Slashdot Mirror


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.)

7 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. You should have expected this. by thedarb · · Score: 4, Funny

    I did.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:You should have expected this. by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:You should have expected this. by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:You should have expected this. by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:You should have expected this. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:You should have expected this. by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:You should have expected this. by kwbauer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.