Yeah. I never thought about this before this a.m., but at the moment I’m not sure how I feel about this. Anyone participating in this sort of sharing of genetic info could be potentially “outing” even somewhat extended relatives. If the guy had submitted the info himself, I would have no problem with it for whatever purposes.
Not just crimes, could be used to argue paternity/request child support. Or if one family member discloses some genetic info of potential health problems, could that be used by potential employers/insurers.
It’s one thing if you refuse a DNA test. But if your relatives are essentially giving a DNA sample for you, that makes me somewhat uncomfortable.
I think I’m leery of being profiled based on information (DNA in this case) provided by a relative. It’s not just the criminal factor. It’s all the other ways that a DNA profile of me could be used. Then add in the fact that it’s not actually MY DNA, but an extrapolation of my relatives DNA.
For those who state that the source of the IDed DNA wasn’t Ancestry or 23 and Me: The original article said that companies like those had denied they were the source of the DNA match. No specific company was named, plus I don’t totally believe “It wasn’t us” statements in a case like this.
As for what those companies ARE allowed to do?
From 23 and me privacy statement:
Info can be used to: “monitor and improve existing products or services that we offer or to develop new products and services”
That’s rather open ended. Maybe working with the police or insurance companies is their new service.
“By agreeing to our Privacy Statement and Terms of Service, you consent to the storing and processing of your personal information, including sensitive information, in the USA and countries outside of the country you live in. We use a range of measures to safeguard information but these countries may have laws that are different from those of your country of residence.”
Who knows what laws really apply to your data. We’re storing it - someplace.
It has a relatively small database compared to Ancestry, the biggest in the business with 6 million profiles, and it allows people to identify with pseudonyms, which more people will likely do now. So a little easier, but it’s not like they just get the suspects names, they get a bunch of potential relatives of the DNA and then have to figure out who of their name relatives that DNA could belong to, with a certainty high enough to get a warrant for a DNA sample from the suspect.
I’ll have nothing to hide when everyone else agrees to legislate according to my moral code.
Because lots of people believe all kinds of crazy shit about what should and shouldn’t be legal. Some of those crazy beliefs are currently law. Some of them have been law in the past. Some of them will likely be law in the future.
My main trouble with it is there is no control for the data integrity or for chain of custody. There is nothing verifying that your sample wasn’t swapped, lost and replaced, or sneezed on by a lab tech. Being a for-profit business, I guarantee that an intern has dropped a rack of tubes on the floor and, instead of processing refunds or disclosing the incident, they self-swabbed random coworkers to save the money.
And yet that hasn’t happened to anyone with the wherewithal to prove it. All you need is a parent or child having also tested and you have a powerful reason to research any and all possible reason for the mismatch.
Also, why self swab random coworkers when you can just tell the customer “your sample failed for some reason, we’re sending you a new kit”. Which is a thing that happens. Possibly for the reason you mention.
I would love to see how you guarantee such a thing. You think for the price of a few thousand dollars any of the higher end companies (Ancestry, 23 and me, etc) would risk something like that when if it gets out it would cost them potentially millions…or, maybe their entire business? :dubious:
I see your point here, but I would hope that the information from these sites would never be considered very good evidence by itself. In this case, the cops seem to have treated it as a kind of lead, which they followed up on by getting the suspect’s DNA from something he discarded. I think if the cops view this data as akin to something like anonymous tips, which might be helpful or might be nonsense, and follow up with more solid evidence, then the data integrity and chain of custody is not a major issue. IMO, of course. IANAL, IANACop…
DNA is potentially more powerful as an exculpatory tool than as an incriminating one. If law enforcement is going to have access to this kind of evidence, I’d want extra safeguards to be created and existing ones enhanced:
A prosecuting attorney who deliberately fails to disclose exculpatory DNA evidence to the defense invites having the conviction voided on that basis alone and facing sanctions and potential disbarment.
A convicted person willing to pay (or who has donors willing to pay) to have evidence DNA-tested should receive the cooperation of prosecutors, or at least require them to argue before a judge to the judge’s satisfaction that such cooperation is impractical for some particular reason.
Strengthen factual innocence procedures, particularly for exonerated convicts who have wrongly served prison time, making it easier for wrongful convictions to be voided.
I’m sure I can think of more, the gist being that it’s not only a tool for identifying the guilty but clearing the innocent and the interests of justice require both be given consideration.
There is a simple way to fix this–allow the police to solve the crimes, but then ask the criminal if they believe what they did was morally wrong. If they say “nope”, then the police have to let them go.
That’s far from worst case. How about something like,
I see you have gene 1123155A5, which the latest trendy pop science story reported (based on a small study that the reporter didn’t understand well) that people with it were 5% more likely to [steal office supplies/be a pathological liar/go prematurely bald] so I will decide not to [hire / elect / date] you.
Yes, but we have far too many cases where they have not and I feel the penalties are not nearly severe enough, especially when powerful evidentiary tool like DNA is in play.
Probably dead now, but didn’t the Zodiac send letters, which would have his DNA on stamps that he would have probably licked? Was wondering if it could also identify his sorry butt. Seems like they would have already been on this if that was the case though.