>

I think it’s incredibly frightening that the authorities can now track your DNA whether you’ve provided it or not. 
I think the fact that they used this method to catch such a horrific murderer is forcing people to bite their tongues when it comes to how weird it is that cops can use a private DNA company to track people. 
How easy would it be to use this technology for nefarious things?
I bet it’s like how they caught the golden state killer. Run it against the database to a sample at the scene, hits on a family member. They can tell they’re related from the DNA profile but it’s clearly not the person in the system. Look up relatives, wow he lives 10 miles away, look up registration, drives an Elantra. They tail him across the country for in PA till he throws away a drink cup or something, watch him use it and toss it, it’s abandoned property. Test the sample- boom, match. Arrest warrant. >

This seems like parallel construction with extra steps, but I'm no supreme court judge. >

absolutely not - most states hold that discarded items are fair game for law enforcement. no way a challenge like you’re suggesting would ever hold up in court. >

I'm not contesting the legality of it, I'm no lawyer type. But morally it feels like it should be poison fruit. And it isn't, but that feels like a gap in privacy law, at least to me. >

don’t agree at all. you discard something it is fair game. what right do you have to privacy over an item you’ve discarded? none. people have tried and failed to challenge the legality of this kind of evidence. it’s been used in dozens of high profile cases >

Let's wind back to clarify what I mean. I believe that morally, performing investigation via genealogy database records is a bad idea. I think it is against societies best interests. I believe that it will open the door to police overreach and will disincentivize people from using important genetic services. This point can be easily debated.
But given that I think that that, using genealogical data to find nearby relatives, whose only fault was being geographically close to the crime and a relative of someone who is a potential DNA match feels morally dubious.
Again, I'm not claiming that it is against the rules, I'm asking whether perhaps it should be. >

I just don’t agree. the dna isn’t automatically added to GED match. people have to choose to opt in, or they are made aware when they submit their dna that it will be available in those kind of databases. genetic genealogy has resulted in decades long cold cases being solved. it could very well lead to wrongfully convicted people being exonerated.
I think you need to read up on what genetic genealogy is and how it’s been used in cases. Cece Moore is a good name to look at - this is a laborious process and leaves essentially no room for error, and needs to be confirmed with a fresh dna sample (ie discarded cup or cigarette). people are acting like genetic genealogy is being used to catch innocent people or to catch people committing very minor crimes. this is largely being used to solve decades old cold murder cases and serial killer cases. if we had good dna on the zodiac, he would have been caught by now with this technology. 
no one is telling you to submit your dna to GED match. personally I would have no problem with a distant relative of mine being caught using mine if they committed a violent crime like the ones being solved here. >

Now it might be being used that way. But if the police have shown us anything, it's that if they have been given a good tool, they will eventually find a way to weaponize it against minorities and left-wing protesters. >

or petty personal grudges. >

As awful as the selling and use of such personal data is (of genealogy database data), catching all of these serial killers is a silver lining. >

Sure, give up a little privacy here and there to catch a killer.  That’s all fine and great.  
The thing I keep coming back to is how useful the Nazis would have found such a database. 
Data never dies.  Some day, maybe in 20 years maybe in 100, there may be an evil group of people in power who either have easy access to this sort of information or engage in some kind of digital archeology to acquire it. (Assuming one day stricter ideals of personal privacy and DNA ownership come into play)
I just hate the idea that I could be sending my (great) grandchildren to hell because I wanted to know what percentage Norwegian I am.
Imagine your child is now an insurgent fighting in a civil war and their identity is discovered and they’re captured because you mailed your DNA to a corporation before they were born.
It’s China’s wet dream and they are 100% building that database. >

I know folks will call us both super paranoid, but agreed. >

They already call me super paranoid. I wear my mask & stick tape on all the cameras in self checkouts at the grocery store (used for face detection algorithms and training sets) while refusing any stupid 'store discount card which they sell to data brokers. 
Targeted advertising and marketing techniques using data compiled from multiple inputs is the reason for significant shifts in politics and fhe growth of cult like extremists. It started with the success of the Arab spring, which showed many unscrupulous profit motivated douchbags how powerful a tool targeted advertising on social networks was. Look at gamergate, then the incels & the explosion of alt right ideologies. They tested the methods and seen how very effective the new-age propaganda machine can be. Thats ehen the very same people moved to politics (think Steve Bannon, milo and their ilk - all having dipped their toes in the water with the gamergate to incel pipeline). 
In 2015, I published a peer reviewed article on how unscrupulously these for profit companies use big data for shameful and illegal business practices. They further sell it and make even more - without the customer even being aware, let alone giving them a choice to share their data. 
It's all fucked and the nazis already have all the data they need. Hell, I have compiled an enormous dataset for my dissertation and can honestly tell you it is scary. 
If I can do it, anyone can. Be paranoid, someone needs to. >

We need more paranoid people running for public office and passing legislation that actually makes a difference. I know scores of people that are just as paranoid, but not a single one wants to do anything beyond post online. Not an attack on you, the fears are not unfounded, but hiding away seems to be par for the course.
Unfortunately, taking a stand often draws the exact attention trying to be avoided, and rarely pays anything. Still, there is a shot, just a really long one. >

It is economically disadvantageous to do anything about it (in academia anyway). Publishing my previous work was very risky and still I get hate mail.
Another example is my agricultural work -  must be kept aside prior to graduation as I do not want to bite the hand that feeds (grant funding agencies).  They support many of my friends and colleagues. And if I were to go rogue, I will burn bridges to any viable future in the field. 
Regarding other work, I cannot publish some of the results due to serious safety issues (big data / human trafficking / real locations & credit card identifiers & data). 
But I agree. People can't or won't do anything and it's frustrating >

Mind if I ask what analysis you're doing on these data sets? Investigating potential for targeted advertising or mass manipulation, that sort of thing? And do you have to buy the data from big breaches? I am not implying you're doing anything wrong, just curious. >

Close actually, potential for influence (think of an index value and some social science work to evaluate the results against). 
Most importantly, you do not need to buy data anywhere. I've used open source data and combined it using unique identifiers specific to geography and time. 
Hacked data is free & available through a number of groups as open source repositories. I'll update this later with a link to one. >

I wonder how many people who have “gotten away with murder” live in fear their family is going to sign up for 23andme? >

I wonder how many people have a creepy uncle who keeps insisting that DNA genealogy sites are a government conspiracy and nobody should use them. >

Luckily for me my cousin is in prison for one of those crimes that the government takes your dna and puts it on file for you. I added mine to gedmatch as a “fuck you” to any other sick bastards in the family tree to make it easier to narrow down which one they are looking for. >

If you wanna be a serial killer, stabbing someone seems like an easy way to leave a bunch of dna. Might as well use a powerful airgun or crossbow. >

Specific but not quite oddly specific...we're watching you u/degenerate_hedonbot >

I mean im just a dumb person but even I know of better ways than that phd creep. >

Phd don’t mean smart >

Remember, people with PhDs are typically smart in only one area and normal in most others…just saying >

We call that the Engineer Complex >

You aren’t wrong. I’m great with mechanical systems! Anything else, eh >

Yeah, I come from a family of engineers and work with all engineers as well. It's a wild phenomenon.
Being smart and logical about one thing can fool you into thinking you can apply it to everything. >

Just like his hero, BTK. >

Kinda.
They got his daughter to cooperate with the dna swab.* incorrect.
They got a warrant to test a pap smear from his daughter at Kansas State University.
They only suspected him because he sent a Microsoft Word document on a floppy disk.. and the metadata listed the church, and document last modified by Dennis. >

No, actually. The police got a warrant for the daughter's medical records, including a Pap smear sample, and used that. The daughter WAS NOT TOLD until after he had been arrested.
It was sketchy as FUCK and I can't believe nothing came of it. >

I know this isn't really the right takeaway but I feel creeped out knowing my doctors are saving that kind of stuff? Like, why keep it? >

Same, I find it insanely creepy and honestly unbelievable that the police are allowed to DNA test you without your consent... dumbest part is the daughter has said in interviews that should would have happily given them a sample, if they'd asked. >

It's not dumb. You can see how that can easily backfire, a loved one declines to give up DNA, then tip off the suspect they are on his tail. It's too risky and the stakes are too high. >

It's one of those sticky "do the ends justify the means" debates. The ends are unquestionably good. The means... are sketchy and a bit concerning. Interesting philosophical question. >

You gotta wonder how he was dumb enough to leave dna when this is his PhD. But reports say he's a garden variety incel so I guess thats how. >

I mean, its extremely hard to do a very physical act and not leave DNA. Thats not a matter of intelligence. Committing the act and thinking you could do it without leaving some sorta DNA is real dumb, but if you choose to do the act then its not a matter of intelligence to leave DNA or not.
Now, driving his own car to and from the scene? THAT is simply idiotic >

And it was a brutal stabbing.  It's really hard to stab someone and not have defensive wounds which would leave DNA.
If he'd gone in and shot them it would have been cleaner. >

The issue with gunfire however, is the noise. Definitely someone would have called 911. >

.22 with a suppressor or home made suppressor and subsonic ammo is insanely quiet. It actually sounds like you see in movies.
Nobody would identify it as a gunshot. >

Oh interesting. I don't know too much about guns. I did see in another discussion that suppressors are actually legal in the states, which I think is crazy. Is subsonic ammo readily available in gun stores? >

Legality for suppressors varies by state, but in general, you can legally own one as long as you do the paperwork.
And yeah, subsonic ammo is readily available, nothing special needed for that. You can buy pretty much any ammo here legally and there are far scarier ones available than subsonic.
If you watch this YouTube video around the 5 minute mark, you’ll see what a suppressed .22 with sub sonic ammo sounds like.
Even a home made suppressor will do the trick with .22 subsonic though. It’s already pretty quiet on its own. The suppressor just takes it to the next level. >

That video is bonkers. That is like a John Wick movie. I mean, you can still hear it clearly but that sort of sound isn't going to carry beyond the confines of a room in a house. If you had one of those, you can be like James Bond and move from one henchman to another taking them out like in a videogame.
Terrifying. My worry is if a school shooter got their hands on one of these. Right now the sound of gunfire lets teachers know to lock their doors. But with suppressors, a shooter can delay alarm and access more rooms.
I think shooters are evolving. I remember when they just used handguns and shotguns. And then at some point, they were all dressing up in body armor with AR-15s. Then they did that and livestreamed from cameras mounted on their bodies and released manifestos on 4chan. I pray that the next "evolution" isn't suppressors. >

Yeah things are unfortunately in the state right now that a lot of these mass shooters are trying to one up the last guys and take it a step further and be more extreme.
It’s pretty terrifying. And what we’re discussing is just the tip of the iceberg. You can (illegally) 3D print a little device now called an auto sear that converts a semi-automatic pistol/rifle into a fully automatic. They’re showing up all over the place mostly in gang shootings. You can empty an entire magazine of bullets in the blink of an eye. 
Then there’s also a legal device that does something similar called a binary trigger, which makes the gun shoot a bullet when you pull the trigger and when you release it, which can effectively get close to fully automatic speeds. And those you can just order online or walk into a gun store and buy. >

Shortly after I used an Ancestry.com DNA kit I received an email from Gedmatch, specifically asking if I wanted to share my info with them to catch criminals. I happily uploaded my file because I have a relative who is a sexual predator and I figure it’s only a matter of time. AFAIK Gedmatch is the only database that’s available to law enforcement, 23 and Ancestry databases are not. >

I'm worried some rare thing could put my DNA at the wrong place. I mean maybe someone planted it from a hair cut or something. I've probably seen my cousin Vinny too many times or the green mile or Shawshank but even with DNA some people still get locked up who are innocent. the DNA is accurate but the circumstances putting it at the scene aren't I mean sure the odds are like 1 in a million but still, it's scary to think... and in the future what's stopping ai cops from planting evidence to lock up trouble makers... >

Luckily it's not DNA alone that is used to place people like this at the scene of the crime. It's the DNA in combination with a number of other things. If someone were to plant your hair at the crime scene, and drive your car there, you might be in trouble. >

The thing is these genealogy tests are forever.   While it may seem good this guy was caught with this info everyone getting one of these tests should realize they have just created a record to identify your offspring (and families) perpetually.   In 80 years when the use for this data may be looking for a genetic trait or some other not so great use your kids kids will be impacted. >

If that's the case, in 80 years they'll have everyone's DNA regardless of whether it's been sent to genealogy sites or not. It doesn't just seem good that he was caught using genealogy DNA. It IS good. It has been good for catching serial killers who've been evading detection for decades, and its been good for exonerated prisoners. 
Besides, you don't know what will happen in 80 years. Let's not base our decision to use an indispensable forensic technique on some hypothetical kids or doomsday scenario. >

The ends justify the means.  Got it.
It’s not hypothetical,  this data is being sold and mined today without guards.   It is a forgone conclusion that it will continue.  As the scale changes and it progresses I hope you find solace in this persons arrest should your gene pool include some sort of unoptimal trait in generations to come.  DNA is who you are and when humans continue to subjugate and bias against simple visual traits like skin color do you really think DNA will be any different? >

This exactly. 
Who knows what government will deem useful in the future. How bout some religious extremists? Perhaps eugenics paid for by motivated billionairs? 
History has a habit of repeating itself. >

How about health insurance companies getting ahold of this information and using it to fuck with your rates? Or just not cover ya? That’s probably less than 10 years away >

My gosh! You're right. No government, company, or other institution in history has broken the law before - especially not for profit. Its illegal to break the law after all! It's a foolproof plan, Watson. >

I guess someone needs to say it. 
If someone guilty is convicted that's a good thing. I'd like to see it happen more. >

It's one of those slippery slope things.  It's all great if the feds use it for major crimes.  But when local police departments start using it for minor crimes it becomes more of an issue. >

The good news is that they can’t afford to do that. At least for now it is prohibitively expensive for small departments/minor crimes to do a DNA test. But again, ‘it should be fine for now’ isn’t really the greatest way to make long term decisions. >

Yeah they cant afford it. Yet. One bill passes and we are facing this dystopia. >

I think it’s more a matter of the testing becoming cheaper over time. Passing more funding means flashy weapons and police tanks, not DNA testing. >

Isn't this how they caught the Golden State Killer? >

Yup that’s why I don’t do that dna shit because that how Gattaga era going to start. >

Dumbfuck should have studied forensics instead. >

I found out in my 20s that I had an older half-sister that was adopted out. As soon as I got my ancestry results she was at the very top of the list of people I might be related to under "close family". >

I was told by LE that they tailed a suspect to a restaurant, and got a table behind them.
When the perp/suspect paid and was leaving, they stopped the waitstaff from cleaning that table and took glass, fork, knife, spoon, and other items perp/suspect had contact with. Perfectly legal. And got the DNA needed for their case. >

that’s clever >

I have told me relatives to please not use any of these DNA tests due to this reason. I may commit a crime in the future and I would really like to get away with it >

He’s fucked. I’ve seen how accurate this shit is on “cold case files”. >

Remember when they sold us in not giving this data to police departments? Man people are dumb. Criminal or not Im not giving my bio data to anyone willingly. >

The piece that has me worried is the implications for selling DNA to health insurance companies. God only knows somewhere there is a lobbyist pushing they can reduce healthcare costs for the majority of people by gaining access to DNA submitted. They would say it wouldn’t require much more than what the police already receive. Next thing you know, have of the county can’t get any half decent healthcare because they have some genetic marker that could indicate a 25% increased cancer in butt cancer.
While I am all for learning about your history, I don’t trust anyone with my genetic information. >

Too late. I guarantee someone in your family has sent their DNA to an ancestry site. They already know about your butt cancer. >

I am aware. Mother and sisters did it. >

Don't go around killing people! >

Wasn’t planning on it. But I hope I don’t have a marker for butt cancer! >

If you were to find out that a parent or close relative had a DNA mutation that caused a genetic cancer syndrome, like Lynch Syndrome, their testing positive could actually trigger your insurance to cover screenings and genetic counseling. My family has mutated DNA. >

Using science to solve problems. I like that idea. >

I'm pretty sure that clairvoyant tarot card lady had this case sealed from the jump /s >

I don’t have anything to hide but I’m glad I never did those DNA tests. It just doesn’t sit right with me that some private company has a large ass database of DNA samples. It’s like those win-a-free car offers in malls where you write all your info on a card and submit only to find out they never announce a winner and only do it to data mine and sell your info. >

If any of your family do one they are close enough >

Ph.D. student of criminal justice and criminology, you say…….left his DNA? >

Exactly. That's what he gets for choosing violent stabbing as his method of killing the victims.
Really hard from what I've read not to get blood on your hands and knife handle, and then cut yourself when it gets slippery from it. Ie what would have happened to OJ. If he had "done it", of course. Cough. /s >

Dude looks a lot like Timothy McVeigh.