DNA Mining Services and You

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
So the Golden State Killer was all over the news last week and he was busted using DNA evidence. It was not his DNA found, but someone's in his family, and that helped point investigators towards him. I also read yesterday, where police had another suspect last year that was fingered by DNA evidence, but that lead turned out to be a dead end. The AP has a nice writeup about the legal side of things, and while these companies are saying they do not sell your DNA profile, so that it ends up in a "public" database, it is apparent it is surely happening somewhere.


The big commercial databases insist they have much stricter customer privacy practices than websites such as GEDmatch and don’t hand over data without a court order. It’s unclear whether the California case will affect customers’ trust in DNA services overall. "These companies are saying that they’re different," said Tiffany Li, a technology attorney and Yale Law School fellow. "I think what’s key is this open-source database is made up of data profiles that people mostly got from those private companies."
 
Wasnt there just some big article about how these commercial dna testing places were not that accurate?

In this particular case, I dont know what to believe, since the press conference said that they found him through discard dna sample.
But then there was an article that was saying they got it from one of the big commercial dna places.
Then there was another article that I read that said they got a match on his dna from a free public dna site that people upload data on to find relatives.

So... who the hell even knows!
 
This is unfortunate news. This creates a precedent which the evidence might have to be thrown out.

From my understanding, this killers family members had submitted DNA and selected "match with other members."

The Police submitted the DNA evidence they had from the crime scene as a new profile and it matched with these family members. They were then able to obtain the warrants necessary to get the DNA of the suspect(s) and do a proper lab match to the crime scene evidence.
 
From my understanding, this killers family members had submitted DNA and selected "match with other members."

The Police submitted the DNA evidence they had from the crime scene as a new profile and it matched with these family members. They were then able to obtain the warrants necessary to get the DNA of the suspect(s) and do a proper lab match to the crime scene evidence.
Moral of the story is don't kill people and have family members who submit DNA to ancestry.com.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding, this killers family members had submitted DNA and selected "match with other members."

The Police submitted the DNA evidence they had from the crime scene as a new profile and it matched with these family members. They were then able to obtain the warrants necessary to get the DNA of the suspect(s) and do a proper lab match to the crime scene evidence.

That's the problem. This data was 1) not submitted by the accused or given without his permission. 2) Comes from a data source which hasn't been vetted.

Leads to all kinds of sticky thicket issues for the supreme court and search and seizure rules.
 
That's the problem. This data was 1) not submitted by the accused or given without his permission. 2) Comes from a data source which hasn't been vetted.

Leads to all kinds of sticky thicket issues for the supreme court and search and seizure rules.

The "Data" was taken from an active crime scene, and not from his direct person...he left the dna in public at the scene of a murder...If I walk up and kill you, and on my way out I trip and knock my tooth out and do not pick it up, do the cops have the right to gather that evidence to use it to tie to me? I would say yes but I am not a lawyer.
 
Please place your hands in the yellow circles
"I am a meat Popsicle"
meat.gif
 
I'm pretty sure the majority of the public appreciates that the authorities caught the man who savagely raped and killed dozens of women, regardless of how they've obtained the evidence. Lawful or not, I'm glad that piece of shit was picked up.
 
They collect DNA now for any class B misdemeanor or higher now in Texas. So if you get caught pissing outside, they will take your DNA and put it into the database... lol

What we Europeans don't get is that you think you live in a free nation and can't even take a piss outside, look at some naked tits on a billboard and enjoy life without the risc of getting arrested. What a joke.

No tits, no pissing outside after 4 beers, no naked women at all, hell what..!?!&%&§? .OK you got the guns that we don't...OK OK.
 
What we Europeans don't get is that you think you live in a free nation and can't even take a piss outside, look at some naked tits on a billboard and enjoy life without the risc of getting arrested. What a joke.

No tits, no pissing outside after 4 beers, no naked women at all, hell what..!?!&%&§? .OK you got the guns that we don't...OK OK.

It's true. Being in Europe is almost like being on another planet. I almost fell out of my seat at a hotel pool when a bunch of teenagers just stripped naked by the pool to change..
 
The "Data" was taken from an active crime scene, and not from his direct person...he left the dna in public at the scene of a murder...If I walk up and kill you, and on my way out I trip and knock my tooth out and do not pick it up, do the cops have the right to gather that evidence to use it to tie to me? I would say yes but I am not a lawyer.
That's not the issue.

Imagine the police finger printing 5000000 just because they were living in Cali and there were prints at the crime scene.

That's search and seizure without probable cause. See the problem now?

See states have already outlawed this form of evidence collection.
 
Published on Apr 27, 2018 · 2 days ago
Law enforcement matched the DNA of the suspected "Golden State Killer" with genetic information stored in a publicly-shared database called GEDMatch. Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, made his first court appearance on Friday. He's accused of committing several murders and rapes during the 1970s and 1980s. Privacy lawyer Joel Winston joins CBSN to explain how the police located the suspect.

Kind of frightening if you listen from 5:08 to the end.

 
It's true. Being in Europe is almost like being on another planet. I almost fell out of my seat at a hotel pool when a bunch of teenagers just stripped naked by the pool to change..


LOL yeah, we here in america are REALLY uptight about sex and nudity.
 
That's the problem. This data was 1) not submitted by the accused or given without his permission. 2) Comes from a data source which hasn't been vetted.

Leads to all kinds of sticky thicket issues for the supreme court and search and seizure rules.

I'm sure the ACLU and other defenders of the criminal class will true to shut this down, but I don't have a problem with this.

They used DNA found at the crime scene. They didn't arrest someone based on unvetted data, they just used it to narrow done the number of suspects. They then collected a DNA sample from the suspect and got a match. Crime solved.

This isn't much difference than pulling DMV records for a certain type/color of car seen at a crime scene, and then checking the tire tread to look for a match.
 
That's not the issue.

Imagine the police finger printing 5000000 just because they were living in Cali and there were prints at the crime scene.

That's search and seizure without probable cause. See the problem now?

See states have already outlawed this form of evidence collection.


But the police didn't collect 5,000,000 finger prints, or 5,000,000 DNA samples.
They just submitted the crime sample to a public database and then used that match to find the criminal.

If these were newer crimes, they could have pulled the records of every cell phone in the area of each crime, and ran a cross match to find a phone that was near each crime scene.
 
Back
Top