Slashdot Mirror


How Genealogy Websites Make It Easier To Catch Killers (ieee.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from IEEE Spectrum: Over the past six months a small, publicly available genealogy database has become the go-to source for solving cold case crimes. The free online tool, called GEDmatch, is an ancestry service that allows people to submit their DNA data and search for relatives -- an open access version of AncestryDNA or 23andMe. Since April, investigators have used GEDmatch to identify victims, killers, and missing persons all over the U.S. in at least 19 cases, many of them decades old, according to authors of a report published today in Science. The authors predict that in the near future, as genetic genealogy reports gain in popularity, such tools could be used to find nearly any individual in the U.S. of European descent.

GEDmatch holds the genetic data of only about a million people. But cold case investigators have been exploiting the database using a genomic analysis technique called long-range familial search. The technique allows researchers to match an individual's DNA to distant relatives, such as third cousins. Chances are, one of those relatives will have used a genetic genealogy service. More than 17 million people have participated in these services -- a number that has grown rapidly over the last two years. AncestryDNA and 23andMe hold most of those customers. A genetic match to a distant relative can fairly quickly lead investigators to the person of interest. In a highly publicized case, GEDmatch was used earlier this year to identify the "Golden State Killer," a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s, but was never caught.
In April, investigators were able to use a genealogy database to narrow down DNA data from crime scenes and identify the "Golden State Killer," a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s.

73 comments

  1. this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These sites are bad for the environment. Every serial killer offsets the CO2 emissions of at least two other people. Catching them will lead to the death if us all. Instead of just some of us.

  2. Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Where everyone is a suspect and you're guilty unless proven innocent.

    1. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice fearmongering, Ivan. Don't kill/rape/offend anyone and you have nothing to worry about.

    2. Re: Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a suspect, you are guilty.

    3. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. A naive, dangerous idiot.

      If you're trawling trough a database of everyone's genes it means per definition that they are ALL suspects. Otherwise you wouldn't search them, right?

      Secondly, you have absolutely no understanding of concepts like "probability" or "DNA-pollution". Both are concepts than have a huge capacity to ruin your life in this context.

      Grow a brain get an education, jackass.

    4. Re:Welcome to the future by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Nice fearmongering, Ivan. Don't kill/rape/offend anyone and you have nothing to worry about.

      Right.

      Unless you consider that planting DNA at a crime scene is easy as swiping a hair/tooth brush, or combing through your trash for kleenex and toothpicks.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Welcome to the future by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where everyone is a suspect and you're guilty unless proven innocent.

      It doesn't work that way. Even a DNA match alone is not enough to convict. There has to be corroborating evidence.

      But if the DNA match flags 20 people, and 19 of them live in other states, and the other one is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a domestic violence restraining order on him, then he's goin' down.

    6. Re:Welcome to the future by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      If you're trawling trough a database of everyone's genes it means per definition that they are ALL suspects.

      Saying "everyone" is a suspect is the same as saying no one is a suspect. It is meaningless.

      DNA evidence has more often been used to exonerate the innocent than to convict the guilty. Just ask the Central Park Five, although Donald Trump still insists they are guilty.

    7. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you had line of sight to this in the 70s/80s then you were a genius. This method primarily is used on cold cases from years in the past. Criminals these days mostly know about DNA evidence.

    8. Re:Welcome to the future by plopez · · Score: 1

      primarily

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    9. Re:Welcome to the future by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >"It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence."

      Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.

    10. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and because their was no corroborating evidence he was not charged with anything. Applying for a highly charged political position is always going to result in reputation damage

    11. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry Bill, with parallel construction, and total information awareness provided by our panopticon-like society, there will always be corroborating evidence--even if there isn't, and probably witnesses, too--even if they weren't.

    12. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.

      You ignored the applicable part of the explanation:

      But if the DNA match flags 20 people, and 19 of them live in other states, and the other one is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a domestic violence restraining order on him

      Enough corroborating statements, enough consistencies in the statements & documentation from the time, his obvious side-stepping of questions whose answers would have damned him, and his obvious, blatant lies make it highly probable that he did exactly what he's accused of.

    13. Re:Welcome to the future by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.

      If you are a false positive living in NJ, and the victim is in Los Angeles, you will just be crossed off the list, and you will never know you were flagged. It will have no effect whatsoever on your life.

    14. Re: Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they might visit the guy in NJ and ask If any of his cousins was in LA in the 1970â(TM)s.

    15. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kafkatrap

    16. Re:Welcome to the future by Kjella · · Score: 1

      DNA evidence has more often been used to exonerate the innocent than to convict the guilty.

      It's used to convict the guilty all the time, you just don't see it because it completely shut down the "it wasn't me" defense when it totally was you. In fact before DNA profiling many cases would probably never get near a court room, because if the drunk/drugged/assaulted woman couldn't pick out the rapist from a line-up there wasn't really anything to go on. Now they all claim it was voluntary which DNA can't say anything about, but the goal posts moved. Same with a lot of other serious crime, before you had some crappy surveillance tape and fingerprints that could be trivially defeated with a ski mask and gloves if you had anything at all, now damn near everything the burglar/robber/assaulter/murderer touched can be used to identify them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >"It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence."

      Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.

      I think there's no problem with someone having drank a lot in college. However, what I saw during the Senate hearing was a belligerent guy who did not know his place and was an asshole and a liar to the people who were about to decide his nomination. To be honest, if politics wasn't as polarized as it is in the US, this guy should have never been accepted. But, as it is, the Republicans will say yes to anything their side proposes and no to anything the Democrats offer (and vice versa). So, a guy who lied about what he did in college ended up being accepted to the Supreme Court. Madness...

    18. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not meaningless.

      You wouldn't search people if you weren't thinking you might come up with something. Simple fact. You're looking for anything, everywhere. Everyone is a potential hit. You're suspecting everyone.

    19. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice fearmongering, Ivan. Don't kill/rape/offend anyone and you have nothing to worry about.

      Right.

      Unless you consider that planting DNA at a crime scene is easy as swiping a hair/tooth brush, or combing through your trash for kleenex and toothpicks.

      It's considerably worse than that.

      Your DNA might end up on the scene of a crime as easily as either the perp or the victim using the same seat on any form of public transportation as you have used earlier, or simply passing them on the street.

      And that's ignoring the entire issue of errors in the lab, or simple probability. I don't remember the odds for getting a positive DNA-match off-hand for the wrong person, but it's not insignificant. Let's, for the sake of argument, say it's one in a million. Now, how many people are there in the US? If you have a probable match for 1 in a million, how many perps does that give you? Add to that the number of people who come from abroad who might have been at the scene.

      Add to this the tendency to consider DNA as the final and ultimate evidence, or even proof. Suddenly you're in the position where you have to refute the "evidence", i.e you're guilty until proven otherwise.

      Having to prove a negative is always very, very difficult, but it's particularly insidious in this situation. Not only do you have to prove a negative, you're also facing an uphill struggle in that everyone is already convinced in your guilt - heck, they even want you to be guilty, they have their "evidence" and they want things over with. To make things even worse you have to fight something concrete like "your DNA was found on the scene" with abstract concepts like probability, unless you can't positively absolutely prove that you're innocent, like "I wasn't borne when this person was murdered".

      I have no doubts about this being an excellent method for getting more people sentenced... but sentenced doesn't mean necessarily mean guilty, which is a huge problem.

    20. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNA evidence has more often been used to exonerate the innocent than to convict the guilty.

      It's used to convict the guilty all the time, you just don't see it because it completely shut down the "it wasn't me" defense when it totally was you. In fact before DNA profiling many cases would probably never get near a court room, because if the drunk/drugged/assaulted woman couldn't pick out the rapist from a line-up there wasn't really anything to go on. Now they all claim it was voluntary which DNA can't say anything about, but the goal posts moved. Same with a lot of other serious crime, before you had some crappy surveillance tape and fingerprints that could be trivially defeated with a ski mask and gloves if you had anything at all, now damn near everything the burglar/robber/assaulter/murderer touched can be used to identify them.

      now damn near everything the people touch can be used to frame them.

    21. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nice thing about DNA databases is that they are completely unbiased.

      If you don't want to be found guilty of anything, then never have your DNA tested for anything. Pretty sure insurance companies are going to require DNA to establish risk vectors so that those that are related to people who have been in accidents, insurance fraud, died from preventable diseases, etc are grouped into higher risk pools, thus pretty much everyone ends up in the high risk pool if anyone in your family has ever DUI'd.

      The legalization of weed is also going to create a fantastic dsytopia scenario where your weed smoking siblings fuck over your risk score.

      At any rate, all I'm saying is that sooner rather than later, DNA databases will be used against us in ways they were not designed to be, and aren't accurate enough for. Like I'm sure if you could find sociopathy in DNA every single person with it would be put into the maximum risk pool, because these people are equally capable of mass murder as they are of a political leadership career. Thus we get into "pre-crime".

      DNA databases has it's uses, but let's not pretend that we know enough about how DNA works yet. All that we really know are SNP's (which are not entire DNA sequences, just the "starting markers") from AncestryDNA and 23andMe, and what they choose to look for is a very small set of SNP's that are different in everyone, and thus the overall "western european" nature of the databases, since they both originated in the very-white parts of the US (Ancestry.com seed data was part of the LDS (Mormons) research, cause you know... they do wacky things to dead people) and 23andMe data is much larger, but both are still really only looking at "white" western european datasets. If you happen to be Jewish, Russian or Japanese, you end up in these very vague data sets of "eastern european", "Asian" (sometimes "east asian" or "south asian") and no smaller breakdown. Where as if you have any English in you, you likely have some Norwegian via Norse raiders, and if you have any Irish in you, you're related to nearly every Irish person via one Irish king.

      So that's the trouble with DNA databases. They're better for determining the relationship between you and a living, or recently deceased relative than they are determining "what" you are. It's basically a great way to find all your illegitimate children, or if you're a sperm/egg donor, any children you in fact have once they become adults.

    22. Re:Welcome to the future by fropenn · · Score: 2

      How is his career stained, exactly? He's a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't go up from there. Sure, he had to sit through interrogation and a couple of weeks of intense media scrutiny, but in the end, he got what he wanted. Cry me a river.

      Meanwhile, Dr. Ford, the accuser, got nothing out of the experience other than a chance to confront her (alleged) attacker.


      Remember, Gorsuch got through with hardly any drama, so this can't just be about politics.

      Lesson 1: Don't drink so much you can't remember what happened.
      Lesson 2: If someone sexually assaults you, pursue it immediately and to the fullest extent possible because, some time later, that person could be a candidate for Supreme Court at which point politics will rule the day and not justice.

    23. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, poor Brett.
      His name is so smeared that he will never work another job than the one he has now.

    24. Re: Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you communist / wannabe authority. It's self defense.

    25. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect you don't know the definition of "corroborating evidence". What it means is "evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence".

      Kavanaugh claims that he didn't know Ford because they ran in different social circles. However Ford puts Kavanaugh in a house with his best friend from high school (Judge) and his football teammate (Smyth). That's corroborating evidence.

      Kavanaugh claims that he never went to an event Ford described because he didn't drink on weekdays because they worked and his meticulous calendar doesn't have an event like described on a weekend. However Judge wrote a book about drinking in high school and mentions how he frequently went to work drunk or hungover. That's corroborating evidence. The calendar entry for July 1, 1982 puts Kavanaugh at the house of "Squi" (a guy Ford once dated) with Smyth, Judge, and others, for drinking. That's corroborating evidence.

      Ford claims she saw Judge working at a grocery store 6-8 weeks after the event. Judge's book says he worked at a grocery store in late August, which is 6-8 weeks after July 1. That's corroborating evidence.

      Ford claims, essentially, that Kavanaugh and Judge drank too much and misbehaved. Judge wrote a book about drinking too much and misbehaving in high school, which is corroborating evidence. Kavanauh claims he didn't drink too much and misbehave. Tons of friends and acquaintences from that time have come forward to say that he did drink too much and misbehaved when he did so. That's corroborating evidence.

      So not only is there plenty of corroborating evidence of Ford's claims, but there's no evidence to corroborate Kavanaugh's claims. I mean, just the one entry (on the calendar he introduced as exculpatory evidence!) for July 1 puts him drinking on a Thursday night at the house of a guy Ford dated, thus refuting both his claim that he didn't drink on weekdays and that he wasn't in the same social circle as her!

      dom

    26. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out.

      Why ask? We all know how it ended: He became a Justice of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether or not the allegations are false OR true.

    27. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. A proper investigation wasn't done on what you're talking about. He *DID* however testify under oath to the Senate that he's a petty, whiny, crybaby that can't wait to start being the bully . . .

    28. Re:Welcome to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough corroborating statements, enough consistencies in the statements & documentation from the time, his obvious side-stepping of questions whose answers would have damned him, and his obvious, blatant lies make it highly probable that he did exactly what he's accused of.

      Not only a kafkatrap, but you're just flat-out lying. There were no corroborating statements, no consistency, and no documentation, no corroborating witnesses. Ford changed her story twice and could provide time, place, age nor any other corroborating evidence.

      I think you probably don't know what "corroborating" means. And no, it doesn't mean hearsay or innuendo.

      So, [citation needed], obvious AC troll.

    29. Re:Welcome to the future by necro81 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence.

      Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.

      Considering he now has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I'd say it worked out pretty well. You sound like the President: oh woe is Kavanaugh, you poor thing! He is now (if he wasn't already) is a fine position to not give two shits about what other people think about him. I think he'll be just fine.

      And you're right: he wasn't convicted of anything. On the other hand, he wasn't undergoing a criminal trial, facing jail time or other harsh penalties. He was being considered for a very, very important job that, ultimately, stems from the trust the American people put in the Court. Untold number of people have been denied jobs (even, or especially, high-profile jobs) for far, far less than a single person's sworn testimony.

  3. Investigate Police First? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    Well, it seems those really hard to solve crimes often involve corrupt law enforcers perhaps start the DNA search there ;D?

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Investigate Police First? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      What fun that must be for a new investigative team. They get the federal results and work hard to find kin locally.
      Using a limited city budget and hard work finally gets a name. In their own database.

      A computer reports to the person that police have looked up their name.
      Can the investigation be stopped? Will an arrest be made?
      That would make a good movie plot.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Investigate Police First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can the investigation be stopped? Will an arrest be made?

      Movies or TV? Indubitably. One bad egg would be identified and it would be clearly shown that nobody had the slightest clue of the devil in their midst.

      Reality? Many coworkers would have known. Many would have colluded and most would have actively turned a blind eye, making them part of the problem. When the bad eggs got identified, most of the people around them would realize that they would be implicated and face repercussions of their own, so deals would be made, charges would be quietly reduced or dropped and the targets of the investigation given incentive to move on or retire. Like the Catholic church has done forever with their paedos and molesters.

    3. Re:Investigate Police First? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I wonder why the police don't release a genetic profile of the DNA they find at crime scenes. Would the ancestry reports be too politically incorrect?

  4. This makes me nervous by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    given the nature of our justice system. Very few cases go all the way to trial. Most of the time the prosecutors can get a plea deal with the threat of long jail time (take a 20 year sentence instead of life since you know the jury's likely to convict).

    It doesn't help that juries are overly emotional. I've been on a jury where a women said, no joke, "We can't allow our personal feelings to sway our ruling and we need to get this guy off the streets". She didn't even pause for breath when she contradicted herself, which given her girth was impressive...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This makes me nervous by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      This also makes me nervous because 1) framing someone just got a lot easier and 2) my body closet is running out of space. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:This makes me nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) framing someone just got a lot easier

      I know you are joking, but they are talking about 'cold case'. If you framed someone, you would have done that a long time ago, and some even before DNA testing was known.

  5. I have always thought it was like facebook. by ls671 · · Score: 2

    I have always thought that submitting your information to those sites was kind of like submitting your information to sites like facebook and since I don't have a facebook account I won be using them either.

    Any information you make available at large on the Internet may be used, not only to catch serial killer but for other reasons as well. It may also be used by serial killers to target you!

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:I have always thought it was like facebook. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      I have always thought that submitting your information to those sites was kind of like submitting your information to sites like facebook

      It is in that "your information" also includes information on your relatives (and in FB's case, friends).

      and since I don't have a facebook account I won be using them either.

      Oh, you didn't know. Yeah, FB already is correlating everything they can on you, because they scanned your Mom's phone, and got your phone and email, and then correlated that to a phone number on someone else's phone (but with a different email), an amazon account, and so on.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I have always thought it was like facebook. by houghi · · Score: 2

      The issue here is that information that is put there by others (family members) will be knowledge about you as well. Extreme example. If your parents, your kids and your twin brother all give their DNS and you do not, they can still track you down because of it after they found your DNA on a crime scene.

      Even if they know you did not do it and they do not even investigate you any further, you are now in the database.

      It seems that Ted Kaczynski was right about the erosion of human freedom and dignity by modern technologies that require large-scale organization. (Does not mean that how he reacted was ok.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. Results work both ways by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Kin who put in for a DNA test as a fun hobby are going to find a lot of interesting people.

    Undercover police who got into crime to keep a deep cover story. Who become corrupt.
    Police informants who expected city and state police never to question their crimes as their information was so vital.
    The use of military and special forces units to do police work. Wait for other nations to ask the USA for results.

    The smart people doing DNA work don't know about any police deals done.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Those databases should not be... by thedarb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those databases should not be available to law enforcement. We don't let law enforcement DNA test random or innocent people, why should they get access to these databases to go around the law?

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Those databases should not be... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Depends if a database was set up to be public and open to research.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Those databases should not be... by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      people voluntarily made their DNA public to the whole world, you are going to tell them they can't do that?

    3. Re:Those databases should not be... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      people voluntarily made their DNA public to the whole world, you are going to tell them they can't do that?

      I submitted my DNA to 23andMe. I clicked on fully public. Maybe I will link up with a 2nd cousin I didn't know. Maybe I will help catch a killer. Maybe my insurance company will peek at my info, see I am very healthy, and give me a loyalty discount. What have i got to lose?

    4. Re:Those databases should not be... by thedarb · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying law enforcement should be allowed to use it, public or not. A relatives consent doesn't mean the rest of the family consents, and certainly not for the case of law enforcement.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Those databases should not be... by thedarb · · Score: 1

      The accuracy of DNS evidence has been called into question enough that it should concern you. You might get fingered for a murder your uncle or other relative committed.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    6. Re:Those databases should not be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah bullshit. This type of DNA tracing doesn't provide enough info to convict anyone, it does however provide investigators with the ability to narrow the field of potential perps.

    7. Re:Those databases should not be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soooo you are suggesting if I want to give my DNA to the authorities I now need to get approval of every family member, cousin, relation etc etc across the world just in case I am implicating them in a crime. How about you fuck off and stop leaving your DNA at crime scenes instead, I am not asking anyones permission for what I do with my personal information.

    8. Re:Those databases should not be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...don't let law enforcement DNA test random or innocent people ...

      A schoolgirl was raped in France so police demanded to DNA test all males in the school. The school agreed. Even students decided catching the criminal was more important than maintaining (genetic) privacy: Mostly because students assumed privacy would remain protected.

      Australian police have just been caught copying a genealogy database. People shouldn't trust their government; it's not going to admit it's changed procedure or broken the rules.

    9. Re:Those databases should not be... by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your insurance rates go up or you get DROPPED from insurance without knowing why. They don't have to inform you that new research shows you are 95% going to get cancer after 50.

      Some new HR service bans you from recommendations for jobs for their clients and they don't even know why you were not recommended for the job. But your DNA might match some lame AI pattern for people with criminal records! WRONG! I know you're thinking that is too stupid; well, if you think business uses actual proven science you are thinking too much. They can use voodoo in decision making as long as they don't disclose any details that can make them look racist or sexist in their practices.

    10. Re:Those databases should not be... by houghi · · Score: 0

      I make the smoke I exhale from a cigarette available to the whole world, but that is extremely limited in many places how I do that. Are you telling me I should be able to do that?

      The thing is that DNA is not only giving information about you. It gives information about your relatives as well. And yes, I am very well aware of the situation. This person is a relative of mine and she has open sourced her body and DNA. I even had to sign papers that allowed them to post the results after she had died, regardless of the fact that she had stated that that was to be done.

      And that was for actual scientific research,

      So yes, I am for it that you need to have consent from the people who are affected.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Those databases should not be... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      your relatives do not have the same genome you do, it is unique. The information about my genome rightfully belongs to me and I can make it public.

    12. Re:Those databases should not be... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      We don't let law enforcement DNA test random or innocent people, why should they get access to these databases to go around the law?

      We do if law enforcement can get ahold of some "abandoned" DNA and it has been that way for years.

      http://volokh.com/2011/10/06/c...

  8. Fork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    _fork_

  9. in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how light bulbs make it easier to see things in the dark.

  10. catch killers by plopez · · Score: 2

    or dissedents

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  11. it would be useful to submit some fake data by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    I'd think it would be useful to submit some fake data but I'm sure of the legality of it. Probably legal if you submitted someone else's DNA with their approval as your own but beyond that who knows and that would pretty much be a one time thing that doesn't scale. If you don't care about laws, well then, the sky is the limit.

  12. OLD AS FUCK NEWS!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF... This shit is old news!

  13. A recent case impicated the wrong person by Streetlight · · Score: 2

    If I remember correctly there was a case in the news recently when the DNA for a number of cases pointed to a single perpetrator. Turns out the DNA was from the forensic analyst who collected the DNA samples, contaminated them and found his or her own DNA. Doubtful the analyst was indicted but not sure what happened to the DNA of the actual perps.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  14. How its used by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

    The data itself could be very valuable - but it can also be badly misused.

    I remember when prosecutors claimed that DNA evidence only had a 1 in 6 trillion chance of being wrong. A statement that is wildly wrong for a great many reasons - not the least of which is that crime labs make mistakes far more often than that.

    Using genealogy databases that you could have a positive feedback of investigating a related group of people more often, resulting in more convictions, resulting in more investigations. Similar to the way bias can sneak into any justice system.

    Since in most cases I assume the suspects DNA would be tested - it may be possible to avoid the above failings, but I'm still uneasy about possible misuse.

  15. Words by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the germans have a word for scared shitless, yet simultaneously in awe and happiness at the karmatic overtones of this form of justice.

    --
    -
  16. Kevin Bacon did it by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Or maybe Paul Erds, whatever; the connections always leads back to one of them...

    --
    Nullius in verba
  17. Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not send your DNA data to anyone, never! No matter what they promise to you in exchange.

  18. In April.... by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    Didn't Slashdot report on this when it happened?

  19. It's a publicly available database by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    So it's virtually impossible to stop law enforcement without a separate law. What's happening is that people's relatives are putting their DNA in the database an then that's being used to narrow down the search for the culprits. In theory that's not so bad, but you're right that in practice there's a lot of room for abuse.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. Yes and no by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if you can use the threat of life in jail to get that ex-boyfriend to take a 5 year plea deal then sure, it works that way. Not sure about the rest of the country but in the South and South West there's a lot of racism still, so it's terrifyingly easy to get a conviction. Sure, if the guy is well off he'll have a lawyer that'll shut down the circumstantial evidence but, well, the South & South West aren't well known for their well to do minority communities...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. Zodiak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why haven't they used it to catch the Zodiak killer yet?

  22. Today Killers and Rapists by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Tomorrow political dissidents and scapegoats