Golden State Killer and DNA privacy

[nature-lover]

I am thrilled that he was caught, but could the attorneys or law enforcement here comment on the issue of DNA ancestry privacy.

Source: Fox News

The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office said Thursday that investigators used DNA from a crime scene years ago and compared it to other DNA samples from family history websites which users send their DNA to in order to learn more about their ancestry.

The district attorney's office "explored online family trees that appeared to have matches to DNA samples from the East Area Rapist's crimes," The Sacramento Bee reported. "They then followed clues to individuals in family trees to determine whether they were potential suspects."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/26/golden-state-killer-caught-using-relatives-dna-from-genealogy-websites-prosecutors-say.html

[Upthevibe]

1. I'm interested in hearing what folks have to say as well....

Thanks for posting, I hadn't read that article...

[jberryhill]

2. What privacy?

There were a bunch of threads promoting these commercial DNA ancestry things here on DU just a few weeks back, including the utterly bizarre trollish character who was basically saying that the only reason people don’t do them is because they are racists.

In a nutshell, these companies can do what they damned well please with your DNA data, and as illustrated in this example, with that of people related to you who go in for this faddish bullshit

If you give your DNA to strangers, what privacy do you expect?

[Sherman A1]

5. I remember that thread

With the message about being racist and thought it was an “interesting” comment.

[RhodeIslandOne]

7. I don't do them because I assume they are expensive n/m

[jberryhill]

13. But did you notice the others

There were a few of them... like an algal bloom of “hey, try this!”

As if knowing that generations ago two people about whom I know nothing decided to fuck one fine day, and knowing wherever they were from is going to imbue my resulting existence with some sort of deep meaning or insight into myself? Bullshit.

But I guess if I was hard up, I could use one of these services to find relatives I never knew about, to find out if they’ll loan me money or let me sleep on their couch.

I did buy a DNA test one time. For my dog. She was an adorable mutt we took in, and I wanted to know what magical combination of lineage resulted in such a wonderful friend. She was mostly a German Shepherd / Chihuahua mix. Yeah, I know. Not sure how the mechanics of that worked out. But I digress...

[Phoenix61]

18. Apparently well enough to produce your

wonderful friend. I'm guessing Papa was a very energetic Chihuahua fellow.

[malaise]

32. +1,000 ROFL

Great response.

[GeorgeGist]

35. -1

[Historic NY]

29. Ancestry said they didn't participate...

people can keep it private, unfortunately it seems like he had relatives who participated in one of the the several sites out there.

So if you a wanted criminal make sure the family isn't doing their family history.

[Sherman A1]

3. A reason to think very seriously

Before doing any of the DNA tests. They’re simply no longer private and one has to ask just who is able to access the information. Will employers, government agencies, insurance companies be able to give your 23 and Me a look to exclude you from a job, promotion or insurance coverage? People worry about Facebook, perhaps that concern needs to be extended to their DNA?

[NutmegYankee]

10. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) makes that illegal.

[TeamPooka]

12. Doesn't mean it won't happen.

[jberryhill]

14. Yeah, right

As if anyone was going to know or find out it was going on. Lots of things are illegal.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Obviously there are scenarios where DNA collection can be intrusive and discriminatory,

but the use of DNA to apprehend suspects or release innocent men is a great use of the technology.

[jberryhill]

15. Damn straight

Which is why I go through your trash for discarded personal care items, soak them in liquid, and then transfer it to the handles of the knives I use to kill my victims in your neighborhood.

[yallerdawg]

6. "The Grim Sleeper" in LA was caught through his son's DNA.

Our DNA is becoming like our fingerprints.

We're probably going to all be in a DNA government bank sometime soon. Just from our "bad" relatives. Which we all have.

[RhodeIslandOne]

8. All I know is I hope they catch Zodiac with this before they shut this kind of thing down! n/m

[RhodeIslandOne]

9. I wonder if the result was....

"Hey, your father's a serial killer!"

[JoeOtterbein]

11. An odd thought re: "Family Trees"....

...I'm sure if we really knew everyone in our own "Family Tree", back to our most ancient ancestor, we may find more than one murderer in a branch. Sad.

[lunatica]

16. Or interesting too

The upside would be if you only found one serial killer ancestor then you’ld Know it wasn’t a genetic trait. You know, the stuff of silver linings.

[jberryhill]

19. And you demonstrate the other thing that gets me about these things

I got news for you. You are related to every serial killer on earth. So am I.

I think people pretty much use these tests to reinforce idiotic, and essentially racist, points of view that persons with distinct and recent (in the scheme of things on the order of several tens of thousands of years) lineages have “genetic propensities” toward things which have no genetic basis whatsoever.

It is precisely this sort of thing which is pretty much the time honored American pastime of ethnic stereotyping. Gosh, do you think that Scots are genetically frugal or that Italians are genetically larcenous as well?

[lunatica]

37. Wow! All that rage

over a comment that was meant to be humorous?

I’ll try to remember to steer clear.

[jberryhill]

38. It's not rage

It's more of a rant about finding "meaning" in this DNA fad....

South Park did it better....

As we watch civilization go down the shitter, it used to be pretty common to impute criminal liability to people simply because they were related to some criminal.

It's such a common human impulse that the Constitution has to take this little detour:

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

This kind of thing used to have real consequences:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder#Corruption_of_blood

[JoeOtterbein]

21. Good point! Maybe some have more killers in their past than others...&...definitely a dangerous...

...kind of "business opportunity" possibility of a "Majority Report" kind of reaction regarding DNA tracing. They might try to lock us all up!!! (lol)

[jberryhill]

22. But if that essentially proto-racist idea were true

Then what would make it a bad idea?

Jesus, people, now I know the mentality which thinks Trump’s “kill their families too” thing is a good idea.

Behavior does not work that way. You are not an asshole or a saint because your family, or those in your broader kinship group, have a greater or lesser proportion of assholes or saints.

[JoeOtterbein]

24. Sorry, I would never assume anyone is either a "a...." or saint.

Never ever!

[JoeOtterbein]

27. I have never typed a foul word into a computer and I never will!!.....

....there really is no need. Everyone names themselves in the end. My main point is that DNA is not destiny.

[jberryhill]

28. There are foul words and foul ideas

For vast stretches of human history, organized mass rape was an instrument of conquest and warfare. That goes for everyone.

Like those happy commercials.... “I thought I was British, but found out I’m 10% Scandinavian!” Well, yeah... the Vikings would show up to rape and pillage pretty regularly, but “I’m 10% marauding band of rapist” doesn’t sell as well.

Among other things, it is also a virtual certainty, given the incidence of forced abduction and rape among humans, that just about anyone is descended from forcible involuntary sexual intercourse.

There, not a single foul word. Just happy talk

This type of thinking, that your lineage has any substantive bearing on your moral agency or capacity for good or ill, is the basis of caste systems and racism.

The Germans had to do a lot of grunt work to figure out who was or was not of Jewish ancestry when their political circumstances made that an important question. Today, people line up and actually pay to help the LDS church build out their most extensive collection of genealogical data on the planet, in the service of their interesting practices relating to securing familial benefits in the afterlife.

(Or is the LDS tie-in to Ancestry.com not generally known?)

[jberryhill]

17. All living organisms on earth are related

Do people really think that humans somehow consist of distinct groups of species or something? Every person on the planet is related, in one way or another, to every other person on the planet. Humans did not arrive here in separate spaceships from different planets. More broadly, every living thing on the planet is related to every other living thing.

Is there anyone who finds that pretty basic fact to be in any way surprising?

Yes, you, me and everyone else shares common ancestry with Charles Manson and Nelson Mandela.

[Takket]

20. Nobody made them put their DNA out there

This is why I have not a DNA ancestry test because I heard the fine print basically says they own it.

[Dorian Gray]

34. Yes ,

but if your sibling, child or cousin decides to do this... then your privacy is gone.

[KitSileya]

23. That is problematic.

I'd be much more comfortable requiring all who work, or has worked, for law enforcement to have to register their dna in a nationally available database. After all, there's always a chance for cross contamination, and if you are a criminal working as or for the cops, you have a chance to influence the investigation. In addition, it would in a small way help mitigate the thin blue line factor, because LEOs protect their own bad apples, as we have seen evidence of innumerable times.

[jberryhill]

26. Funny thing..

All lawyers are fingerprinted. I would expect DNA is next.

[RhodeIslandOne]

30. It wouldnt have mattered in this case

He hasn’t been in law enforcement since 1979 when DNA wasn’t even a thing. He actually essentially quit the second they wanted to do a larger investigation of him on the shoplifting deal.

[ecstatic]

25. WOW! I'm glad he was caught. I saw the special on him

accidentally, a few weeks back. As far as the DNA method used---though I'm not a criminal, I decided not to get my ancestry tested until congress steps in with regulation for this industry. We already have Google and Facebook running amok with our data, the last thing I want to do is add my DNA into the mix.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. That isn't technically a privacy issue as such.

It's using customer DNA sumbitted to commercial services in a way consistent with its intended use; if you submit a DNA sample to a company focused on genetic genealogy, your DNA is added to their database, and compared against everyone else's, and you receive a list of DNA matches to whom you are likely to be related. Some consumer DNA companies, like 23andMe, let you opt out of their "relative finder" service, which means your DNA won't be compared to others in that way. So if law enforcement submit a DNA sample to a commercial DNA service that does such matching, it's entirely within the terms of service the users agreed to, and within the scope of their intended use of the site (NB that such DNA matching does not expose personal genomic data to others).

[Dorian Gray]

33. This is such a fascinating subject to me....

Primarily because I've avoided taking these tests. Primarily bc I was adopted. Bc I was adopted I've grown for 46 years not really knowing my background. Sure, I have red hair and freckles, so I'm most likely of Scottish/Viking/Irish background. But I've never known for sure. And I don't care all that much. It doesn't define me.

BUT... I think I've read a story where long lost siblings found each other through these tests.

And I don't know that I want that.

That's a HELL of a lack of privacy if you can find someone you don't really want to find (birth parents, siblings, etc.)... or that they can find me if I don't want them to.

And that's not even a question of law enforcement.

It feels creepy.

[seaglass]

36. Yes, Dorian. There are many adoptees who have found their birth families using the

DNA kits and family trees/DNA matching on Ancestry, MyHeritage etc with of course mixed results.

I am not an adoptee so I don't feel that I have a right to judge whether an adoptee has the right to contact birth families via this method or not.

There are privacy settings in Ancestry, living people are not visible to others and you can privatize your entire family tree if you want. I am not making any statement about what LE may be given access to however.