Should the police be allowed to use genetic information in public databases to track down criminals?

[rangerrebew]

Should the police be allowed to use genetic information in public databases to track down criminals?
June 8, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report


A trio of concerned citizens from the University of Baltimore and Baylor College of Medicine has published a Policy Forum piece in the journal Science surrounding the issue of law enforcement using genetic information in public databases to pursue criminals. In their paper, Natalie Ram, Christi Guerrini and Amy McGuire highlight the issues involved and offer some suggestions regarding how the issue might best be handled.

The case of police arresting a man suspected of being the Golden State Killer made headlines recently, partly because of the notoriety of the case and partly because of the way the case was cracked. The police compared DNA samples taken from crime scenes with those in a public database and found a close match—someone who was related to the suspect. Further work allowed them to narrow their search down to the man who was arrested. While most people likely received the news of a serial killer's capture as good news, others were also concerned about how it happened. This led to questions about the privacy of data in public databases—such as whether the police should be allowed to use such data to search for a suspect.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-police-genetic-databases-track-criminals.html#jCp

[skeeter]

To do so without a judges specific permission would be tantamount to them entering a house without a warrant.

[Taxcontrol]

To do so without a judges specific permission would be tantamount to them entering a house without a warrant.

Bad analogy.  when you put your DNA information out in public, it is no different that describing the house.  color, number of windows, yard size etc.

My advice, don't put you DNA in public databases.  If you want you DNA information, do it through your medical provider.  At least there you have some HIPPA protections that display to the court the expectation of privacy.

[Oceander]

To do so without a judges specific permission would be tantamount to them entering a house without a warrant.

No, it wouldn’t. It would be tantamount to them following an unnamed target to a particular house, watching the target take out a key, unlock the door, and go in, then going to the public records to see who owns the house, and using those names to try and identify the name of the target in question.

[darroll]

This DNA testing is being used to verify family members after doing Genealogy. Genealogy is such a mess, this was the only tool available. Now they can find a possible criminal in a family good or bad?

[skeeter]

No, it wouldn’t. It would be tantamount to them following an unnamed target to a particular house, watching the target take out a key, unlock the door, and go in, then going to the public records to see who owns the house, and using those names to try and identify the name of the target in question.

The police can't even collect a DNA sample from you if you've been arrested on a misdemeanor. Why should they be able to collect it from somebody else?

[Oceander]

This DNA testing is being used to verify family members after doing Genealogy. Genealogy is such a mess, this was the only tool available. Now they can find a possible criminal in a family good or bad?

Huh?

[truth_seeker]

DNA science is very sound. Little different from using hair, blood, fibers, other bits of forensic evidence. etc.  LEOs are currently collecting DNA for categories of crimes.

[sneakypete]

Should the police be allowed to use genetic information in public databases to track down criminals?
June 8, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report

Why not? They are PUBLIC data bases,not private medical records.

[sneakypete]

To do so without a judges specific permission would be tantamount to them entering a house without a warrant.

@skeeter

Not if they are PUBLIC data bases.

[Cyber Liberty]

The police can't even collect a DNA sample from you if you've been arrested on a misdemeanor. Why should they be able to collect it from somebody else?

I think Police can retrieve DNA information from samples on cigarette buts and water bottles that are discarded in public, as long as they can positively ID the "donor."  It's the "expectation of privacy" issue.  Searching a "Public Domain" database seems the equivalent of that, under the law today. 

[Oceander]

The police can't even collect a DNA sample from you if you've been arrested on a misdemeanor. Why should they be able to collect it from somebody else?

Not true.  They can collect DNA from discarded materials, such as a cup you just used and discarded, without a warrant.  Furthermore, the DNA against which they are getting comparisons was voluntarily given to the websites in question with the understanding that it might be used to find genetic connections to other strangers, so it isn’t being used in a way that could not have been contemplated by the donors.  Finally, it doesn’t give a single determinative match.  It gives the police names of people who are closely connected genetically to the target, and they can then use that information to come up with an ancestry - using publicly available records - to find other individuals who may be the target.  They still have to old fashioned investigating to tie the potential named subjects to the crime being investigated.

[catfish1957]

Why not? They are PUBLIC data bases,not private medical records.

No they're not.  At least in the case of Ancestry or FTDNA.  The only thing you can glean publicly is (1) Ancestry geographical areas (2)Match data against people who may share your matches.   Geez....

[Oceander]

No they're not.  At least in the case of Ancestry or FTDNA.  The only thing you can glean publicly is (1) Ancestry geographical areas (2)Match data against people who may share your matches.   Geez....

Those data matches are publicly available.  I believe that’s what he was referring to.

[catfish1957]

Those data matches are publicly available.  I believe that’s what he was referring to.

Big difference in that and the raw data which would be needed by law enforcement to finger a perp.

Also, I believe that unless you are a match, you can not view other participants.  So what constitutes "publicly available" is up for debate so to speak.

As an example, I can only view 87,316 matches of the 7,000,000 + accounts in ancestry.  The rest are filtered out and unviewable by me.

[Oceander]

Big difference in that and the raw data which would be needed by law enforcement to finger a perp.

Also, I believe that unless you are a match, you can not view other participants.  So what constitutes "publicly available" is up for debate so to speak.

As an example, I can only view 87,316 matches of the 7,000,000 + accounts in ancestry.  The rest are filtered out and unviewable by me.

That’s not what the cops have done in several recent cases.  They haven’t accessed anyone’s raw DNA.  What they have done is taken DNA that was validly collected from a crime scene, and which comes from an unknown suspect, and they have submitted it to one of these genealogy websites that does basic DNA comparison and that will give you basic information on other individuals - who have consented to this matching - who closely match the DNA that was uploaded.  If that works - always an if - then they usually have identifiable individuals who are close family matches to the unknown suspect.  They they build a family tree using these identified individuals as the seed links, and pulling information from other public sources, such as newspapers and property records, and genealogy websites like ancestry.com, until they identify one or more individuals who might be likely suspects - for example, a male who is of approximately the right age and who lived in or near the scene of the crime at the time.  If successful, they have a rather short list of suspects whom they can then investigate more deeply to see if they can gather enough evidence to give them probable cause as to one of the potential suspects they’ve identified. 

I fail to see what’s so nefarious about this sort of investigative work.

[sneakypete]

No they're not.  At least in the case of Ancestry or FTDNA.  The only thing you can glean publicly is (1) Ancestry geographical areas (2)Match data against people who may share your matches.   Geez....

@catfish1957

If that is true they will have to get a warrant,unless the owner of the Ancestry site just decides to give it up to them.

Providing he has the legal power to do so,of course. I have no idea what agreements are reached between them and their clients.

[catfish1957]

That’s not what the cops have done in several recent cases.  They haven’t accessed anyone’s raw DNA.  What they have done is taken DNA that was validly collected from a crime scene, and which comes from an unknown suspect, and they have submitted it to one of these genealogy websites that does basic DNA comparison and that will give you basic information on other individuals - who have consented to this matching - who closely match the DNA that was uploaded.  If that works - always an if - then they usually have identifiable individuals who are close family matches to the unknown suspect.  They they build a family tree using these identified individuals as the seed links, and pulling information from other public sources, such as newspapers and property records, and genealogy websites like ancestry.com, until they identify one or more individuals who might be likely suspects - for example, a male who is of approximately the right age and who lived in or near the scene of the crime at the time.  If successful, they have a rather short list of suspects whom they can then investigate more deeply to see if they can gather enough evidence to give them probable cause as to one of the potential suspects they’ve identified. 

I fail to see what’s so nefarious about this sort of investigative work.

Can't vouch for others, but I do know that FTDNA and Ancestry requires a full tube saliva test.  I can't vouch for others....  23/Me, etc.  but I don't think tiny forensic type samples are  possible with FTDNA and Ancestry.  They don't accept non-standard samples.  And I know this is the case, because I had a student of my genealogy classes I teach tell me that they tried to get a test of their great grandfather's hair tested, with no luck from either.

IF there are companies doing as you say, they need to be called out, and users allowed to opt out of the program.

[Oceander]

Can't vouch for others, but I do know that FTDNA and Ancestry requires a full tube saliva test.  I can't vouch for others....  23/Me, etc.  but I don't think tiny forensic type samples are  possible with FTDNA and Ancestry.  They don't accept non-standard samples.  And I know this is the case, because I had a student of my genealogy classes I teach tell me that they tried to get a test of their great grandfather's hair tested, with no luck from either.

IF there are companies doing as you say, they need to be called out, and users allowed to opt out of the program.

No, the forensics lab developed enough DNA to submit the DNA to the website they used. 

People can opt out very simply:  either don’t submit your DNA, or don’t allow matches to be made with it.  It really is that simple.

[Gefn]

Ping @Suppressed

Bookmark

[Cyber Liberty]

No, the forensics lab developed enough DNA to submit the DNA to the website they used. 

People can opt out very simply:  either don’t submit your DNA, or don’t allow matches to be made with it.  It really is that simple.

People have been fingered for crimes because a family member allowed the data to be released.  I don't agree with the "Guilty until proven innocent" approach. 

[Oceander]

People have been fingered for crimes because a family member allowed the data to be released.  I don't agree with the "Guilty until proven innocent" approach. 

There is no guilty until proven innocent approach here.  There is data, and investigation, and nothing goes anywhere until there is sufficient evidence to show probable cause as to a particular individual. 

[Cyber Liberty]

There is no guilty until proven innocent approach here.  There is data, and investigation, and nothing goes anywhere until there is sufficient evidence to show probable cause as to a particular individual.

Assuming the cops don't take the usual lazy approach of stopping an investigation as soon as they have enough evidence to pin a crime on somebody.  Innocent people go to jail because of this approach to investigating.  IOW, I don't expect the people empowered to investigate crimes to do a thorough job if it.  Police Detectives are not much different than any other government bureaucrat.

[Oceander]

Assuming the cops don't take the usual lazy approach of stopping an investigation as soon as they have enough evidence to pin a crime on somebody.  Innocent people go to jail because of this approach to investigating.  IOW, I don't expect the people empowered to investigate crimes to do a thorough job if it.  Police Detectives are not much different than any other government bureaucrat.

No, innocent people don’t go to jail because of this approach.  In fact, it’s less likely to lead to that. 

[Cyber Liberty]

No, innocent people don’t go to jail because of this approach.  In fact, it’s less likely to lead to that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  Innocent people are convicted every day because Detectives have used precisely the technique I described, only to be discovered innocent years later after their loved ones almost bankrupt themselves getting Private Detectives to turn the cases.

I'm cynical.