SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the keep-your-base-pairs-to-yourself dept.
If you're white, live in the United States, and a distant relative has uploaded their DNA to a public ancestry database, there's a good chance an internet sleuth can identify you from a DNA sample you left somewhere. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that by combining an anonymous DNA sample with some basic information such as someone's rough age, researchers could narrow that person's identity to fewer than 20 people by starting with a DNA database of 1.3 million individuals.
Such a search could potentially allow the identification of about 60% of white Americans from a DNA sample—even if they have never provided their own DNA to an ancestry database. "In a few years, it's really going to be everyone," says study leader Yaniv Erlich, a computational geneticist at Columbia University.
The study was sparked by the April arrest of the alleged "Golden State Killer," a California man accused of a series of decades-old rapes and murders. To find him—and more than a dozen other criminal suspects since then—law enforcement agencies first test a crime scene DNA sample, which could be old blood, hair, or semen, for hundreds of thousands of DNA markers—signposts along the genome that vary among people, but whose identity in many cases are shared with blood relatives. They then upload the DNA data to GEDmatch, a free online database where anyone can share their data from consumer DNA testing companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com to search for relatives who have submitted their DNA. Searching GEDMatch's nearly 1 million profiles revealed several relatives who were the equivalent to third cousins to the crime scene DNA linked to the Golden State Killer. Other information such as genealogical records, approximate age, and crime locations then allowed the sleuths to home in on a single person.
Even if you can convince your entire immediate family to not use these services, you could still be vulnerable. And the success rate is likely to climb over time for all racial groups. Maybe the tests could be subsidized to get more of the population to give up the goods.
Also at LA Times
Related: DNA From Genealogy Site Led to Capture of Golden State Killer Suspect
GEDmatch: "What If It Was Called Police Genealogy?"
DNA Collected from Golden State Killer Suspect's Car, Leading to Arrest
Another Alleged Murderer Shaken Out of the Family Tree
'Martyr of the A10': DNA Leads to France Arrests Over 1987 Murder
Indiana Murder Suspect Found by Using Genealogical Website
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:48AM (13 children)
Here's one area where law enforcement is (perhaps temporarily) tougher on white folks - and, really, more than race, it's about having close and even semi-distant blood relations who have pretty serious disposable income to blow on something like 23 and me - which, by the numbers these days, is mostly white folks.
The real problem comes when the technology gets stretched past its limits, like convicting someone on a single partial fingerprint match or finding a single hair at the crime scene which actually got there without the defendant being at the scene.
I recall one "mass murderer" who turned out to be an employee at the test swab manufacturer or some-such.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:50AM
> I recall one "mass murderer" who turned out to be an employee at the test swab manufacturer
The perfect cover.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 13 2018, @08:16AM (6 children)
The figure is 60% for Americans with European ancestry, and 40% for "someone of sub-Saharan African ancestry in the MyHeritage database". That is not a huge difference, and we'll probably find all of these numbers converging at 99% eventually. Maybe your best hope at evading detection will be errors that propagate from database to database, such as misspelled names, mismatched DNA, or incorrect family trees.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @10:41AM (2 children)
That may be your best hope, but I'm not leaving it to chance. I've submitted someone else's DNA to 23andme as my own, and shared it with ged match. My family isn't into that shit (neither am I), so I'm not worried about being the wrong monkey in the family tree (I'll blame 23 if that ever happens). But I certainly don't trust law enforcement or the government when it comes to these things.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 13 2018, @04:18PM (1 child)
Better hope you've got an alibi when your false DNA print goes out and does something you wouldn't.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @05:42PM
No worries there, mate. If it ever comes down to that I'll give them ... a DNA sample.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:39AM
They love collecting DOB around here for everything. Sign up to an ISP? DOB! Driver's licence! Connect electricity? DOB! Licence! Now! or don't be connected!
Sadly, they really don't have a way to verify this. The upshot is that I now exist as several different people. I don't move my utilities to a new place I disconnect and make a new account. Easy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
What societal benefit is there for murderers to evade detection? Why would we want this?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:36PM
The real issue is the societal detriment of these DNA databases. Murderers can be caught without resorting to these methods.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by acid andy on Saturday October 13 2018, @09:07AM (3 children)
Yup that's the scariest part. Oh, that magic DNA stuff, well that alone is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, right? Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Tech like this will make it too easy for them to always find someone to pin the blame on.
Consumerism is poison.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:30PM (1 child)
Always amused me the "1 in X million" stuff that is said in court about DNA, where X million is a lot less than the population, surely somewhere some defence lawyer must have thrown that back with something like "so you are saying there are 30 matches in this country and 600 worldwide, why are those suspects not in the dock?".
Best tactic for the criminal is making sure they have plenty of someones. People shed DNA all the time, hair, dead skin cells, etc. If it's easy for police to collect from the crime scene then it's easy enough for criminals to collect from "_not_ the crime scene" and transfer it to the crime scene. Then you need a plausible reason for having been at the crime scene sometime past - this is so you can admit that to the cops if you have to, while the innocent folk will deny ever being there at which point the cops "know" they are lying... and it's pin the blame time (in the US it's called plea bargain I think), but not on you.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 13 2018, @04:20PM
Same thing for fingerprints, of course....
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:56PM
Circumstantial evidence is proof, why wouldn't it be? It's often times far more accurate that eye witness testimony. The key though is that the prosecution has to do it's whole job, not just cherry pick what evidence they want to use. This means actually considering evidence of an alibi and how the totality of the evidence they've gathered fits together.
It's not their responsibility to prove innocence, but it is their responsibility to make sure that the evidence is a reasonable match to the person they're looking to charge.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @11:29AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 13 2018, @08:17AM (5 children)
Soon enough, everyone will be identifiable through the databases. Literally everyone. About the only people who might avoid it are those who live in far-far-far backwater places without technology. But, even those people will eventually be caught in the net. It only takes one member of a non-tech community to be found, and sampled, and put into the database. There is no question that it's coming - the question is, who controls the data, and how will it be used? Genocidally minded people will find the databases very useful, of course. Less evil people might find it useful to prevent certain classes of people from serving in their military, or becoming police, or finding decent jobs. Profit minded corporations will use the databases to block people from getting insurance. Other uses might prevent certain types of people getting higher education. Some of those potentially crazy uses might even sound "good" on the surface. Some gene or another gets associated with severe mental retardation, and over time, no very intelligent person with that gene is found - 100 is the highest IQ associated with that gene. Then - some baby is born with the gene who happens to be a super-genius. But, he is denied a meaningful education because all his relatives are dumb. Far more likely, medical decisions will be made based on the databases - only to be proven wrong in the long run. How many people might die, because of the faulty use of a database?
As with all things, there is both good and bad in the use of this DNA data. For the most part, we aren't asking the right questions. If we are surprised that you can be identified through your relatives, then you're not even in a position to ask those questions.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @11:11AM
It has been my paranoid opinion for quite a while now* that 'They' are looking for common genetic markers in the general global untermensch population (in this case, anyone not of the top 1~10%), for eventual targeting in the next big global pandemic.
Genocide, yes, but not in a narrow 'kill the $single_ethnic_group_of_choice' way you'd normally interpret from the usage of the word. They now have nascent workable targeted manipulation of the human genome, 'They' no longer require such large breeding herds to maintain a diverse human gene pool for them to play with. With automation and 'real' AIs probably just around the corner, 'They' also won't need much of a worker caste (and that includes you, scientists and engineers, that most definitley includes you...as you're the biggest 'threat' to them as you understand the 'systems' you're building for them)
*'Plague Circuit' by Robert Sheckley planted the seed in my pre-teen mind back in the mid-70's, then as I got older and ran into momsers of the ilk of 'The Club of Rome', 'The Bilderbergers' and others of their motley..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:39PM (1 child)
Yeah, well, except that's already against that law. And if you say, maybe not in future, then maybe in the future it will not be illegal to discriminate based on skin color? Same thing.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:54PM
Perhaps you should read the other AC post, before your own. Then you might consider whether the wealthy are really expected to obey the law. Think about it for awhile.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:59PM (1 child)
For serious crimes like murder or rape, I don't have a huge issue with it. What I do have an issue with is that this will eventually creep into less serious crimes and possibly even thought crimes.
They're publicizing this being used to find murderers and rapists because the public is much more likely to accept it as reasonable than if they go after people that are being accused of non-violent offenses.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 13 2018, @10:41PM
That's not good enough. Are you advocating collecting DNA samples from convicted murderers and rapists? That doesn't catch first-timers. Murderers and rapists tend to be put away for a long time anyway. The creep is inevitable. It barely even works without the creep.
Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather see physical action taken to disrupt and destroy such databases.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by splodus on Saturday October 13 2018, @09:29AM (1 child)
The number of times I've noticed a hair in an amazon prime package - doesn't really bother me except to make me wonder how much of my stuff has been sneezed or coughed on!
I can't help thinking this approach is going to lead to an increase in people getting scooped up just because their DNA has been found.
If the criminal was very careful, and only DNA from the guy at a warehouse 50 minutes away is found? Or he has no alibi, but the real killer has 2 friends who swear they were playing video games all evening...?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @11:52AM
My previous job(which wasn't IT related) I hand made items which were then shipped globally, this, incidentally, included a number of knives. So, despite never having visited these places, traces of my DNA can potentially be found on items in China, India, Ghana, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Canada, USA, Wales, England, Egypt, Israel, Norway...including items more than capable of murdering someone (knives).
By contamination, by finishing production items we made for customers who then shipped globally my DNA (in smaller trace amounts) could be found anywhere on the planet (including, rather weirdly, some 'royal' palaces)
My understanding of the situation is that DNA evidence was only ever supposed to be corroborative, it backed up other evidence, does it surprise me in the least that you can now get convicted on the basis of DNA evidence alone? (clue: people generally have such a real deep understanding of science in general and the wonderful and whacky world of statistics in particular..)