Beware: FBI, Other Agencies Might Go After Your Voluntary DNA Records (theneworleansadvocate.com) 132
Kashmir Hill reports at Fusion that DNA results from companies like 23andMe are being requested by law enforcement agencies, something that is likely to start happening more and more. From the article:
Both Ancestry.com and 23andMe stipulate in their privacy policies that they will turn information over to law enforcement if served with a court order. 23andMe says it's received a couple of requests from both state law enforcement and the FBI, but that it has "successfully resisted them." ... Ancestry.com would not say specifically how many requests it's gotten from law enforcement. ... "On occasion when required by law to do so, and in this instance we were, we have cooperated with law enforcement and the courts to provide only the specific information requested but we don’t comment on the specifics of cases,” said a spokesperson.
(Related Wired article here.)
You should have expected this. (Score:5, Funny)
I did.
Re:You should have expected this. (Score:5, Informative)
Law enforcement will use any means possible, no matter how unlawful.
Re:You should have expected this. (Score:5, Interesting)
At the time the amendment was crafted there were limits on the storage capability of records simply due to the medium on which they could be stored. Now that limit is essentially gone due to electronic storage.
Maybe we need limits on what the Government is allowed to store on any given person unless there's an actual legal investigation of that person, assigned to a human investigator, where that human investigator has to commit regular individual reports on the state of such investigation back to the record for it to be maintained.
Re:You should have expected this. (Score:4, Insightful)
We are currently in a state where we are shifting our private info, our "papers" in 4th Amendment terms, outside our houses and into the hands of others, and anachronistic Supreme Court rulings have held we have no expectation of privacy in such things held by 3rd parties.
This needs to change, given people view themselves as holding a virtual presence out there on the nebulous Internet and in the computers thereon. It may need another amendment, but the Supreme Court could clear it all up tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably do have that protection - in fact, I'm pretty sure they do. However, they willfully give it up when they cooperate with the police. It's probably a balance sheet issue - it's cheaper to comply than to fight it. Ethics aside, you may make different choices than you think you'd make were you in their shoes.
This is not, of course, an excuse for it - it's just an observation. They don't have to give up the data, necessarily. They may willfully comply with requests because it means less money spent
Re: (Score:3)
Typically it is. This is why in the sense that "corporations are like people", the people they are "like" are sociopaths and psychopaths. And you know what happens to the rights of sociopaths and psychopaths... that's exactly what should happen to the rights of corporations. We could call the rules that govern these changes in the status of their rights... hmmm... how about regulations? It's not punishment, we just know they're out of their fucking minds, so for everyone's
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable regulation is good. No arguments here. Not by default at any rate. I think accountability would be nice, for starters. I also suggest we stop letting them store their funds off-shore and tax them for it appropriately.
Re: (Score:1)
The thing with this line of thinking is that corporate interests don't care about the validity, only the necessity of law-enforcement requests. Hand out information without a warrant, and your company goes down in flames for privacy breeches, especially sites like ancestry and 23andme who know really-specific information about you that only you would have. There is no legal reason for LEO's to have any access to genetic information whatsoever. If an active crime in being investigated, and the LEO has geneti
Re: (Score:2)
Hand out information without a warrant, and your company goes down in flames for privacy breeches, especially sites like ancestry and 23andme who know really-specific information about you that only you would have.
Yet here we are. No, no... I somehow don't think very many people will care. Sadly. Look at all the riots after the Snowden leaks... Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it is given to a 3rd party, it then becomes "their" property.
That is the current convenient interpretation. But I note that when I rent something and it goes to my house, it doesn't become my property.
When my car goes to the mechanic's for a day, it doesn't become his property.
Re: (Score:2)
Well....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You do have to pay for it or it can become his property.
Re:You should have expected this. (Score:5, Insightful)
This such a patently false statement. I truly wonder about the motivations of people who repeat it.
The courts long ago ruled that your property, papers and effects do not become the property of somebody else just because you asked them to store them for you. Banks don't simply open safe deposit boxes without court orders (warrants). Rented storage units also require search warrants.
The problem is that so many people give in to the anti-gun position of "if it is modern, then the Constitution doesn't cover it" bullshit reasoning that we are completely losing our rights on all fronts.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that so many people give in to the anti-gun position of "if it is modern, then the Constitution doesn't cover it" bullshit reasoning that we are completely losing our rights on all fronts.
It works the other way as well. How often have you heard someone say that a vehicle is a privilege rather then a right? Same with other transport such as airline where the government can deny you the "privilege" of traveling on a whim without telling you.
I've very seldom needed a gun, once to take out a bobcat that was in the chicken coup and a couple of times for food. Where I live and in much of the country owning a vehicle and being allowed to use it is basically a necessity.
Funny enough, in my country o
Re: (Score:2)
A vehicle is not a right. Freedom of movement perhaps, but not at 80mph.
Where I live and in much of the country owning a vehicle and being allowed to use it is basically a necessity.
Which is total utter bullshit. Humans have survived for millenia without vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think more bureaucracy is necessarily the right idea. We need to change how things work fundamentally, not by putting another gear into the machine
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Isn't a large part of what constitutes criminal law proceedings based on proper procedure being followed? If we don't have procedures we have no more standing than the Salem Witch Trials.
I think the point is that this is more a case of having too many 'gears' in the process already--which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, particularly since I'd be actually okay if my DNA report is being used for certain processes. For example, if what they're trying to do is figure out if J Doe #23 is me, I have no problems--especially if I really am J Doe #23.
I'd certainly like to be notified, however, on the off chance that I'm still alive, and given the opportunity to call the department requestin
Re:You should have expected this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as there is a warrant and it is for a single suspect's DNA then it is lawful and I am fine with it.
That is almost useless. If they have a specific suspect, and probable cause, then they can use a warrant to demand a hair or blood sample directly from the suspect. What is far more likely, is that they have the DNA sample, but have no idea who it belongs to. So they give the sample to 23andme, and say "Who matches this?" Then they get back a match, or maybe a partial match of a brother, sister, or cousin. That could narrow the suspects way down.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there is a warrant and it is for a single suspect's DNA then it is lawful and I am fine with it.
That is almost useless. If they have a specific suspect, and probable cause, then they can use a warrant to demand a hair or blood sample directly from the suspect. What is far more likely, is that they have the DNA sample, but have no idea who it belongs to. So they give the sample to 23andme, and say "Who matches this?" Then they get back a match, or maybe a partial match of a brother, sister, or cousin. That could narrow the suspects way down.
As I mentioned a bit farther up, we've already caught somebody managing to slip a sample of somebody else's blood--repeatedly, actually, and I've seen camera footage from one of the later attempts to get his blood from him. (They didn't say how they figured out it wasn't his blood, so I can only guess that the 'donor' he chose was obviously not him--the equivalent of a male druggie trying to pass off a pregnant woman's urine as his own.) It's more reliable to go to somebody like 23andme since the odds of
Re: (Score:3)
If they only check for the DNA-fingerprint that the cops normally use, there is a 1 in million change of a false positive. That means in the U.S. there will be 300 people with the exact match (according to the fingerprint) of your DNA.
Sure, but of those 300 people, 299 will live in a different city. One will be the next door neighbor.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, DNA is hereditary, so if theres one in a city, there will likely be many more there too. Our genetic makeup isn't randomly distributed across the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Criminals and terrorists are usually too smart to voluntarily give their DNA to anybody.
Don't forget that DNA can be used to identify family members. For all we know the FBI is giving a DNA sample to these companies and asking for any records that match as being from an extended family member. I expect lots of warrant-issuing judges would rubber-stamp something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminals and terrorists are usually too smart to voluntarily give their DNA to anybody.
Do you know any actual criminals? I have met many, and few of them are "smart". Also, they don't have to get the DNA of the suspect. They can identify someone by looking at the DNA of a sibling or parent.
Re:You should have expected this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I was younger and a drunk. I spent a couple of nights in various drunk tanks or waiting to be bailed out in the morning for things like assaults or simple drug possession. I think you're mistaken or have had some warped view of them - at least in the western world. There seems to be a higher percentage of smart people in jail than outside of jail.
Now, with that comes the caveat. See, the dumb ones are really dumb. They kind of balance it back out. But, per capita, there seems to be a higher percentage of people who are smart. They're brilliant and talented - you should read their books and see their artwork. The thing is, they have to get lucky every time - the law only needs to be lucky once.
Actually, there was a recent article (not long ago) on this very site about some inmates who beat the #1 rated Ivy League Debate Team. They didn't just beat them - they gave them a smack down. On top of that, they did so on the side of the argument that you'd expect to be difficult for them.
I played chess, pinochle, spades, hearts, and a variety of poker games. They're brilliant. They're articulate and genuinely human. Now, sure, there are some really stupid people in jail - and rightfully so. But, per capita, it seemed like a higher percentage were smarter than what I'd experienced on the outside. I think I've even read studies that showed this and that some smart people had a strange predilection to commit crimes - I think they concluded that it has something to do with them not fitting into society well. I'm not sure if it was a study (or a bunch) or a documentary (or a bunch) but I do recall this.
So, yeah... I'm not sure I buy your claim that only a few are smart - comparatively speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
I am kind of the example of that. I had to pay for my education by joining the Marines and then going back in for another four years to get more GI Bill loving. I was very lucky and while preparing my defense my professor put me in touch with the State Highway Department which happened to be getting ready to do some work. I was modeling traffic. So, it turned into a job which turned into a business. Eventually, I expanded and modeled pedestrian traffic - think malls, supermarkets, even public spaces, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming your story is true, you are the first rich person to confirm what I have suspected for a long long time (and tried to explain to others).
That (financial) success is a result of 1 of 2 things:
1- Inheritance/connections; either your where born rich and had opportunities handed to you that others do not (which in turn allows you to take risks the rest of us can't), or rich enough that your family/friends people that surrounded you gave you the connecti
Re: (Score:1)
I had a girlfriend, sort of, at one time and she was what most people would probably call emotionally abusive. I ended up getting a lawyer to help extricate me from the situation. I actually paid her off to go away. I gave her a brand new Honda. I get pretty stupid when it comes to a vagina. You'd think I'd get better with age, I don't. I've a nice girlfriend at the moment. Things are still new but they're going well. She's really too young for me but I'm okay with that. I made sure that she had no idea abo
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I've met enough of the folks here in real life over the years and I've known a bunch of others so I guess I could be living some sort of lie but it'd have to have been a long-con over some 30 years. So, yeah, it's true or whatever. I can't really think of any motivation to lie - especially when I point out that it's not really any great skill of mine that was the enabler.
So, yeah, as you said - it's luck - at least in my case. I can't imagine what else is the real reason - I'd like to be egotistical a
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know any actual criminals? I have met many, and few of them are "smart". Also, they don't have to get the DNA of the suspect. They can identify someone by looking at the DNA of a sibling or parent.
I've known a few in my time, including several who were in the Hells Angels here in Canada. Most aren't hmm better word would be intelligent, but many of them are as sly as fuck and that can make all the difference in the world. It would be much closer to book smarts vs street smarts, the difference between the two of them is theoretical vs real-world application. That of course also applies to many people who've made it big. They have theoretical knowledge but what they've learned out in the world has
Re: (Score:1)
Terrorist and some professional criminals perhaps, but they make up a small fraction of the criminals out there. There are plenty of petty criminals who wind up in a life of crime because they can't hack regular employment. There are even more people who commit crimes because they're temporarily blinded by rage, greed, or drugs into doing something that they would never do if they were in complete control of their fa
Re: (Score:1)
Law enforcement will use any means possible, no matter how unlawful.
I propose that we stop using the term 'law enforcement' to refer to those who *rule* by force and miscellaneous coordinated thuggery.
My experience, and you may check this for yourself on youtube, is that they neither know the law nor attempt to enforce it. Of course, there are exceptions; those aspects of 'the law' which may be used to extract fines or coerce required behaviours, are known in great detail.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. I know three cops, including one family member. ALL of them operate on the belief that they are part of the authority caste and that regular citizens are part of a lower caste. ALL of them believe it's absolutely fine for a cop to detain, rough up and arrest anyone that is part of the lower caste if they've done anything to draw the ire of a cop (regardless of whether a crime was committed). ALL of them believe that cops should be totally free from any kind of oversight or judicial consequences
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm... Not sure if serious... I know a similar, slightly higher, number and exactly zero match your description. While absolutely none of them are my friends they are acquaintances and I've had a number of conversations with them about many different things over the years. Now, I suppose, they could be putting on a face/front for me but that seems unlikely and I've seen a couple of them pretty drunk and talked to them while they were inebriated.
I feel icky defending the cops but...
Yeah, exactly none seemed
Re: You should have expected this. (Score:2)
Hmm... Not sure if serious...
Appeal to authority / one upmanship
Rebuttal
Introduce apparent impartiality
They really do exist and are absolutely not fictional characters brought to life with a single purpose in mind
Re: (Score:1)
I think you went 0:all but it was an amusing try and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for the entertainment. But no, no... We'll start with, I'm quite happily retired, have no dog in the hunt, and don't really like shitty cops but haven't actually had any bad interactions except for one and that's with quite a few interactions over my life.
What to finish with... Hmm... Hell, even my 'bad' interaction was just a couple of idiot cops in Kansas telling me that my telling them that they couldn't search the car was
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to treat them like big dumb animals, herd animals at that. It works. Keep eye contact, don't show fear, don't turn your back, speak firmly but clear, etc... The whole Kansas thing was just them being way over the top and, at that point, I knew they were just trying to find me doing something stupid. They weren't pleased and told me to get out of Kansas, never return, and if they ever saw me again they were going to arrest me - none of which was even remotely possible legally but I amused them and lef
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'd say they do know the law very well and use the widest possible interpretation of it to develop any excuse they can to stop and detain people. Once detained they will attempt to provoke you. Then they will arrest you for disorderly conduct or something, and when you protest you get beat up and charged with resisting arrest. Which of course is ridiculous since you wouldn't have gotten an attitude in the first place if you hadn't been threatened with arrest for no good cause.
At this time, if you si
Re: You should have expected this. (Score:1)
There should be penalties for acting against the spirit of the law
Re: (Score:2)
No. There is no objective definition of the "spirit" of anything. Law must not be subjective, or else it is impossible for anyone to ever be sure that they are not breaking a law.
A law was passed making it is a crime to intercept someone's phone conversation by "wiretapping" (well understood to mean law enforcement authorities going to the phone company and plugging their recorder into your line) without a warrant. The "spirit" of this law was in fact to protect people's constitutional rights. That is o
Re: (Score:1)
Gosh, I am absolutely astonished that this is being abused. Especially given that the co-founder of 23andMe was married to Google's Sergey Brin. Why, who ever could have called that? Oh - fucking everybody.
"but I hurpa durp nothin to hide hurpa durp search me"
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they keeping any records after they have done your analysis? Only you need have a record.
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought about this some more and, you know what? It'd be damned neat to be able to just have a cheap machine at home that attaches via USB and can run a test. Then you can use an online comparative (willfully, with privacy controls) and see what matches, where things branched off, make assumptions/guesses about your heritage and history, see where you split from the tree and where (if) you rejoined in a new place, find your guessed major ethnicity, etc...
I was recently re-watching the NOVA series about
they used their real name? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As part of the solicitation process they produced a Q&A and one of the points they had to cover, obviously, was privacy. And basically all they could say was "we'll do our best" - they'd have to comply with any court orders and they couldn't foresee what future cha
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't had privacy of medical records in this country since Monica Lewinsky's psychotherapist gave her treatment records to Kenneth Starr.
I talked to a few health care lawyers about the privacy of medical records. Bottom line: Any judge can order the production of records "in the interest of justice."
There are state protections for things like DNA tests, but they don't protect you against federal investigations.
The medical privacy law (HIPAA) allows doctors and hospitals to disclose medical records to l
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of website name is that? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
It's also better than penisland.net
Which actually does sell pens.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:1)
Once you understand that they've had a long-standing entry in the IINC (internet ironic names contest), it's ok.
Disclaimer: I've not been to EE for years - my memory is of a 'membership wall' above the 'solutions' which could be defeated using a mouse wheel and finger !
There's a surprise... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, since these companies have generally taken the position that they are too cool and disruptive for the FDA, it's not unlikely that the data they've collected are also without whatever (probably inadequate but not entirely zero) obstacles that HIPAA-covered records would pose to law enforcement requests.
The fact that they're not HIPAA-covered should, really, be enough reason to not let them handle your sample--not that law enforcement wants access, there's legitimate and sometimes even mutually desirable reasons for that, but that there's nothing keeping them from selling your profile and its contents. They can even make a show of keeping government out--when it uses a warrant instead of paying for access to their records like everybody else.
Regardless of if HIPAA is adequate or not, it's still better tha
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they're not HIPAA-covered should, really, be enough reason to not let them handle your sample
Even then the government doesn't seem to pay much attention to HIPAA given the SAFE act in New York and similar legislation in California where they presume people are automatically guilty by mass searching through health records that meets some vague criteria like if you were ever referred to a mental health specialist by your general doctor because you had trouble sleeping at night and needed something to relax.
I had an oral swab done once as part of a diagnostic lab work by my doctor so I'm sure I'm in s
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they're not HIPAA-covered should, really, be enough reason to not let them handle your sample
Even then the government doesn't seem to pay much attention to HIPAA given the SAFE act in New York and similar legislation in California where they presume people are automatically guilty by mass searching through health records that meets some vague criteria like if you were ever referred to a mental health specialist by your general doctor because you had trouble sleeping at night and needed something to relax.
I had an oral swab done once as part of a diagnostic lab work by my doctor so I'm sure I'm in some CODIS like database somewhere.
Having looked up the law you did provide sufficient information about, odds are incredibly good that New York and California not only aren't enforcing those provisions, but pretty much know that nobody is going to cooperate--and I doubt you've actually looked at even the Wikipedia pages, given what the SAFE act requires is given as:
Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
The VA flat-out announced that because this violates federal law they will do no such thing--it seems to be a rather polite 'shove it up your ass' actually--and from the looks of
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to remove accidental redundant mod.
Re: (Score:2)
They took my blood when I went in the military. I'm pretty sure that sample still exists somewhere with a number on it and my name attached to it. They may have already run it. However, I am not going to go out of my way to give it to additional third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
performs this service but destroys the sample and the DNA data afterwards
that's a good idea. They'll create a market and then get an National Security Letter saying they have to keep the data anyway, but can't tell anybody, and maybe if they're lucky they'll get a motivation payment, like RSA got from the NSA for making the weak PRNG a default in their products.
They can charge their customers a premium and also make some extra on the side. Fascist USA is best USA.
Oh - that new genomics company with very c
Re: (Score:1)
And then there's california... (Score:1)
Although CA governor Jerry Brown just signed a bill requiring warrants to search electronic devices [sfgate.com] (and has signed simular such laws [usnews.com] in the past), there's still that dumbass Proposition 69 [ca.gov] bill that the CA public actually voted into law-- an unforced error-- in 2004. It basically says that if you are ARRESTED (not convicted, arrested), when they do the whole fingerprint thing, they can also grab your DNA and add it to their database. So you know, arrested for political protesting? All your DNA belongs t
bigger brother (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The only logical solution is for everyone to join the TLA/government - when there's no more 'them' for the them-and-us, what then?
What's A Criminal To Do? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it is going to get harder and harder for people to be criminals.
On the contrary: with more and more laws in your face, it's going to get easier and easier to find yourself on the wrong side of one.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously it is going to get harder and harder for people to be criminals. Technology is going to catch people that feel secure in the nonsense that they pull off currently with little fear of getting caught.
You're quite right; if NSA records indicate a high probability that you were in the vicinity of a crime, today's modern technology would mean that you'd be half-way convicted before they've finished planting your DNA at the scene!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your is too "low"or "high", find out in a few weeks if it is from both parents, one or none, want to take the free DNA test?
The use of public data for the "Selective Service" (what was military conscription) in the US in the 1980's showed what could be done with any data "found" by the US gov from simple lists to now complex datasets.
Higher moral authority (Score:1)
I propose that all instances of 'required by law' be replaced by "required to satisfy the whims of a certain section of the population".
Let's stop pretending that some higher moral authority has decreed a common set of rules known as 'the law' and that they are open to modification in order to correct injustices.
This is not shocking... (Score:2)
Really. Really. Not shocking at all.
Any record of you is accessible by a court-ordered warrant. That is the entire point of those Court Orders, they can make people give data about you to law enforcement.
And in fact, even under HIPAA [hhhealthlawblog.com], a mere subpoena will legally require them to turn over the information if it's signed by the right guy.
The nightmare scenario (your brother rapes a women, and you get convicted because 23andme had your blood sample, not his) is virtually impossible in the real world for anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Your nightmare scenario is so dumb.
What about the government decides they don't like your opposition to fracking and they use your information to poison you with peanut allergy, or give you a pre-disposed diabetes condition that distracts you from your activism.
Or they trace the fact that you are the product of your grandfather's slave raping and just put it out there during an election year.
Or how about they threaten to take one of your children into a mind control program and break them into schizophr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because if your lawyer points out that their evidence could also apply to him there's 50% doubt, and generally Juries think 50% doubt is reasonable doubt.
You give me $10,000 and I'll get an expert witness who will convincingly argue before a jury that the DNA test is absolutely certain, and that the odds are a trillion to one against a mistake.
He will at least be able to throw enough confusion into the case to give the prosecutor a good chance of convincing the jury that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The files of The Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys are filled with cases like that.
Re: (Score:2)
You think DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape? Let me introduce you to Nelson Bernard Clifford [baltimoresun.com], who managed to convince three juries in three years that three near-identical sets of allegations, with DNA evidence, were actually consensual sex. Fifth time [baltimoresun.com] turned out to be the charm for that guy. I suspect they won that one because he ran out of money for decent defense attorneys, not because their case was actually stronger.
The databases you mentioned are filled with files from shitty lawyers, g
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape.
The cases of Nelson Bernard Clifford show that you also have to prove lack of consent. I don't have the details of the case, and I can't understand why the jury would acquit 4 times based on the evidence as reported by the Baltimore Sun. But it looks like he had a good defense lawyer.
I know some of the lawyers at the Innocence Project and the National Associaton of Chriminal Defense Lawyers (not "Attorneys," sorry), and I also know some publ
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape.
The cases of Nelson Bernard Clifford show that you also have to prove lack of consent. I don't have the details of the case, and I can't understand why the jury would acquit 4 times based on the evidence as reported by the Baltimore Sun. But it looks like he had a good defense lawyer.
If you're saying they can get a guy convicted of rape, despite the fact he claims to have never seen the women, and the DNA test doesn't rule his cousins out, then you are indeed arguing that it's possible to get convicted based solely on DNA.
From other stories on Nelson Bernard Clifford it sounds like a) he was really good at convincing people the accuser might (just might) be a slut who invited him in for sex and is now scorning him because she's an evil bitch, and b) Maryland Judges consistently ruled th
That's not the biggest problem (Score:2)
Beware? (Score:2)
National Security Letters (Score:2)
Warrants are one thing, but if a company refuses to admit that it's turned over any information, a NSL is more of a suspect than a warrant. And they don't demand any justification or allow any challenge.
When a company says they have successfully contested a warrant, that doesn't tell you the information is secure. Perhaps it is. But given the brazen abuse of NSLs there's no reason to believe that.
Surprise vs Problem Solving (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this really easy? Mail in your sample with a unique ID and a money order (without return address), see results online via said unique ID and through a VPN so it doesn't get tied to your IP. Perhaps theoretically possible to deanonymize, but practically speaking should be good enough. In fact, I'm not sure why this isn't already an option (or is it? I've never looked into any of these services).
Indeed, the way to keep your medical information private is to go to the doctor or medical service anonymously and pay in cash. You don't need to identify yourself to get health care. You can go to a hospital and call yourself John Doe.
The weak link might be getting the money order. I don't know if you can get a postal money order anonymously any more. Post offices have cameras now that record every "patron." Maybe you could hire somebody off the street to go in and get a $25 money order for you.
Chain of custody (Score:2)
One of the many reasons DNA tests from 23andMe, Ancestry, and Family Tree DNA aren't generally used for lawsuits or criminal cases, is chain of custody. For DNA evidence to hold up in court, the witness providing the evidence must generally be able to swear in court that the DNA sample actually belonged to the person in question, and that control of the physical evidence was maintained at all times. Genealogy-related DNA testing sites simply accept their customers' word that the sample being sent in for a
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need a chain of custody because it doesn't matter. Once they know who, they can find the rest of the evidence they need, and they can document it to the standard necessary for court.
statistically, false positive risk goes WAY up ... (Score:1)
Test a sample against a relatively small data set of known prior offenders, fairly good chance of an identification.
Test the same sample against the vast data sets available, and there's a much larger chance of a false positive.
Trolling through all the available DNA records is a mistake.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
Told you so (Score:2)
>"Kashmir Hill reports at Fusion that DNA results from companies like 23andMe are being requested by law enforcement agencies"
Like this is a surprise to anyone???? Give me a break! Information shared with a third party can never really be secure, regardless of what is in their "privacy" policies. Even if they delete the results after transmitting them to the customer, the "dark side" can intercept the communications, plant bugs or malware, or put in redirectors WITH the company knowing it but with a g
Re: /. is now only two days behind reddit (Score:1)
Ha! Slashdot may be two days late, but it will post it two or three times to even out the difference!
With your powers combined, gooo Dice!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good for you. Go back to Reddit.
I recently delved into Reddit a bit more deeply. I had seen it before and thought their format was horrible and didn't really see much that interested me.
When I took a deeper look I found most of the comments weren't interesting to me even if a story was. Quite often the highest rated comments are people making jokes which usually weren't particularly witty IMO.
Every once in a while I'd run across an insightful post.
I noticed some posts got deleted and I wondered why. A