In a similar vein to the phone call thread (is it okay to check records of all phone calls to see if you've been calling someone who's been calling a terrorist) . . .
Sometimes, when CSI-types check DNA against databases, they get "fuzzy" matches. Not a perfect match, but close enough to suggest that the guilty was a close relative of the person in the database.
So even though you've never commited a crime, and never had a DNA test, you could be a suspect if your kid or brother shows up in the database as a fuzzy match.
They give a story from England, where this is okay, and they caught the bad guy (the fuzzy match's uncle) and one from here in the US, where the company who does the testing doesn't even report fuzzy matches, for legal reasons.
The people opposed to this say that it's a violation of civil rights.
Those in favor say that since further DNA tests will quickly exhonerate all innocent family members, the only person at risk is the one guilty of a crime.
Thoughts?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
How is it exactly a violation of civil rights? I mean, if you are related to the person -- it isn't you that is under investigation. They are just narrowing it down like any investigation, right? If your DNA shows to not be a match, you're clear.
Kansas just passed a law that takes DNA sample from anyone convicted of any felony offense in this state. Other than that -- where are all the DNA samples coming from for the database? -- is it not from people who've already been convicted of something?
On the up side -- there was a guy in our city this past week that was arrested as a suspect in a serial rapist case. He is back out free and clear now because the DNA shows he is not a suspect. I think that is a good thing -- saved a lot of taxpayer money of having to go to a trial, or spend time in jail while trying to defend himself, etc. It would have been better for him, of course, if he had never been suspicioned (and I don't know what led him to be suspicioned) but the quick turn around shows that sometimes DNA testing is a very good thing.
FG
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
There are a few databases.
Most are criminal databases. Like you mentioned, in most states they don't take your DNA until you're convicted. In some states, they take it from anyone who's been arrested.
There are also other databases--some are missing persons data bases. The families of 9/11 and Katrina victims submitted DNA so family members could be identified from their remains.
Civil rights activists feel it's wrong because it's a way to have your DNA on file indirectly. Although you've committed no crime to warrent having your DNA in the database, you are still eligible to become a suspect because of information in the database.
The other side argues that it's as if they had searched your friends house with a warrant, and found information that led them to believe you did it, they could then get a warrant to search your house.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
In Robert Sawyer's Hominids trilogy, the Neanderthal society sterilizes not only criminals, but anyone who shares more than 50% of their genes.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yeah, gotta love the eugenics movement.
BTW, does that even make sense. Doesn't every human on the planet share greater then 99% of their genes?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
FG:
Here is where its a problem.
Your weird uncle Theo commits a crime, leaving DNA evidence behind.
Your stupid Nephew Archibald was arrested for shop lifting, where the state took his DNA.
Doing a DNA search they discover a fuzzy connection to Nephey Archibald. They then come to your door and demand DNA samples from you and everyone in your family.
You may think that such an intrusion, embarrasment, and perhaps attention from the press is worth the opportunity of catching Uncle Theo for his crime.
Fine.
But now your DNA is public record.
The company you work for and the insurance company you use may be able to use that information to discover you are a cancer risk, or prone to some other disease, and either raise your rates or fire you. While this is illegal for the moment, laws can change--your information in the database is their for good.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's worse than that. If the police use an illegal siezure (which can be found simply by having three uniform officers surround the person while the request is made) to get a DNA sample, that sample and all evidence it leads to ("fruit of the poison tree") is excludable from trial.
However, if the police illegally take a DNA sample from a person, only that person can supress the evidence and the fruits of that evidence in court. So if you are suspected, the police can take an illegal sample from your brother, use it to get probable cause to get your sample, and you won't be able to challenge that in court (because a 50% match indicating sibling relationship is almost certainly probable cause).
However, in the scenario you describe, there probably is probable cause to take a sample from family members with a close enough relationship to the partial match.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
I think the benefits of a DNA database outway the downsides. How could it ever be legal for an insurance company to raise your rate just because you're prone to diseases? Aren't there standard rates? As for your company firing you, an illness that would hinder your ability to work would be apparant without DNA samples, and I know you get insurance through your job, but doesn't that just go back to the insurance company? With a DNA database, it would be easier to find missing persons without having to go through all the trouble of asking everyone to bring in their loved ones' hairbrushes.--and, as the best friend of someone who, at the age of 6, went missing for 11 monthes and was found halfway around the world, I think this is important. In an emergency situation, this would make that process go ALOT faster. As long as we adhere to sensible laws (as we should do anyway) I don't see how a DNA database could be very harmful.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Soara, you asked: "How could it ever be legal for an insurance company to raise your rate just because you're prone to diseases?"
Don't insurance companies now charge higher rates for smokers, or give special discounts for non-smokers? If you are a smoker, you are statistically more prone to lung cancer and other maladies. But should people have the right to conceal from insurance companies the fact that they are smokers? That means that the rest of us who are non-smokers will have to pay higher rates, to make up for the higher cancer incidence among those who conceal the fact that they are smokers.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:If your DNA shows to not be a match, you're clear.
Maybe, eventually. This guy seems to think this "partial match" business may not be such a hot idea.
He was pretty lucky. Some people have been held a lot longer than a couple of weeks as material witnesses.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The question about 99% matching for all humans : Well, yes, and actually it's even more than that. However, the sort of DNA we're talking about here is taken from parts of the genome that are not shared between all humans. Hair colour, for example. So a 50% match refers to just those parts that are being tested right now, which would be maybe twenty or thirty genes. (Maybe more by now, as the technology gets better.) Nobody's going to go looking for matches in the genes for digestive proteins, where a small mutation means a dead baby.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmm.. what Dan_Raven said doesn't match with what I've read in our local media (when having quite an in-depth look at DNA testing done for police work during a serial killer hunt last year).
My understanding is that if you are a convicted felon, your DNA test results go into the database. However, if you are asked for a DNA sample, and you are NOT convicted of a crime, or it does not point to whatever they expected it to point to, that DNA sample must be DESTROYED by law (maybe that's a Kansas law) and cannot be entered into the database.
FG
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I would be really upset if my DNA were ever made a part of public record. REALLY upset.
Mmmm, Gattaca.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:How could it ever be legal for an insurance company to raise your rate just because you're prone to diseases?
I don't know if they actually raise the rate, but they'll deny you coverage. Or make you take a plan with a ridiculous deductible that costs more. So that's sort of like raising the rate.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Insurance companies raise rates all the time. Once I turned 30, my rates went up about 35% over night. How much of a stretch is it to think they will make it practice to reevaluate your coverage should your DNA results become available?