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.

[Oceander]

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.

Sorry, but the discussion of whether this technique should be used has to be done on the assumption that the cops are acting diligently and in good faith.  If they’re not, then this technique will not lead to any more false arrests than any other technique, simply because the cause of those arrests is the cops’ decision to act wrongfully.  In fact, since this technique relies on DNA evidence that was recovered from the scene, all a suspect needs to do is show that it isn’t his DNA.  No match, no criminal. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Sorry, but the discussion of whether this technique should be used has to be done on the assumption that the cops are acting diligently and in good faith.  If they’re not, then this technique will not lead to any more false arrests than any other technique, simply because the cause of those arrests is the cops’ decision to act wrongfully.  In fact, since this technique relies on DNA evidence that was recovered from the scene, all a suspect needs to do is show that it isn’t his DNA.  No match, no criminal.

I'll go along with that.  I wish the police could be relied upon to act diligently and in good faith.  If we can't agree on that possibility, then we'll never agree completely, because I don't think they do.  We must have different life experiences, which accounts for probably >90% of all disagreements in general, not just you and me.

[Oceander]

I'll go along with that.  I wish the police could be relied upon to act diligently and in good faith.  If we can't agree on that possibility, then we'll never agree completely, because I don't think they do.  We must have different life experiences, which accounts for probably >90% of all disagreements in general, not just you and me.

As a practical matter I agree that the police routinely act in bad faith, and I believe that prosecutors act even worse, but that has no bearing on whether the technique is objectionable from some policy basis such as the Constitution. 

And it doesn’t give them another way of being sloppy.  If anything, it limits their ability to be sloppy because it is premised on the existence of DNA from the scene, which severely limits the number of people to whom this technique can be applied.

[Cyber Liberty]

Bingo!  I can now agree completely.  Thanks for sticking with me.   

[Oceander]

This is no different from the situation where the police come upon a hit and run scene with a damaged white car that has red paint scrapes on the dent where it got hit, and a witness who says I saw the hit and run driver, I don’t know what his name is, but I know that his parents live on the culdesac at the end of Elm Street.  The witness also says he was driving a red Honda. Assume the culdesac contains 5 houses.  The police could go to the county courthouse and look at the deeds for each of the houses in the culdesac, get the last names, and then check the DMV records to see if a red Honda is registered to anyone with one of those last names.  If they get s hit, then they can go put eyeballs on the car in question to see if it shows signs of damage. 

They may get some false hits, ie, names with a red Honda registered to them, which were not involved, but that is why the final step requires them to eyeball the cars they discover.

The only real difference between my hypothetical and using DNA recovered from the scene is that DNA is more likely to lead to a suspect because it’s posible that the driver in my hypothetical rented or borrowed the red Honda, so the cops might not get any hits at all from checking the DMV records. 

[Cyber Liberty]

What if more than one of the houses has an occupant who has a red Honda registered? Can they still get a warrant for all of them? (I know.  It's unlikely, and your point is still a good one.)

[Oceander]

What if more than one of the houses has an occupant who has a red Honda registered? Can they still get a warrant for all of them? (I know.  It's unlikely, and your point is still a good one.)

Then you go look at the two (or more) cars to see if any of them shows any signs of damage consistent with the damage that you know was done to the white car.  The one that shows signs of damage is the winner. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Then you go look at the two (or more) cars to see if any of them shows any signs of damage consistent with the damage that you know was done to the white car.  The one that shows signs of damage is the winner.

But...would a judge sign warrants forcing them all to trot their red Hondas out of their garages for a look?  I think there are plenty of Judges who would sign off on that.  Of course, it would be easy for the Police to eliminate some of them if the cars are parked out in the open where they can be seen clearly from the street (no expectation of privacy).

Which takes me back to the beginning of this discussion:  Somebody signs away their expectation of privacy by allowing their DNA profile to be shared on a Public Domain database....

[Oceander]

But...would a judge sign warrants forcing them all to trot their red Hondas out of their garages for a look?  I think there are plenty of Judges who would sign off on that.  Of course, it would be easy for the Police to eliminate some of them if the cars are parked out in the open where they can be seen clearly from the street (no expectation of privacy).

Which takes me back to the beginning of this discussion:  Somebody signs away their expectation of privacy by allowing their DNA profile to be shared on a Public Domain database....

Why would you need to do that?  Just wait for the car to be driven.  Then eyeball it as it drives by. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Why would you need to do that?  Just wait for the car to be driven.  Then eyeball it as it drives by.

Sure.  It's likely to happen eventually.  Unless the perp knows your looking for it.  This why cops don't like to release a lot of info on their investigations.

[Oceander]

Sure.  It's likely to happen eventually.  Unless the perp knows your looking for it.  This why cops don't like to release a lot of info on their investigations.

Who said they had to release anything?  Furthermore, if they’ve identified two possible suspects, they can take telephotos and ask the witness to try and recognize one. 

[darroll]

Huh?

Dna test results just show a connection to a family and not an individual. Criminal DNA tests are a different type AABB and show a person.

[Elderberry]

Dna test results just show a connection to a family and not an individual. Criminal DNA tests are a different type AABB and show a person.

It's an individual that is tested, not a whole family. Hopefully the tester's DNA is shared in the  family.

[Bigun]

Having just read the thread, I think there is some confusion as to what is going on with this.  I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone can use your info on ancestry or FTDNA to do anything like what has been discussed here.  There are however sites on the internet where you can voluntarily upload your raw dna file and have it compared to all those already in the database.   If you have any possible criminal liability I would strongly suggest you  stay away from that type n of site.

[Elderberry]

Forensic DNA Testing:  https://dnacenter.com/blog/forensic-dna-testing/

 the DNA samples collected undergo an analysis using several DNA testing systems, the most common of which are:

    Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis tests loci on nuclear DNA; there are 13 STR loci in the CODIS index (Combined DNA Index System), which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s support program for criminal justice DNA databases. CODIS’ mission is to aid investigations, and as of June 2014, CODIS produced over 250,809 hits assisting in over 239,317 investigations.

    Y-Chromosome Short Tandem Repeats (Y-STR) targets the male or Y Chromosome of a provided sample, increasing the validity of results.

    Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Sequencing tests samples that are in the mitochondrion and that otherwise lack the ability to be tested by other means. This form of testing is especially useful in solving cold cases or where samples might be degraded.

[Bigun]

Forensic DNA Testing:  https://dnacenter.com/blog/forensic-dna-testing/

 the DNA samples collected undergo an analysis using several DNA testing systems, the most common of which are:

    Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis tests loci on nuclear DNA; there are 13 STR loci in the CODIS index (Combined DNA Index System), which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s support program for criminal justice DNA databases. CODIS’ mission is to aid investigations, and as of June 2014, CODIS produced over 250,809 hits assisting in over 239,317 investigations.

    Y-Chromosome Short Tandem Repeats (Y-STR) targets the male or Y Chromosome of a provided sample, increasing the validity of results.

    Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Sequencing tests samples that are in the mitochondrion and that otherwise lack the ability to be tested by other means. This form of testing is especially useful in solving cold cases or where samples might be degraded.

And I'm guite sure that no one can have access to any of the data obtained from those tests unless you specifically give it to them.

When you are considering uploading your raw data to one of the sites I mentioned earlier you really should read the sites user agreement before you do that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Having just read the thread, I think there is some confusion as to what is going on with this.  I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone can use your info on ancestry or FTDNA to do anything like what has been discussed here.  There are however sites on the internet where you can voluntarily upload your raw dna file and have it compared to all those already in the database.   If you have any possible criminal liability I would strongly suggest you  stay away from that type n of site.

I don't think a person having potential criminal liability can control when a family member uploads the raw DNA file to a public database.  There was a recent story where somebody got fingered who never did any kind of DNA testing.  A family member did and that's how they found him.

[Bigun]

I don't think a person having potential criminal liability can control when a family member uploads the raw DNA file to a public database.  There was a recent story where somebody got fingered who never did any kind of DNA testing.  A family member did and that's how they found him.

That's probably correct and something else to consider.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's probably correct and something else to consider.

I wonder how this will eventually play out in the courts.  "Law and Order" Judges will say "Great idea!" while civil libertarians will not like it at all.  If the courts decide this is a good thing, I predict the public DNA databases genealogy will dry up pretty quickly.

[Bigun]

I wonder how this will eventually play out in the courts.  "Law and Order" Judges will say "Great idea!" while civil libertarians will not like it at all.  If the courts decide this is a good thing, I predict the public DNA databases genealogy will dry up pretty quickly.

I suspect that you are right.  And will make genuine geneoligc research more difficult.