SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Police submitted a DNA sample under a fake name to GEDmatch, an online DNA-matching/genealogy service, in order to capture a man they suspect to be the "Golden State Killer". Science Magazine interviewed Yaniv Erlich, who warned back in 2014 that GEDmatch could be used for law enforcement purposes:
Yaniv Erlich, a geneticist at Columbia University in New York City, was far from surprised at the news last week that police may have found a serial murderer and rapist, California's long-sought Golden State Killer, by tapping a public DNA database to match crime scene DNA: Erlich had cautioned in a June 2014 article [open, DOI: 10.1038/nrg3723] [DX] about genetic privacy, published in Nature Reviews Genetics, that GEDmatch, the website that was reportedly used, could allow for such "genealogical triangulation." On GEDmatch, people voluntarily supply their own DNA sequences that they obtain through consumer sequencing companies—like MyHeritage, where Erlich serves as chief science officer--and provide e-mail addresses, which allows presumed relatives to contact each other. In this case, the investigators fished the database with a DNA sequence obtained from a frozen, 37-year-old rape kit used in a murder case attributed to the Golden State Killer.
Police have not yet revealed precise details about how GEDmatch, or other such sites, were used, but Erlich, who was not involved with cracking this decades-old case, spoke with Science about how the suspect's DNA sequence likely led to his arrest and related privacy issues. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q. How do you think police narrowed down the many matches they found on GEDmatch?
A: I would be surprised if it was more distant than a second cousin--probably a first cousin because with a second you have too many people. Then they had three choices: no cooperation, just figure out the family tree; contact the relative and make up a story like, "I'm an adoptee and saw you on GEDmatch"; or explain, "We're the police and you're not a suspect but you can help us because of your DNA." Probably the safest thing is to come up with a story and say, "Oh, thank god I found you, let's meet." When they meet, police come as a team and say we're investigating this type of thing, please walk us through your family tree. It's not very nice to say no. Then if you have 20 people on the tree, it's quite trivial to go for the one person you're looking for who is quite old, male, lives in California, and who, some of the victims said, had light colored eyes.
[...] Q. There's a lot of concern about privacy being compromised here, but people voluntarily put their data into GEDmatch.
A: It's not like people fully understand the consequences of putting their DNA into a public database. They think, "So many people use the website, so it's ok." Or: "Oh, it's a website for genealogy." What if it was called Police Genealogy? People wouldn't do it. We don't think about everything. We think about the most likely thing.
An earlier search led to the wrong man, because a Y chromosome database was searched, turning up a poor match. GEDmatch allows for autosomal matching (the paper also noted Mitosearch.org, which includes mitochondrial data).
Also at STAT News.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:19PM (6 children)
Yes, let's ban all slopes then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:27PM (5 children)
It's better for some murderers to die free, unpunished, than to let our DNA fall into the hands of law enforcement.
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show [nytimes.com]
If you thought having your social security number or SF-86 form [wikipedia.org] hanging out in the wild was bad, just wait until your genomic data is out there.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:02PM (4 children)
Meh, cops planting evidence is hardly a new thing. That they could do it with DNA is scientifically interesting, but hardly a reason to ignore all DNA evidence. You just have to include that possibility in your Bayesian priors.
Can't say I agree with that. If we are inventing new morals for new technology, they might as well be aligned to the facts of life. We shed DNA all the time, and cops are going pick up those crumbs.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
Dirty cops, or anybody with the right tools (which will decline in cost) who can get a hold of your digital genomic sequence. And once your genome is outed, you're essentially compromised forever.
There are a lot of bits of DNA all over the place, but without a database of identified individuals to compare them to, they aren't worth as much. Although they could determine gender and a rough approximation of appearance [nytimes.com] from a DNA sample.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:11AM (1 child)
Taking a longer term view, maybe this is how humanity keeps evolving. If your DNA has problems, you have to pay a bit more for insurance, and potential mates will think twice. It's better than eugenics, and people can use gene therapy to fix things up, and take steps to improve the DNA of their offspring. Not that that's ideal, but the current situation with no evolutionary pressure might not be sustainable.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:35AM
I agree. Natural selection is largely on the way out since people who would have been picked off by the wolves in centuries past can instead live full, productive lives, and produce offspring. So unwanted mutations may be spreading throughout the population. Some of these have been caught by genetic screening, but some jurisdictions are moving to restrict abortion in these cases [soylentnews.org].
Our understanding of the human genome is improving over time, and the cost of sequencing is falling. That means that insurance companies will have an incredible motive to get as much genetic data from users as possible, in order to kick high-risk individuals out of the pool or raise rates for them. All of the insured may even get a discount if they volunteer their genome.
Mates: see Dor Yeshorim [wikipedia.org]. An organization ahead of its time because the Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews marry within their communities and have higher rates of genetic disease. But you'll see the approach spread as sequencing costs drop to a one-time fee of $100 to $1,000 and Silicon Valley companies scramble to collect and analyze such data and provide services.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a low-tech way of getting what you want in an offspring, and won't work in all cases. Gene therapy, or even an embryo built from scratch, could allow any two people to have an offspring, with almost all issues eliminated (new mutations can still happen as the cells divide).
It also opens up possibilities of designer babies. It's likely that the rich will have an advantage here because they will be able to afford the technology, or go to countries where it is not banned if the U.S. and others try to take a moral stand against it. You can bet somebody out there is working on identifying the many genes associated with beauty, and simulating what appearance a genome will result in. You can have your baby rendered while it is still a digital sequence.
Make sure to check out this article: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/02/2019246 [soylentnews.org]
I haven't seen any indication that Josiah Zayner has gotten the muscle growth he desired. Editing at the embryonic level is how to make sure your edits have full impact. But if gene therapy for adults can produce some results, I'm sure we will see it in competitive sports very soon.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:45PM
The thing is, if you give them DNA they don't need to use any elaborate science tricks to fabricate your dna.
They just plant what you gave them - and your goose is cooked.
Perhaps we need another agency to manage things that the cops can't be trusted with.
They will get over being distrusted. Most of them are already embracing body cams, because cams exonerates cops more than they incriminate them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.