Ambivalent. While I sort of like the idea of a dna database so the police just do a search, I also realize that there are a number of ways for me to have left dna at what could be a crime scene and been innocent of the crime ranging from leaving hair, if I spit or drooled or used a cup that didn’t get washed to back when I was menstruating blood samples. Hell, i had a learning curve incident with a diva cup at a friends house that left a scene reminiscent of an axe murder
+1
I understand the privacy and the slippery slope. But we’re talking serious crime here. I’m OK with the balance on this.
Forensics people fuck up fairly often.
I used to work for that company (I left before the fuck up) they relied on fresh graduates and young contractors to keep costs down, freezers constantly broke and samples (with labels unsuitable for -80c temps) got mixed up.
I doubt that these ancestry companies are working to forensic or clinical standards
Also, a lot of crime scene samples are fairly poor quality, you’ll often get fragmented, partial or contaminated samples, comparing that to a database rather than a sample from a suspect is going to get you a shed load of false positives.
Now consider how little regular folk know about DNA evidence and that it’s portrayed as infallible on TV crime shows and you can see there’s huge potential for miscarriages of justice if this becomes more commonly done.
There’s a wide difference between having an open database to all comers and being responsive to warrants.
If the following things are true, then I’m not bothered:
- There is an official legal standard for what counts as a DNA match.
- 23 and me accepts warrants for DNA searches and returns anything matching the DNA sample which was provided, using the legal standard.
What “Brave New World”? The data was open to the public. Yes, you are over-worrying.
Number 1 isn’t true unless things have changed a lot in the past few years. Forensics companies have a few court people who go in and give the same spiel about 1 in a billion matches every time, then the jury weighs his evidence it’s very much in their interest to make DNA evidence look better than it is.
What are the real numbers, Delicious?
When comparing a suspect with a crime scene samples (assuming a good sample) the 1 in a billion claim is fairly solid.
One problem comes from sample degradation, once you start losing test loci, your probabilities start dropping fast, again if you’re testing against one or two suspects, it’s pretty compelling evidence.
Say you lose a few loci in each sample (fairly standard with crime scene samples) you’re down to 1 in 10 million say…still sounds good but if you start trawling a million member database for each sample, you’ll have a false positive every 10 searches.
That’s assuming good work on both the database and crime scene lab sides…I may have worked in a particularly crappy lab but I’ve read enough stories about forensic lab mix ups that I don’t think it’s an outlier.
Then there’s lots of ways your DNA can innocently be on someone else; dandruff, coughing, stray hairs.
DNA is really good to confirm the results of a proper investigation, otherwise it’s problematic.
Since it’s GD, here are some cites:
Fairly old paper about false positive probabilities in forensic DNA evidence (some maths, mostly the false positive fallacy) (pdf):
How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence.
New (but admittedly fairly small) study showing problems with consumer DNA testing:
Straight Dope thread where several posters believe consumer tests over their family history:
So, my Ancestry DNA results are in…
Forensic lab screwup with bonus coverup:
SFPD Concealed DNA Sample Switch at Crime Lab
It’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine, I’ve wasted months on internal audits trying to fix the mistakes of half trained teenagers making pretty much minimum wage (and giving as many shits as that wage implies).
Well, that’s all well and good until the “doing wrong” part includes “having Jewish ancestors”. Which has happened in the past, and time is like a flat circle.
That being said, ISTM that those open DNA databases are all voluntary, right ? Which merely raises the main problem people have grokking in this generation : if it’s on the internet, it will last forever. It’s also public information.
So don’t put your dick on it. Metaphorically or no.
We’ll I’m good then.
They didn’t take the GSK straight from the DNA test to the gallows. It seems as if the DNA test is one part (one important part of the overall case but not the only part. Seems like the system is working.
I think the issue is that if your brother puts his information out there, it’s your information too. But I still don’t have any problem with using such information to start an investigation. Some innocent people might be investigated, but that’s always true.
If there’s a huge shift in how police operate, this might be ok.
Imagine the police break down your door and drag you out in the middle of the night, they say they have proof that you punched the president’s goat. They show you a fancy looking document saying your DNA matches that found on the scene, 1 in 10 million chance that it’s someone else…any jury would convict you and Dodgy Steve is willing to testify against you.
Are you sure you won’t take a plea bargain or get screwed by a jury?
This isn’t a slippery slope argument, this has literally already happened, DNA database dragnets are only going to get more common until they target a rich person who can get really good lawyering done.
Guess the folks at 23 & ME don’t have the tools or the high-tech gurus other places have.
Just seen a segment on CBS evening news a few minutes ago which said they are doing just that, extracting saliva from stamps that they think the Zodiac killer would have licked. They then plan on using the very data base that got the Golden Gate killer.
“Hey, Sally.”
“Yes, uncle Willie?”
“Don’t take that 23 & Me test.”
“Why not, Uncle Willie?”
“Uhhh…”
23andme and the other companies have a stream lined process to do as many kits as possible for as low a cost as possible. The genealogical matching services they offer also require high quality samples and they will reject the results from your saliva sample if they get above a certain threshold of “no-calls” from the analysis chip.
Extracting DNA from a polluted and probably degraded sample is a completely different ball game.
Bless your heart. 
The prosecution is supposed to share all the evidence. Only a fool believes it actually will. Prosecutors aim to WIN cases, they have no interest in justice. Never forget that.
As for OP:
sums up the heart of my reluctance to volunteer my DNA to a database. Admittedly, I know They already have my blueprints, or can easily get more should anyone find me interesting. But I see no reason to facilitate the construction of such a database.
Everything I’ve seen tells me that something like that can be used as often for good as for evil, but it will predominantly be used for evil because there is no profit in good.
In the criminal justice system, having the wherewithal to prove it is usually the problem. Considering that employees of state crime labs have been caught falsifying data, I do not have a huge level of confidence in the employees of privately owned labs.
Except, you probably didn’t give your finger prints voluntarily. You likely committed a crime, and were forced to give up your prints.
“You” being the universal “you”, of course.
I do have a problem with this if it wasn’t in the fine print ahead of time. That the cops could use your DNA, that you gave voluntarily to a third party, against you.
Fingerprints are also fallible with partial prints being the most commonly found at crime scenes.
Not really my field though