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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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...

[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:What kind of website name is that?

[bmo]

It's also better than penisland.net

Which actually does sell pens.

--
BMO

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.

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.