Two New Laws Restrict Police Use of DNA Search Method (nytimes.com) 80
New laws in Maryland and Montana are the first in the nation to restrict law enforcement's use of genetic genealogy, the DNA matching technique that in 2018 identified the Golden State Killer, in an effort to ensure the genetic privacy of the accused and their relatives. From a report: Beginning on Oct. 1, investigators working on Maryland cases will need a judge's signoff before using the method, in which a "profile" of thousands of DNA markers from a crime scene is uploaded to genealogy websites to find relatives of the culprit. The new law, sponsored by Democratic lawmakers, also dictates that the technique be used only for serious crimes, such as murder and sexual assault. And it states that investigators may only use websites with strict policies around user consent. Montana's new law, sponsored by a Republican, is narrower, requiring that government investigators obtain a search warrant before using a consumer DNA database, unless the consumer has waived the right to privacy.
The laws "demonstrate that people across the political spectrum find law enforcement use of consumer genetic data chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive," said Natalie Ram, a law professor at the University of Maryland who championed the Maryland law. "I hope to see more states embrace robust regulation of this law enforcement technique in the future." Privacy advocates like Ms. Ram have been worried about genetic genealogy since 2018, when it was used to great fanfare to reveal the identity of the Golden State Killer, who murdered 13 people and raped dozens of women in the 1970s and '80s. After matching the killer's DNA to entries in two large genealogy databases, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA, investigators in California identified some of the culprit's cousins, and then spent months building his family tree to deduce his name -- Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. -- and arrest him.
The laws "demonstrate that people across the political spectrum find law enforcement use of consumer genetic data chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive," said Natalie Ram, a law professor at the University of Maryland who championed the Maryland law. "I hope to see more states embrace robust regulation of this law enforcement technique in the future." Privacy advocates like Ms. Ram have been worried about genetic genealogy since 2018, when it was used to great fanfare to reveal the identity of the Golden State Killer, who murdered 13 people and raped dozens of women in the 1970s and '80s. After matching the killer's DNA to entries in two large genealogy databases, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA, investigators in California identified some of the culprit's cousins, and then spent months building his family tree to deduce his name -- Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. -- and arrest him.
Reasons? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reasons? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest problem that law enforcement has with these types of searches is that it has been catching police officers who were serial killers
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a statement. Do you have any links that expound on this? (Not doubting you, I'd just like to research further.)
Re: (Score:3)
The premise of your argument seems to be on the "1 in a million" chance of a false match, for which there is no basis (or least of there is, no citation). If we're just picking numbers at random we could just as easily toss out "1 in 10 billion" which would make it nearly foolproof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given they can now do genetic testing which differentiates between "identical" twins, something most people thought was always going to be impossible, it now becomes a matter of "what exactly does a false match constitute?"
DNA testing does not test the entire sequence, thats far too costly and time consuming.
Standard genetic testing tests for markers, specific points in the sequence that act as indicators and can be matched up - but you can do a lot more than that if you want, so its more of a case of "how
Re: Reasons? (Score:3)
For 100 years people were convicted due to testimony like "she drove away in a red car, and the defendant has a red car". So DNA testing is far more specific than that. However like fingerprints the test results do not give unique results.
Re: (Score:3)
1 in a million has been used in court in the UK. It actually caused the trial of a suspect in The Troubles to collapse because it was pointed out that 1 in a million means there were at least 65 other matches in the UK alone, including a 14 year old schoolboy who had been ruled out by the police.
The prosecutors like to employ scientists who who say that DNA is infallible, which encourages them to lie. Sometimes they get caught out in that lie.
Re: Reasons? (Score:4, Informative)
This is the correct perspective. It is not an infallible test, but limits the possible perpetrators to a small pool
Re: (Score:2)
If we're just picking numbers at random we could just as easily toss out "1 in 10 billion" which would make it nearly foolproof.
"Test matched me to a bobcat. Would not use again." can happen 1 in 10 times for a 4.5 star rating, which is better than many companies.
Can you can find any human driven process that beats 1 in a million let alone 1 in 10 billion?
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't need to be foolproof.
The use of genetic evidence just needs to be millions of
times better than other kinds of evidence. And it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Presence or absence of 20 markers only gives a little over one million possible results. You need more possible values per marker than just presence or absence to get better than one in a million results.
I have long assumed that it isn't just presence or absence, but would like some confirmation from somebody that knows.
Add in the problem of possible corellation between markers. If value of one marker is correlated to the value of another marker the probability of a false match is increased.
Also add in the
Re: (Score:2)
That would be worse, if true.
There would still only be 2^20 possible values of presence or absence, so only a little over one million possible results. Much like collisions between 20 bit checksums.
If the individual markers are rare than results with many markers present would be rare and the probability of a false match would be much higher than one in a million.
As a thought experiment, if the markers were so rare that it would be unusual for an individual to have more than one there would only be 21 likel
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that confirms my original suspicion that there must be more than two possible values for an allele or marker.
I do wish I knew if I was conversing with one or two ACs.
If we make a stack of simplifying assumptions, first that each of 20 allele (marker? what is the best term?) occurs from 1 to 20 times, with each count equally probable then the probability of an individual match would be 1/20 or 5%, and the first AC's 0.05^20 probability for a perfect match becomes a reasonable calculation.
The real wor
Re: (Score:2)
Statistics. Lets say the odds of a false match are one in a million (including laboratory mistakes which probably dominate the errors, rather than actual matching sequences). If you are testing a suspect, the one in a million is well below the other risks of false convictions that a suspect faces. But - lets say you test all 300 million people in the US. You will get on average 300 "matches". Now the possibility that one of those matches is someone who could potentially be guilty is not that low. Probably get someone in the same city. Then if the police are really looking for a culprit they may find reasons that essentially random person is guilty. The numbers above are made up - but probably not crazy. There is a claim that statistical errors are one in a trillion, and that might be true - but its not at all clear how common mistakes are in testing labs. One in a million would be pretty damn good.
I am for universal genetic collection of dna. Here is why. Someone may have a failing organ, and only another person, whose dna is similar, (which results in other strong similarities) could be used to save the person. I am thinking of transfusions, of kidney donation, and other life saving actions. DNA information may save lives, if a person with a flawed dna can have his dna used to save the lives of others through a gene manipulation or other non-invasive action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reasons you are for it, I am as well. But my reasoning can't stop there.
The potential for abuse is simply too great, and the benefits would be mightily and quickly outweighed by the horrors wrought, sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
they may find reasons that essentially random person is guilty
They already do that: "suspect is Black".
Genetic testing is literally millions of times better than that.
Re: Reasons? (Score:2)
DNA can also be used to exclude people from investigations.
Just be aware that in small communities wirh a lit of close relatives it's easy to match to the wrong person unless care is taken.
Re: (Score:2)
The first use of DNA in a criminal investigation exonerated the suspect who would almost certainly have been jailed for the rest of his life without the DNA testing.
All those people on death rows or in prison for life: you have to wonder why police and prosecutors fight so hard to prevent additional DNA testing in many cases.
Re: Reasons? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, minorities do a smaller proportion of the crimes, but are more likely to be punished.
I presume you mean minorities like left-handed people, those with green eyes, and people who like Nickelback.
What's the downside? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how this is invading anyone's privacy except actual criminals. Like if you scanned my entire family all the way back to the first caveman all day long you won't find anything about me and won't have a clue I even exist because I don't go around leaving evidence at crime scenes. This seems like a totally legitimate way to use technology in a non-invasive way that actually helps us. But maybe I'm not thinking about something. What is the way to abuse this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They can do that now. That's not what these laws are about. The issue is finding DNA and tracing it back to you via forensic knowledge of your relatives who have contributed their own DNA to one of the major databases. That's how they caught the Golden State killer. None of his relatives were charged nor implicated. It's just that the DNA left at the scene, that had no identity, led back to him. Now just how does that technique implicate innocent people?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're restricted to criminal databases, your lack (hopefully) of a criminal history turns those random bits of DNA into a mystery sample that they will never connect to you. If they go trawling through commercial DNA based geneology databases, all it takes is for some relative of yours to have ever submitted a sample.
Re: (Score:2)
all it takes is for some relative of yours to have ever submitted a sample.
Only if:
1. they have no alibi (i.e. too old, too young, wrong sex, never having been there) and
2. a history of behavior consistent with the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is true. The 'detective' is just looking for any link at all. He will find out about you from them, then you are the number one suspect because of that very tenuous connection to the crime scene. It's not like CSI where they want to know the whole truth, it's more like pin the crime on the donkey.
Re: What's the downside? (Score:2)
So don't litter.
Re: (Score:2)
Or sneeze, or get injured. For best results, wear a bunny suit when you go out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an attack on DNA evidence in general, not use of DNA databases in forensics.
Re: (Score:3)
You make a very good point. Law enforcement and DAs have this thirst to pin crimes on someone regardless of whether they actually committed the crime or not. We see all kinds of serious crimes being pinned on people who didn't commit them, and DNA often exonerates these people.
From that perspective, DNA might help them not convict so many innocent people. On the other side, though, it may help them make false convictions stick even more and eliminate an avenue for being exonerated.
I guess it always comes
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
wait... what? are you suggesting that analyzing evidence is prohibited by the 4th amendment?
yea, um, no can't agree with that
Re: (Score:1)
Abuse of the fourth amendment is prohibited. People, even unimaginative ones like you, have an inalienable right to be secure in their persons.
A person has no privacy interest in other people's DNA, so if you get caught based on a relative's DNA (a relative who uploaded their DNA to GEDmatch or whatever themselves and hence consented to it), no rights of yours (or of anyone else) have been violated.
You don't have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their DNA. If you relative wants to upload his or her DNA to GEDmatch, that's his or her right.
Re: (Score:3)
Like if you scanned my entire family all the way back to the first caveman all day long you won't find anything about me and won't have a clue I even exist
If you are even a near match then you will be pulled up. So maybe some distant cousin does something shady and suddenly you have the cops hauling you in for questioning about someone you may not even know exists.
Re: (Score:3)
suddenly you have the cops hauling you in for questioning about someone you may not even know exists
Then there's not a lot you have to say about such a distant relative. And I think the cops know this. They don't "haul you in". They just ask you about your family tree.
I think these laws are more aimed at a person's 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. The problem with relatives DNA is that while a suspect can refuse to give a sample of their own, they can't prevent a relative from contributing theirs and, through such a link, incriminate the suspect. You possess evidence that your long los
Re: (Score:2)
I think these laws are more aimed at a person's 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. The problem with relatives DNA is that while a suspect can refuse to give a sample of their own, they can't prevent a relative from contributing theirs and, through such a link, incriminate the suspect.
And what's the issue? 5th Amendment's applies only to _testimony_ of the accused and DNA is evidence, not testimony.
Re: (Score:3)
and DNA is evidence
Which requires a warrant from a judge to collect on private property. So these new laws put DNA on the same level as anything that the police could collect from you or your relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Which requires a warrant from a judge to collect on private property.
In the case of the Golden State Killer, GEDmatch led the
investigators to a group of over 1000 individuals. This
was narrowed down to a few dozen by old-fashion police work - eliminating
individuals because of age, sex, alibi etc.
Finally they followed a few of the remaining suspects, collecting trash
that they may have left their DNA on. When DeAngelo left a paper cup behind with
his saliva on it, they had a match that exceeded 100 billion to one.
He pleaded guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the downside? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think that you bothered to read the summary.
The police won't be prohibited from using these techniques: however, they will have to get a judge to sign off on the use of the technique in each specific case.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not an invasion of privacy then why not simply mandate everyone giving a DNA sample for a giant database? Get everyone on there and give the cops access.
If you think that's a good idea then you don't understand privacy, the potential for abuse, how DNA evidence works or what "invasive" means.
Re: (Score:2)
They will find a familial match when the 2nd cousin you've never met happened to be at the scene of the crime and left 30 seconds before things went bad.
Or, you looked at a new hammer at the hardware store but decided on the other one. The next person who touched it used it to murder someone the same day.
Your lack of criminal history has kept you out of any law enforcement databases, but perhaps you decided to try 23 and me.
Or perhaps you avoided that too, but your cousin tried it and showed up as a familia
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is it false positives a fair amount. How often inst clear. If its 100 million you'll get ~300 matches in the US giver or take depending on ethnicity and other factors.
That does not see so bad you say. Assuming you have at least some other corroborating evidence a DNA match probably means you got the right person. This is true!
BUT!
Lets assume the police get super lazy! (not giant leap). Suppose the general form of most investigations becomes - go to the crime scene, find all the DNA samples aroun
Maryland⦠(Score:3)
What's the goal here? (Score:3)
I don't understand the goal here. If there is a law on the books, it should either be eliminated or enforced. If an efficient way to enforce it is via the use of genealogical DNA databases, why wouldn't police be allowed to use that tool?
Beyond whatever disclosures and informed consent these sites must make to their customers or get from their customers, these laws seem designed to prevent enforcement of laws. What is the purpose of that?
Certainly the responsible use of these tools is appropriate, but getting a judge with no particular expertise in DNA to sign off on a warrant is not going to do much to insure that.
Re:What's the goal here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the goal here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we allow police to just search any house they like in order to pursue an investigation? After all, the police are only trying to enforce a law.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an expectation of privacy inside your house.
There is no expectation of privacy in a public park or on a public sidewalk or in your DNA profile you choose to upload to a public web site.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is, if you uploaded it for a different purpose. The police started by using subterfuge (creating fake profiles) to get access to the profiles.
Re: (Score:2)
So, ban "fake profiles" for all (including ordinary citizens).
Remember, YOU can still do what police did if you happen to have access to DNA at a crime scene (such as a smear of blood from the home invader that you fought off and fled after killing the rest of your family). You can get it sequenced, do just what the police did, and then present that info to the police and they are free to use it as long as you didn't do that under their direction. Just as if you break into someone's house (a crime) and disc
Re:What's the goal here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that tool can be used to oppress and wrongly convict people.
The cops have been known to haul people in and lean heavily on them to take a plea deal because they claim to have DNA evidence. It might be totally bogus, by that doesn't matter - the innocent victim has to convince a jury that's been watching CSI where the computer shows a perfect DNA match every time, and their public defender probably isn't up to the task.
The cops are mostly not interested in who actually did a crime, they just want to get another clear on the books. If DNA is enough to get a prosecution then they aren't going to waste time verifying that it actually was you, they are just going to start the railroading process to get you to take that plea deal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true of almost all physical evidence. Should we therefore disallow collecting any physical evidence?
That DNA match will be found if the person ever has their DNA taken by police for some other reason and they may then be tried for the unsolved case from decades earlier with all the same problems you describe. It's easier to defend yourself against an erroneous charge when the crime was recent as you may still have remember "where you were the night of", you may have receipts supporting that, business
Don't get caught then. (Score:2)
Isn't that the rules ?
Theoretically, LEOs using DNA may narrow the list (Score:4, Insightful)
But LEOs will treat the new as if it's infallible [theverge.com], like on CSI.. It ain't and neither are the LEOs. Until they are better we need protections from them.
Watch the TV show (Score:2)
Fascinating stuff. Impressive science.
The only objection I can see is someone does their ancestry.com or 23 and me test and finds out later it is used to convict long lost cousin Bubba the serial rapist.
Make the disclaimer clearer for people who don't really know what DNA is. Done deal.
North Korea of America. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to have (Score:1)
Unless in a large family and your cousin is a serial killer.
Then not so nice.