One of the Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working with the FBI

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/family-tree-dna-fbi-investigative-genealogy-privacy

by chollida1 • 7 years ago

677 303 7 years ago

odorousrex• 7 years ago

I really can't tell if we are headed towards a "1984" dystopia, a "Brave New World" dystopia, a Black Mirror "Nosedive" dystopia, or now a "GATTACA" dystopia.

It seems like we're headed to a horrible hybrid combination of all of the above.

vincnetas• 7 years ago

I would bet for "brave new world", because there's plenty of places ("islands") to leave a modern society and live your life without google, DNA tests, antibiotics or anything else.

eclipxe• 7 years ago

Just going to throw antibiotics in there...lol

analognoise• 7 years ago

No antibiotics? I guess if you don't want to live long.

admiralEyebrows• 7 years ago

Sure you could live your life with the perception that you're not participating in those features of modern society, but that won't stop those same "features" from acting on you. Or do you think Google will stop prying and respect your "Right to be Forgotten" when you recede into the jungle?

eaandkw• 7 years ago

Well I think the government sells us fear aka-1984 and the tech world sells us pleasure aka-Fahrenheit 451.

Really it’s just two sides of the same coin. And that coin is control.

metamet• 7 years ago

But we get cool stuff like Seashell Radios--err, Airpods!

I love putting my dystopian hat on, because I think it offers a convenient and critical lens to look at daily life through...

I'd say the coin is a little more subtle than overt control, too. It's breeding passivity through comfort and entertainment, through the facade of individual power.

Same thing they talked about in the Federalist Papers. Give some poor people a bit of land and they're no longer part of the poor class. Do that, the wealth in control gets a buffer from the masses. You create a class that will fight for you, because it means they get to keep their acre.

Same thing we see now. A passively entertained populace has no reason to revolt. So just keep giving them small luxuries and distractions.

dymk2• 7 years ago

I don't mean this in a seriously snarky tone, but: What you're saying has been said by every generation which experienced great leaps in technology.

Why is this wave of technology, one less transformative than the invention of the printing press or transistor or nuclear bombs (none of which lead to ruin), going to be the one that leads to a dystopia?

awakeasleep• 7 years ago

I think you bring up an interesting point. For those of us who are employed in the darling industry of our time, in the most liberal societies, who manage our money well, and are not related to anyone undesirable, this will not be a dystopia, it'll be paradise!

fcarraldo2• 7 years ago

There is still plenty of time to for the invention of the transistor or the nuclear bomb to lead to ruin.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC• 7 years ago

Was something different said by generations which prevented great leaps in technology?

Was the way in which the great leaps in technology happened unaffected by what those generations said?

How do you know that every other wave of technology wouldn't have led to dystopis if noone had said anything about it?

pixl97• 7 years ago

Books didn't keep track of you. A few transistors couldn't come close to approximate thinking. Nuclear bombs were a weapon of the last resort and may only end humanity, not enslave them.

But now our technology is becoming an approximation of the human mind. Our sensors are ever present, there is not even the illusion of privacy. Our algorithms get better everyday on predicting who you are and what you want, just by the friends you keep.

hprotagonist• 7 years ago

Snow Crash, obviously.

(it really is kind of the most ... human ... and thus most likely )

buboard4• 7 years ago

All of the above? Technology is a nondiscriminatory enabler

js2• 7 years ago

It's the Brazil dystopia that seems most likely to me, and about which I worry about the government having access to DNA.

djsumdog4• 7 years ago

Not everything about Brave New World was bad. The modern polyamorous movement would love the "Everyone belongs to everyone" concept as a way to deal with loneliness. [some spoilers ahead] Sure creativity is reduced, but they've also reduced war and conflict. People who learn to think for themselves aren't executed, they're sent to an island with other thinkers (although the general population is led to believe this island is terrible and a punishment). The classic way of life is preserved .. although at the expense of those people who are sorta in their own little zoo.

Brave New World is more a mixed bag than an absolute hell.

mimixco• 7 years ago

All of the at-home DNA testing companies include this in their license agreements, including the ability to use your DNA in case any of your relatives might be accused of a crime.

This is one case in which you definitely want to read the license before you sign up... then throw that test tube in the trash!

jstarfish• 7 years ago

It doesn't really matter what you do personally. If any of your relatives submit their DNA, you're compromised just the same.

trhway• 7 years ago

yep, your DNA spread around the relatives ( whom you may not even know about) is just like a BitTorrented movie - there is no way to put genie back. Even worse than that - at least in the movie case the studio does have legal rights to their movie while you have no rights wrt. the pieces of DNA of your relatives matching your DNA.

pkaye• 7 years ago

What if the relatives are okay with their DNA being used?

rabboRubble• 7 years ago

I know I'm not a serial rapist &/or murderer.

I hope my family members are not. The question is: what do I value more? A society without serial rapist killers or my family? I guess I prefer a society without that sort of nonsense, so even if my DNA is used to ensnare a relative, and they were doing horrible stuff, I'd be heartbroken that a family member had gone so astray but grateful they were unable to hurt anybody else.

See the investigative work using shirttail relative DNA to isolate the Golden State Killer.

That said, do I want law enforcement to have willy nilly access to DNA to, for example, chase down littering? No, IMO that is an inappropriate level of intrusion for the societal problem. Do I trust government to exercise good sense with these tools? I fear not so much. But I guess we will get used to the intrusions just as we have become accustom to the gov hoovering up all our communications metadata to find terrorists.

whatshisface• 7 years ago

The question is: what do I value more? A society without serial rapist killers or my family?

I would got for option three, a society without false positives, and especially not a false positive because someone's naive uncle involuntarily submitted the entire family for testing.

matwood2• 7 years ago

A society without serial rapist killers or my family?

That's the 'think of the children' argument. If that is the choice then why not full GPS surveillance or always on video cameras? The problem is that the DNA test is not 100% and will end up snaring a bunch of innocent people in a dragnet.

cellularmitosis2• 7 years ago

Speaking of "throw that test tube in the trash", I'll share my anecdote:

One of the DNA testing companies was offering a free test for folks who suffer from things like autoimmune disorders (which I do). I signed up, got the kit, filled out the survey which asks a bunch of specific questions about which particular medical condition you have, etc. I set the box aside, planning to take it to work and drop it off in outgoing mail the next day.

Well, _literally the next morning_ my youtube account was suddenly showing ads for medication for my particular condition.

They didn't even wait to receive my DNA before selling me out! Threw that test tube in the trash faster than you can say "scumbag"!

owlninja• 7 years ago

I find it a little hard to believe this was just because of the survey...

icelancer• 7 years ago

This is the kind of thing that makes people not believe in the OP's story, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

It's called cookie and fragment tracking across the Internet. That's what happened to you. You sold yourself out by browsing the web without sufficient content blockers.

wonderwonder2• 7 years ago

I am torn on this, as on the one hand it does violate privacy to a very large degree and provide massive power to the government. Things I am very much against.

On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits as opposed to the contents of their mind such as forcing someone to unlock a phone which I am very against.

Assuming DNA technology is advanced enough to provide few false positives (which I am not sure it is) and prosecution is based on additional concrete evidence as well I think I am fine with this. I am not ok with this being accepted as all that is needed to bring charges but as a means to narrow the suspect pool.

If the company did not disclose this in massive font to potential customers ahead of time, then I do think this company should very quickly go out of business.

The slippery slope though is a near Gattaca situation where now law enforcement and government can screen people for genetics flaws and make hiring decisions etc. based on them. Private companies should absolutely have no access to this data unless it is for scientific research and highly anonymized and customers have agreed to allow it.

kokokokoko• 7 years ago

I think if anything it points to the fallacy that not allowing the government to collect this type of data, but allowing corporations to collect it, ends up with the same result as allowing the government to collect this data itself. All we've really accomplished is making things cheaper for the government as the private sector is footing the bill for collection and storage.

ianai• 7 years ago

Put differently,corporations exist to put prices on things. Corporations are clearly minting products from peoples DNA samples. They probably can’t deny sales to governments.

23487t398o• 7 years ago

potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits

Western civilization requires warrants supported by probable cause, because history has proved the hard way that those are not the kind of people the state would be identifying if left to its own devices.

shostack• 7 years ago

Forgot to add "for now."

The risk with this sort of thing is you never know which way the political winds will blow.

Case in point, I thought we progressed to the point where concentration camps were inconceivable in America given our past history with them nationally and internationally. And yet here we are.

bayouborne• 7 years ago

re: "..essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits"

Perhaps today at 3:00 EST it may helping law enforcement identify violent criminals, but tomorrow it may be helping other gov't entities directly (or indirectly via familial) identify individuals for any reason at all.

twoquestions• 7 years ago

`law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals`

Go ahead and replace "law enforcement" with political group you don't like, and "violent criminals" for a group you do.

emiliobumachar• 7 years ago

I don't get it. What political groups rely heavily on not being identified? Most political groups have leaders whose identity is public knowledge.

RcouF1uZ4gsC2• 7 years ago

With regards to political groups, what would DNA tell you that their Facebook profile and network wouldn't?

ehsankia2• 7 years ago

Giving data to the FBI, and giving data to any random political group are very very different things. This straw man can probably be seen from space.

OldSchoolJohnny• 7 years ago

This part is concerning though:

"Under the arrangement, the company has also agreed to test DNA evidence for the FBI in its private laboratory."

I hope the FBI will corroborate whatever results the private company comes up with later and just use the data to narrow down the suspects.

Jach• 7 years ago

That's likely how it will play out, DNA evidence is a lot shakier these days since it's better known that DNA can go places the owner has never been. The transition point where juries don't know that though will be a bit scary, no one wants to be falsely implicated (like [0]) because they touched a handle on a bus and later the actual criminal touched it too.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/

lozaning• 7 years ago

Im sure they can just send the samples to Target for double checking like they've done for years.

https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-c...

ribosometronome2• 7 years ago

If the company did not disclose this in massive font to potential customers ahead of time, then I do think this company should very quickly go out of business.

Disclose what? The point of most of these services is that you are adding yourself to a searchable database where you can find relations. The FBI seems to be using the service for the explicit reason it exists.

I'm very uncomfortable with the thought that one of these services could hand over specific DNA information to groups that could be used to profile you (employers, insurance, etc) but this use case really shouldn't come as surprising. It seems like complaining that the FBI found you by searching for your name on Facebook.

shawnz2• 7 years ago

23andMe, for example, only shows your information to people that it identifies as being related to you (typically ~1000 people). And that's only if you have open sharing turned on -- otherwise they need to send you a request. That's quite different from just sharing your information with anyone who searches for it.

tomsthumb2• 7 years ago

There’s a meaningful difference between the government getting a warrant to look for a specific person’s DNA and searching everyone’s DNA to see if it’s a match. Why should the government get to digitally “stop and frisk” three hundred thousand people because they have a hair sample from a murder scene?

EliRivers3• 7 years ago

It also makes it possible to screen for people with various ancestries. In the future, it will be easier to identify the target du jour for rounding up.

shkkmo• 7 years ago

On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits as opposed to the contents of their mind such as forcing someone to unlock a phone which I am very against.

That is far from all it does. We have had massive historic and ongoing issues with the correct presentation and interpretation of forensic evidence by experts. There are a number of potential issues that can arise, but the deepest issue is a gradual shifting of the burden of proof onto defendants.

"Perhaps the greatest concern in all this debate, has been the subtle shift in the burden of proof resulting from misunderstanding or misuse of streamlined DNA profile match reports; with assumptions made and inferences asserted that a DNA match could only have resulted from the allegations, unless or until a defendant can demonstrate otherwise."

https://keithborer.co.uk/news/dna-profile-matches-their-use-...

WalterBright• 7 years ago

Let's say the government was able to perfectly connect every person who commits a crime with that crime.

Combine that against the reality that everyone commits 3 felonies a day.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438...

That's the perfect tool for oppression. Do you really want the government to be too good at solving crimes?

koolba• 7 years ago

Don’t forget to mention selective enforcement. That’s the real key to “monetizing” the pantopicon.

patejam• 7 years ago

3 felonies a day is a lie. The fact that there's a book with that title doesn't mean it's reality.

Your point is a decent one, no need to exaggerate.

lupire2• 7 years ago

The FBI is never going to arrest people for the felony of improper paperwork on their crawfish fishing business based on their DNA.

laken• 7 years ago

The problem with using DNA to identify someone in crime is that we leave DNA everywhere. See this case for example: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/

tbyehl• 7 years ago

Came here to mention that same article. The more important point, to my view, is that the DNA we shed doesn't necessarily stay put.

DNA transference, law enforcement access to large DNA databases, familial matching, and advances in extracting DNA from trace samples make for a scary combination. Lukis Anderson was damned lucky that the person who inadvertently transferred his DNA to a crime scene could be identified.

kenjackson2• 7 years ago

It's evidence. I can point you to tons of cases of eye witnesses providing faulty testimony (in good faith, not to mention those who lie).

Is there an oracle that will tell you who committed the crime? No. But it seems odd to be OK with some forms of evidence that are even more unreliable than this, if your issue is about reliability.

dgzl• 7 years ago

On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify

People who support government's ability to violate our rights always seem to think that the government will never use it in bad faith... And then they act surprised when their rights are gone.

matwood2• 7 years ago

Assuming DNA technology is advanced enough to provide few false positives (which I am not sure it is) and prosecution is based on additional concrete evidence as well I think I am fine with this.

The problem is that we have learned that so much forensic science is just flat out not scientific. DNA has many issues depending on the type of matching done and the samples gathered. It's scary that DNA has become such a slam dunk in cases, because it makes framing someone for a crime incredibly easy.

gus_massa• 7 years ago

Just to be more clear, the problem is that if they don't find a perfect match (that ensures a low number of false positives) then they will try a partial match, and if I]that fails a somewhat match, but then the expert will claim that there is still a very low probability of false positives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Issues_with_fore...

avip• 7 years ago

I'd happily put my DNA on public record if it promotes scientific research. I honestly don't understand the privacy concerns here for the lawful citizen.

EliRivers3• 7 years ago

Place; Amsterdam. Date; 27th of March, 1943. Objective; destroy the records identifying the 70000 Jewish people living in Amsterdam.

They were lawful citizens too. The law was to identify them and ship them out. Do you understand their privacy concerns?

Can you promise that this won't happen again? Can you assure us that no future group will use the records for this sort of thing? I believe it will happen again. I believe it can happen here. I'm not keen on making it easier for them.

mrhappyunhappy2• 7 years ago

Problem is private companies do and will have access to this data and will one day do the worst imaginable thing we don’t want them doing.

There is really no way forward with this. Even is legally limited to law enforcement, the data will get hacked, leaked, abused. It’s just a matter of time.

InclinedPlane• 7 years ago

Question: would policing in the US be easier without the 4th amendment? Would it matter if the answer was yes?

downrightmike• 7 years ago

"can screen people for genetics flaws and make hiring decisions etc. based on them" Don't worry, by time we can accurately do this screening, the large push to automation will have already rendered most people unemployable.

resters• 7 years ago

This is a major violation of trust.

LinuxBender3• 7 years ago

The term "At Home" is very disingenuous. Spitting in a tube at home and then mailing your DNA to a lab is not At Home. A proper at-home test would be a kit that allows you to decode your DNA at home without a single strand DNA or byte of data landing on a system that does not belong to you.

colordrops2• 7 years ago

How long until this is feasible? I've heard of DNA sequencing machines for $2k, but are not easy or reliable.

pbnjay• 7 years ago

The MinION is approaching this but you need really good prep work to get reliable results.

LinuxBender3• 7 years ago

I would gladly pay $2k to keep my data at home. To me, that is much cheaper than what it would cost to remove genetic data from multiple corporations and governments, if that is even feasible.

Varcht• 7 years ago

I think you guys are onto something. At $100 a pop, my family, just counting out to first cousins, could buy a pretty nice sequencer.

lipman2• 7 years ago

The analysis of your sequence is key. While there are some open source resources (hard for non-experts to use), the big consumer testing companies far and away have better analytical tools.

rootusrootus2• 7 years ago

It wasn't that long ago that sequencing a single genome was several billion dollars. I bet it won't be that many more years until we will have home sequencing machines. Probably we'll chuckle at how we ever thought it was so complicated.

make32• 7 years ago

and then you have the genes, but zero algorithm to analyse them. feels unlikely that any company would rent offline copies of their analysis solutions, but you never know

skellera• 7 years ago

Are the services that ancestry and ‘23 and me’ do provided at a loss and made up with the data or is it profitable?

Why aren’t there companies out there doing this at a higher cost without the privacy implications? Just give the user their data and decoding software that is regularly updated with current information.

Seems like low end machines are about $100,000 so it seems like this would work? I would pay 3-4 times as much if I knew I controlled the results.

ehsankia2• 7 years ago

Where are the privacy implications, most of these privacy "breaches" are just opt-in features, which you don't have to sign up for.

Even this one, which is the most extreme by so far:

While the FBI does not have the ability to freely browse genetic profiles in the library

hugh4life• 7 years ago

I disagree with this. Over time GEDMatch will get enough samples for forensic purposes. I'd rather have an incentive program to get people to upload their data onto GEDMatch than to have the government work with the commercial companies.

keyme• 7 years ago

Of all "dystopian future" things that are now becoming a reality, this is IMHO the most disturbing.

There is nothing you can do about it as a privacy conscious person. Some random relative will give their DNA up at some point or another. Then you're fucked forever.

samstave• 7 years ago

A user in /r/conspiracy posted the other day their school is offering free dna tests:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/alwd5r/my_high_...

est312• 7 years ago

To my knowledge, in California, a genetic sample has to be recovered and stored of every baby born? The archive is run by the state government. So why do they not use this registry that they already have full control over, but the data from the DNA company?

cheeseomlit• 7 years ago

Had to look that up, can't believe it's true. California sounds like a horrifying place to live

paxys• 7 years ago

It is most definitely easier for the FBI to get data from a private company than from California.

refurb2• 7 years ago

I don’t believe that test does the same level of sequencing that 23andMe does.

It basically tests for a few dozen genetic diseases. Diseases where if it’s caught early, the child has a chance at curtailing the negative consequences of the disease (they don’t test for diseases with no treatments).

est312• 7 years ago

Indeed it doesn't do the same level of sequencing. But the specimen is not being thrown away after the test, but kept in an archive. In some states like California you can revoke consent at least.

See the list of states with how long they store the specimens here: https://www.cchfreedom.org/files/files/Newborn%20Retention%2...

Governments might use this archive to sequence the DNAs down the road and then use it similarly to how they are already using those private services. Prices of sequencing are sinking as we speak.

jcims• 7 years ago

I wonder if it's legal to leave the state to deliver your baby for the sole purpose of dodging the collection.

winston_smith2• 7 years ago

All 50 states have screening programs, so you'd have to go international. But you can refuse the test, and in fact the Mayo Clinic Labs have a test they can mail to your doctor that you can use instead: https://www.mayocliniclabs.com/test-info/newborn/index.html

Better plan it in advance though.

EGreg• 7 years ago

This is why I would want to send in other people’s DNA to be tested and they send in mine (like a bitcoin mixer).

weego• 7 years ago

It's bad but not unexpected, overreach is what these people do. Day to do though everyone should be far more scared of Insurance companies getting hold of their DNA test results.

astura3• 7 years ago

In the US GINA bans health insurance companies from using genetic data for determining premiums or eligibility.

If it were legal you wouldn't have to worry about insurance companies mining genetic databases, it wouldn't matter, they'd simply demand a DNA sample in order to be insured.

howard9412• 7 years ago

GINA's effective -- now. But what if it goes the way of the endangered preexisting condition exclusion? Parties are already chopping pieces of that latter protection away under the guise of short term policies.

buboard4• 7 years ago

a private firm has agreed to voluntarily allow law enforcement access to its database.

I mean, nothing says that it was voluntary. In any case this should not be surprising. Everyone who uses these services knows that they ll be fingerprinted. Hopefully, one day we'll have private, home sequencers.

ashelmire• 7 years ago

One step closer to Gattaca every day.

apo• 7 years ago

Few people taking theses tests understand or care about the privacy-destroying effect of what they're doing to themselves and their families.

For example, this is from the AncestryDNA (different company) terms of service:

By submitting User Provided Content to AncestryDNA, you grant AncestryDNA and the Ancestry Group Companies a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, sublicensable, transferable license to host, transfer, process, analyze, distribute, communicate, and display your submission for the purposes of providing Ancestry's products and services, conducting Ancestry’s research and product development, enhancing Ancestry’s user experience, and making and offering personalized products and services.

https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/dnaterms_2017_09_22_us?hid...

There's a feel-good statement elsewhere in the document about how the company won't disclose your info to third parties, but this grant of rights pretty much covers anything you'd want to do with a DNA sequence.

Privacy policies change, but grants of rights like this to a service like Ancestry are forever.

I imagine a future in which every casual DNA company has been hoovered into a single powerful corporation. All those rights granted by users will transfer to that new company. That company will be just as mean as Facebook (or Microsoft in its heyday), but 10x more powerful.

dayvid• 7 years ago

The biggest insult is that you're paying them money to violate your privacy.

Some links I've seen for DIY thermocycling [1] https://openpcr.org/ [2] https://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-PCR-thermal-cycler-...

Hope this becomes more of a thing. This is one of the fields where a non-cloud or decentralized solution is more desirable.

dangrossman• 7 years ago

and their families

That's how a local cold murder case was solved last year.

DNA from a 25-year-old crime scene was run against the samples in one of these genealogy databases, and they found a familial match. Police set up a sting to covertly collect DNA from that person's immediate family. They got their DNA match with a brother's water bottle police took from a trash can after he worked a DJ gig at a school.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/us/christy-mirack-slaying-upd...

The now-confessed killer was the DJ at my wedding. He never would have been caught if his brother hadn't done one of these genealogy tests. He wasn't even a suspect in the initial investigation.

telchar• 7 years ago

Indeed. Not that I plan on being involved in any such crimes (necessary disclaimer?) but a family member of mine submitted their DNA to one of these services. Now it's irrelevant whether I submit mine or not because it's as good as in there anyway. Feels real good having your rights signed away by someone else...

ptero• 7 years ago

Total surveillance or global DNA law enforcement database would solve many murders and prevent wrongful convictions. However, it would also give many opportunities for framing convenient suspects and "encouraging" confessions.

I am sure your case was above board but, being born in a totalitarian state, I do not trust law enforcement too much and prefer to err on the side of not solving some crimes. My 2c.

dacox• 7 years ago

They just solved the murder of a child near my house using a technique like this.

My understanding is they asked everyone they could find in a specific ethnic community if they would volunteer a sample for a kind of dna dragnet.

The killer was related to one of the many people sampled.

hinkley2• 7 years ago

That's wonderful if the crime is something clear-cut like murder. We can generally all agree that it is unethical and worthy of punishment.

What if it's something we can't quite agree on, or tyranny of the majority? Joe McCarthy happened once, and he didn't give a shit about ex post facto. Presuming someone like him will never come along again is a road to pain and suffering.

Spend ten minutes reading about what Crypto-Judaism is and why it is even a thing. Then look at abuse of power (I've known 2 people who have had LEOs as stalkers). A big part of warrant law is the premise that you don't give people information they don't need 'just because'. Very similar to the computing concept of Principle of Least Power. They prove they need it, you give it to them, but not a moment before, because who knows what they'll get up to.

_Codemonkeyism• 7 years ago

Now you can refuse to support prosecution against family, but your DNA can't.

ralfd• 7 years ago

The now-confessed killer was the DJ at my wedding.

That is a bit morbid.

oh_sigh3• 7 years ago

Personally, I'm okay if my DNA sample helps catch a cousin, brother, or other family member that is a murderer/rapist/etc. Less okay with them using my sample for promotional material, but I've never really seen that done except for people who clearly consent(ie by starring in a commercial or photo shoot for the company).

TomK322• 7 years ago

Until false positives land you in prison. https://gizmodo.com/when-bad-dna-tests-lead-to-false-convict...

rixrax• 7 years ago

Until another regime shows up that decides to neuter or eradicate people with a specific trait.

kilo_bravo_35• 7 years ago

what they're doing to themselves and their families.

This only encourages me. My DNA is on record in various places, and if any relative of mine commits a crime I want the honor of being the person who fucked them and sent them to prison. I would tout the event as an esteemed accomplishment.

Everyone seems to be worried about a sci-fi movie where clones are made from cheek swabs or corporations use DNA to deny certain services.

The former is a pipe dream and the latter is already (partially) illegal in the US via the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.

If evilmegacorp is going to break the law today then they'll break it tomorrow as well.

Every conceivable scenario in which DNA can be used to harm an individual can be answered with "well a bad actor can already do that today using different methods".

As far as I'm concerned a database of DNA is no different than a database of mugshots or fingerprints.

Mugshots and fingerprints have both led to false-positives being reported.

"Oh but DNA might lead to a false-positive so it must never be used" differs little from "eyewitness testimony, mugshots, fingerprint analysis, confessions, and every single investigative technique ever used in the history of humanity has unassailably led to false positives therefore they should all be banned".

mikeash4• 7 years ago

What about accidental harm because your DNA or a relative’s DNA managed to end up at a crime scene, or bad lab procedures produce a false match?

bg24• 7 years ago

I applaud your thinking. But in the real world, things can get ugly very very quickly as the original commenter said. Even worse, imagine your DNA results score being used as part of employment qualification checks! When the greed of $$ is involved, ethics take a backseat in almost all corporate decision making, and good willed but naive persons get trampled.

Scoundreller4• 7 years ago

As a certain Chinese person recently learned, you can start a trip in Country A, get arrested on a stopover in Country B on your way to Country C, accused of breaking the laws of Country D because you (allegedly) did business in Country E through a subsidiary in Country F.

I’m worried about getting deported to Saudi Arabia (never been) because I drank alcohol in my home country, but happen to stopover in a country that yields to large cash payments to enforce its extra-territorial laws.

roscorollo• 7 years ago

What crimes would exactly would you be proud to sell your relatives down the river for? Genuinely curious if all acts that can/could be labeled as a crime by the government of the time would count.

There's a fair amount of historical and current laws that have arguably zero moral good; Homophobic, Segregationist, etc.. all around the world.

But alas, There's you cheerily pointing out anyone you can help identify because, it's the law after all.

empath75• 7 years ago

You’re assuming that every crime anybody could possibly be accused of in the future is legitimate. What if the crime is ‘handed out pamphlets opposing the leader?’

walshemj2• 7 years ago

And what happens when you insurance company drops you because of potential chronic illness or an employer doest call you back.

kaybe2• 7 years ago

As a German, I see many problems with this point of view. What is a crime can change fast, and it can also mean just being of the wrong group. Don't think it can't and won't happen again.

jyrkesh• 7 years ago

Does anyone else feel like there's a growing assumption of benevolent governments and states? It might just be my own anecdotal experience, but I'm constantly surprised at how often people overlook the entire point of the 4th and 5th Amendment because Western states have been "mostly better" (these are both relative qualifiers, I am NOT saying they're perfect) in the last 10-30 years.

This entire post read as if there's not dirty cops all over the US doing asset forfeiture, planting evidence, shooting innocents, raiding the wrong houses...why does anyone believe that giving those agents ANOTHER tool, and one that's seen in the general public as even more legitimate? (It's not the accuracy of the DNA match that's the problem, it's how easy it is to create false circumstances using someone's DNA, which is pretty easy to get.)

And all of this in a time when most of those same people (myself included) are decrying how horrible the federal government has recently become under Trump. Again, you want to give Trump and the people in his administration another tool for muddying the waters around his opponents?

Going even further, any of these genealogy companies could pull a full-on Cambridge Analytics like Facebook and just leak all our DNA to some private company operating on behalf of a foreign government.

noonespecial2• 7 years ago

Right up until that crime happens to be homosexuality (oh you meant western values crimes...)

Or you can't get a job because you're closely related to a felon.

Or a loan because you are closely related to someone who filed for bankruptcy.

I could go on. There's more "ors" here than on a viking raiding ship.

djsumdog4• 7 years ago

Homosexuality was once a crime in the US. So was crossdressing. So was sodomy. At one time a woman could be jailed if it was found she cast a ballot illegally. Consuming cannibals use to be totally legal, then it wasn't and now it sorta is, but only on a State-by-state basis and only because Federal courts haven't made concrete rulings. In the UK and France, it's illegal to draw underage Simpsons characters in sexual activity, but in the US and Japan it's legal (or at least a gray area). The law changes, and prohibition shows that those changes are not always for the better.

dfxm12• 7 years ago

I wonder if there's an alternate universe where people are PAID to use this service. Where the company is upfront about buying your data from you because they intend on making a ton of money from it later on, maybe for nefarious means, maybe to try and cure some disease, I don't know if that part of it matters.

Anyway, I wonder if people would be skeptical of the company's motives to the point where they don't want to give up their data or if they'd still just really want that cool DNA sequence art and to have a laugh about having 7% unexpected DNA.

buboard4• 7 years ago

OTOH , with other public services (administrative, police, healthcare) you re not even asked to agree to the terms.

paulryanrogers• 7 years ago

There's a feel-good statement elsewhere in the document about how the company won't disclose your info to third parties

Can a lawyer answer whether or not such promises apply to an acquiring company, should they ever be sold?

hitpointdrew• 7 years ago

Shocker /s

Anyone who thinks that the data at these testing companies isn't going to the FBI/NSA (directly or indirectly) is just plain naive.

gamesbrainiac• 7 years ago

Are there any similar reports regarding 23andme? I know quite a few people who have used their service.

lipman2• 7 years ago

Not yet. I think they're well (more?) aware of potential consumer backlash.

checkoutmygenes• 7 years ago

We do not do this at 23andMe: https://www.23andme.com/transparency-report/

coupdejarnac2• 7 years ago

Anyone know if there is a way to remove yourself from being shared with 3rd parties?

buboard4• 7 years ago

fbi seems a third party that's hard to remove

coupdejarnac2• 7 years ago

Thanks for your input.

TomK322• 7 years ago

Haha. I'd never send my DNA away. But then I have to hope that one of my cousins and distant half-siblings does. Well, in the EU privacy laws might hold up a few more year but we're all doomed.

daemonk• 7 years ago

I remember attending a bioinformatics conference years ago when Nanopore presented one of their first devices. For those who are not in the field, Nanopore offers a palm sized device that can sequence DNA in real-time as the strand moves through a small pore. They are still far from offering a device that is accurate enough to identify people.

During the presentation, images of public places vacuuming up biological material and sequencing whatever DNA material found came to my mind. The privacy implications of this is potentially very scary.

JoeAltmaier• 7 years ago

Fewer than 10 cases apparently

bouncycastle• 7 years ago

I bet if there was an option to voluntarily enable this, many people would say yes! eg. "Do you want us to use your data to help catch criminals / rescue those wrongly accused?"

Same way as asking "Do you want to be an organ donor?".

philipkglass• 7 years ago

Whole genome sequencing is now available for well under $1000 and prices continue to drop.

https://us.dantelabs.com/blogs/news/whole-genome-sequencing-...

I understand that forensic DNA comparisons are currently simpler and more error-prone, but it seems like whole-genome comparison is already cheap enough that it could be used for comparing suspect DNA with crime scene DNA in important cases. At some point I expect it to become the new standard.

The "what about flawed DNA matches?" arguments against using this technology in law enforcement raise valid concerns, but I think that these specific objections may be obsolete in a few more years.

module00002• 7 years ago

If this bothers you, consider fighting back. Submit as many DNA samples to as many firms as you can find. Send each sample from a different [consenting] donor, and ask that they do the same and include you among their donors. This action at scale dirties the data sets of all the companies involved.

trumped2• 7 years ago

right... but almost nobody is going to do that...

cwkoss2• 7 years ago

we just have to create the public perception that it has already been done

mrmuagi2• 7 years ago

I don't think that plan follows awfully well, why on earth would you pay money for services for the sole intent to game their database into inefficiency? A spotted chance of that even working, at best you've given them money for nothing back. No, it's best to just spread the word amongst your friends, and avoid all this muck.

bigodbiel• 7 years ago

noise in the system?

aiyodev• 7 years ago

The NSA collects the records of everyone two connections away from a terrorism suspect.

This will allow the FBI to profile the families of criminals. I have a cousin who joined a white supremecist group. Does that mean my life ahould be put under a microscope in case I’m committing crimes too? Should I have to submit to body cavity searches at airports because of her drug convictions?

Our prison system is not designed to punish or rehabilitate. It’s designed to isolate society’s undesireables and put them in a cage away from the rest of us. The Powers That Be would like nothing more than to extend that to entire families.

laylomo2• 7 years ago

A bit hyperbolic, but not completely inconceivable: Long lost twins separated at birth, one twin murders somebody, the other twin gets his DNA tested, FBI says "we found him", guy goes to jail for crime he never committed. Oops

y_tho• 7 years ago

Replace murder with art heist: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1887111,00... With a "happier" ending.

yters• 7 years ago

I figured that's why the ads encourage people to have their grandparents tested. One grandparent, and you've got a whole family group.

wnevets2• 7 years ago

I almost did one of this test because I was curious about the results. Ultimately I decided that giving my DNA to a some random company on the internet is just a bad idea, even if (a big if at that) the results are accurate and interesting.

Stories like these are why I'm glad I decided not to.

trumped2• 7 years ago

How does an at-home dna testing company get any of your infoemation?

newscracker• 7 years ago

Only the sample collection is “at home” using a kit mailed to the customer with instructions on how to collect the sample. The analysis is done in a (hopefully good and clean) lab where the sample gets mailed to by the customer.

AnonymousRider• 7 years ago

These issues usually have a benign beginning. “We only do this for violent crimes” seems reasonable but it will never stay benign. Cops are lazy. Give them a tool and they will eventually use it to catch shoplifters and graffiti artists or to inquire about the heredity of their girlfriends.

superfamicom• 7 years ago

I would gladly donate my DNA to be tested to find criminals. I signed up to 23andMe years ago just for fun, but if that data can be used to help someone who was hurt by someone genetically related to me, I am all for it.

Reading the reactions here makes me feel crazy, as if their intention is to make me feel manipulated or otherwise bad. It is really interesting to me how many people are fearful of dystopian futures that could play out instead of excited to actually potentially help identify a serial killer.

jessaustin3• 7 years ago

The intent is to encourage you to consider the relative incidence rates of various misfortunes. Police ineptitude and the prosecutor's fallacy are vastly more common in this world than serial killers are. You seem eager to screw over your cousin, but it could just as well be you who is screwed over.

oh_sigh3• 7 years ago

Serial killing is the extreme example, but is police ineptitude and prosecutor's fallacy more common in this world than rape, murder, assault and battery, burglary, etc?

jchook• 7 years ago

The only folks with this skewed perspective on the issue already donated their DNA to a company and simply want to convince themselves that it was a great idea.

peu4000• 7 years ago

And then there are the people who delude themselves into thinking privacy will save them from governments.

decebalus1• 7 years ago

I would gladly donate my DNA to be tested to find criminals.

The definition of criminal can change overnight. This may not be used only to catch serial killers. Nobody is stopping the feds to use this to target political dissidents. I don't get why anyone who knows about COINTELPRO can side with the feds on issues like this. It's not like they've stopped, actually. Check out what the feds investigated about the neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento. Still want them to handle your DNA?

gammateam• 7 years ago

It is interesting how the crowd - as in relatives - are helping solve violent crime cases, from DNA at the scene.

I think a lot of people have been taking advantage of this system for a long time. Like they know they get a free pass on assaulting people because they haven't been arrested yet.

scruffyherder• 7 years ago

Whenever you see the governments touting this 'public private partnership' this is exactly what it is.

hatchnyc• 7 years ago

It seems inevitable that nearly everyone's DNA will eventually be disclosed or available to sufficiently interested parties. You literally leave a trail of DNA behind you, the cost of collecting it has steadily fallen, and you can't change your DNA so a single security breech in your entire life is irrevocable.

willart4food• 7 years ago

George Orwell is saying: DA FUQ?

umeshunni• 7 years ago

Article from a year ago about this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/serial-kille...

Edit: nevermind, this is a different company

Paul-ish• 7 years ago

The article you linked is about GEDmatch and the golden state killer. This one is about Family tree DNA.

rb808• 7 years ago

I think that government agencies should have everyones DNA.

Esp rape I'm really surprised police can't just look at the semen and look up who it belonged to. The government already knows everyone's photos and basic biometrics from drivers licenses and passports, surely this is just one more field in the database.

Iwan-Zotow• 7 years ago

Jesus, unDNA me!

djsumdog4• 7 years ago

Wait a second, I though these companies didn't sequence DNA. I thought most of them just ran your DNA against known patterns to see if they patch to give you a probably/percentage of ancestry, with all the original samples being destroyed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3EEmVfbKNs

Does ancestry actually sample and save entire DNA sequences (I guess they have to in order to do family tree matching)?

Crazy.

Simon_says• 7 years ago

I'm interested in sequencing my own DNA, but only if the information never leaves my possession. I'd like to do it once the cost goes below $1k. Any idea when that will be realistic?

dc443• 7 years ago

Speaking of which. I sent two samples to 23andme and both times they rejected my sample saying that there was not enough DNA to recover. Hopefully that is in fact what happened......

They did send me a refund though.

I really really dont like the idea of someone potentially having my DNA while I didn't even get my end of the bargain (dietary recommendations, possibly knowing what will likely kill me, etc)

madrox• 7 years ago

I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, catching the golden state killer is awesome.

On the other, DNA matching is a stochastic process. False positive matches are possible, and likely if used to identify suspects at scale with no other evidence or links to the crime.

We’re probably still in the infancy of DNA-based law, I suspect.

thereare5lights• 7 years ago

How many people here complain about authoritarian governments and yet support this mass surveillance via DNA?

tobyhinloopen• 7 years ago

“We value your privacy. Please let us track you.”

vbuwivbiu• 7 years ago

in a few years every phone will have a DNA sequencer included

ttflee• 7 years ago

and you need to spit saliva to unlock?

winston_smith2• 7 years ago

Better yet, all 50 US states have government-run newborn heel prick programs, and they keep the blood. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-w...

It's cartoonishly evil. The government literally takes and stores the blood of all newborn infants.

There's a good thing they do with it, which is screening for genetic diseases, and some epidemiology. But there's nothing preventing them doing all that without tying it to each newborn's identity.

The doctors are stupid about it, but very few are going to forcibly take a blood sample from an infant while you protest and film it with your phone. And they'll give you horror stories and guilt trips about all the awful diseases your infant might have if you skip the test.

But fortunately the Mayo Clinic Labs have a test they can mail to your doctor that you can use instead: https://www.mayocliniclabs.com/test-info/newborn/index.html

Better plan it in advance though, and don't let the doctors put you off. Because once baby arrives, you'll be tired and the doctors will use all kinds of time pressure on you.

hi41• 7 years ago

What problems can arise when law enforcement agencies are able to match DNA to catch criminals such as rapists and murderers? Wouldn’t that bring benefits to society and make it safer.

pfdietz3• 7 years ago

I suspect some of the strained objections to this is from MRA types who are aghast that women will use this to track down unknown fathers for child support.

throwawaywtfvjk3• 7 years ago

I just submitted my DNA for testing, and was more than happy to do so. I believe, that for me knowing MY genetic predispositions about certain diseases AND do something about it (even paying a premium for insurance) far outweighs the privacy concerns while you slowly die without targeted medical/lifestyle interventions.

throwawaywtfvjk3• 7 years ago

doing it at home/offline doesn't add any value to the shared knowledge pool.

throwawaywtfvjk3• 7 years ago

Also, I would be glad if an insurance existed that was based on keeping certain metabolic/blood markers in a healthy range. which translates to a decrease of 30-75-ish % of chance of death by cardiovascular/neurodegenerative/cancer.

an insurance like this would certainly cost less

One of the Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working with the FBI

Related Stories