defense Lawyers (not "Attorneys," sorry), and I also know some public defenders. I've heard them speak and read their articles and books. I've read their case files. What you're saying is simply not true.

There are "expert" witnesses who work for the defense and the prosecution (the prosecution has more money to hire them) who can often distort the scientific evidence and convince juries, even though the facts go against it. There were expert witnesses who used to claim that DNA matches were infalliable.

Re:This is not shocking...

[NicBenjamin]

I never said that DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape.

The cases of Nelson Bernard Clifford show that you also have to prove lack of consent. I don't have the details of the case, and I can't understand why the jury would acquit 4 times based on the evidence as reported by the Baltimore Sun. But it looks like he had a good defense lawyer.

If you're saying they can get a guy convicted of rape, despite the fact he claims to have never seen the women, and the DNA test doesn't rule his cousins out, then you are indeed arguing that it's possible to get convicted based solely on DNA.

From other stories on Nelson Bernard Clifford it sounds like a) he was really good at convincing people the accuser might (just might) be a slut who invited him in for sex and is now scorning him because she's an evil bitch, and b) Maryland Judges consistently ruled that the Jury could not be told that this was the fourth time he'd been accused of rape by one of his "willing" partners. He's one of a very select group of defendents who actually profited from testifying at trial.

I know some of the lawyers at the Innocence Project and the National Associaton of Chriminal Defense Lawyers (not "Attorneys," sorry), and I also know some public defenders. I've heard them speak and read their articles and books. I've read their case files. What you're saying is simply not true.

There are "expert" witnesses who work for the defense and the prosecution (the prosecution has more money to hire them) who can often distort the scientific evidence and convince juries, even though the facts go against it. There were expert witnesses who used to claim that DNA matches were infalliable.

So you're paying a lawyer at least $1,000 per trial day, and $150 per hour otherwise; and you don't have $10k for a witness? Your lawyers retainer damn well better have been in the five-figures or you're an idiot who under-spent.

Hell, get the guy who only charges $5k. And, as a defendant, the expert doesn't actually have to be good, he just has to convince a single Juror there's "reasonable doubt."

I've been involved in the system quite a few times, from both perspectives. It's true that Jury's occasionally fuck up and convict someone for good reason. This is the nature of the system. Juries are not computers, and they are not predictable. Particularly in older cases, where DNA was not well understood and eyewitness accounts were given too much weight. But the system is designed so that a defendant can get off if he can convince one guy his side of the story isn't totally ridonkulous, which means that (barring terrible luck in the Jury room, and/or black skin, and/or a prior record), someone who has the funds for a defense (even a black guy with a prior record like Nelson Bernard Clifford) is likely to get off much more lightly then he deserves.

Which, of course, the system compensates for by over-convicting the more easily convictable people who are fund-free.

That's not the biggest problem

[damn_registrars]

I'm more worried about what the insurance industry will do with that information. They control the government, they will do whatever they want with it to maximize profit.

Beware?

[YrWrstNtmr]

"Hey, if you give us some data, we may be required to cough up to some government entity if they have a court order. If they ask, we will. Our business is more important than you, and we will not fall on our sword to protect the incredibly personal and identifiable info that you gave of your own free will."

Re:/. is now only two days behind reddit

[AndyKron]

It already has http://www.jsonline.com/news/c...

National Security Letters

[HiThere]

Warrants are one thing, but if a company refuses to admit that it's turned over any information, a NSL is more of a suspect than a warrant. And they don't demand any justification or allow any challenge.

When a company says they have successfully contested a warrant, that doesn't tell you the information is secure. Perhaps it is. But given the brazen abuse of NSLs there's no reason to believe that.

Surprise vs Problem Solving

[ohnocitizen]

I see more responses saying "Not surprised" than suggesting we take steps to address this, or that it is ethically acceptable. Either this is fine, in which case it is good law enforcement can obtain our DNA in this fashion. Or it is a worrying and unethical issue and we need to take concrete action such as contacting representatives and organizing to try and shut this shit down. But the least useful thing to do is say "I saw this coming.". Who. Fucking. Cares.

Re:Surprise vs Problem Solving

[martas]

Isn't this really easy? Mail in your sample with a unique ID and a money order (without return address), see results online via said unique ID and through a VPN so it doesn't get tied to your IP. Perhaps theoretically possible to deanonymize, but practically speaking should be good enough. In fact, I'm not sure why this isn't already an option (or is it? I've never looked into any of these services).

Re:Surprise vs Problem Solving

[nbauman]

Isn't this really easy? Mail in your sample with a unique ID and a money order (without return address), see results online via said unique ID and through a VPN so it doesn't get tied to your IP. Perhaps theoretically possible to deanonymize, but practically speaking should be good enough. In fact, I'm not sure why this isn't already an option (or is it? I've never looked into any of these services).

Indeed, the way to keep your medical information private is to go to the doctor or medical service anonymously and pay in cash. You don't need to identify yourself to get health care. You can go to a hospital and call yourself John Doe.

The weak link might be getting the money order. I don't know if you can get a postal money order anonymously any more. Post offices have cameras now that record every "patron." Maybe you could hire somebody off the street to go in and get a $25 money order for you.

they used their real name?

[frovingslosh]

You're telling me that people who give samples to 23andMe use their real name?

Re:/. is now only two days behind reddit

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you. Go back to Reddit.

I recently delved into Reddit a bit more deeply. I had seen it before and thought their format was horrible and didn't really see much that interested me.

When I took a deeper look I found most of the comments weren't interesting to me even if a story was. Quite often the highest rated comments are people making jokes which usually weren't particularly witty IMO.

Every once in a while I'd run across an insightful post.

I noticed some posts got deleted and I wondered why. A few times I managed to see the deleted post before it was deleted. Usually it was for violating the rules of that subreddit but other times the only explanation I could think of was that some moderator didn't like that person's opinion.

I'd rather get the story 2 days after Reddit because I find the comments (especially the up-voted ones) on /. to be more interresting, more insightful and when funny, usually at least amusing.

In many cases, I'll give the /. thread time to "mature". Other slashdotters with mod points will help better posts rise to the top and lower the chances of having to see posts like yours*. I may read the summary right away but I'll wait until the comments have somewhat stabilized before wading through them.

* - Alas, I am sometimes driven by some sick curiosity to see what a post modded down to -1 had to say.

Chain of custody

[Tony Isaac]

One of the many reasons DNA tests from 23andMe, Ancestry, and Family Tree DNA aren't generally used for lawsuits or criminal cases, is chain of custody. For DNA evidence to hold up in court, the witness providing the evidence must generally be able to swear in court that the DNA sample actually belonged to the person in question, and that control of the physical evidence was maintained at all times. Genealogy-related DNA testing sites simply accept their customers' word that the sample being sent in for analysis, is actually from the person the customer says it was from. This trust of customers works for the companies themselves, but might not be so useful in court.

Re:Chain of custody

[Orgasmatron]

They don't need a chain of custody because it doesn't matter. Once they know who, they can find the rest of the evidence they need, and they can document it to the standard necessary for court.

statistically, false positive risk goes WAY up ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Test a sample against a relatively small data set of known prior offenders, fairly good chance of an identification.

Test the same sample against the vast data sets available, and there's a much larger chance of a false positive.

Trolling through all the available DNA records is a mistake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Told you so

[markdavis]

>"Kashmir Hill reports at Fusion that DNA results from companies like 23andMe are being requested by law enforcement agencies"

Like this is a surprise to anyone???? Give me a break! Information shared with a third party can never really be secure, regardless of what is in their "privacy" policies. Even if they delete the results after transmitting them to the customer, the "dark side" can intercept the communications, plant bugs or malware, or put in redirectors WITH the company knowing it but with a gag order. And that is even assuming the company DOES comply with their own privacy policies (which I doubt they all do). And if the company does comply and there is no "dark side" involvement, customers still miss what is being done with their data in a sea of unreadable legalize policies.

The days of true privacy are OVER (unfortunately).