IF there was a secure and trustable way that a trusted government could retain DNA information, then I feel like people having a DNA test at birth or on becoming a citizen could be useful, both medically ("your sample indicates you may have a higher risk of dementia") and from a policing standpoint ("we found DNA on this woman's clothes and immediately matched it to this man who hasn't committed a crime before" or "we were able to identify this john doe because their DNA was on record"). However, given that companies and governments are awful, I don't think it could ever actually work in practice :/
I don't think it could ever actually work in practice :/
Exactly. I can think of so many bad outcomes. Just the medical point:
both medically ("your sample indicates you may have a higher risk of dementia")
You know how this will end in the modern tech dystopia. In countries where health care insurance is not mandatory or there is a large gap between collectivized and private insurance, DNA would be used to reject or raise the prices for people with 'unlucky DNA'.
A government that could be trusted now is not necessarily trustable in the future. I am pretty sure the orange guy clan would love to lone their pockets by selling such information.
Also, apart from these issues, a lot of people simply do not want to know these things. Suppose that the outcome is "you have a 30% risk of dementia by 60". For most people such kind of information is hard to act on, while it increases worry significantly. I do think it can help for some treatable illnesses, enabling early monitoring.
You could potentially make DNA a 'protected class' of data, implying insuarance companies cannot look at it in their decision making, same as something like race.
Totally agree; we can't leverage good stuff because we are mess.
There are some sorts of protocols and conventions that might help with this.
For example, not-for profit medical systems can hold certain records , then problems are regionally isolated and have extra layers of protection.
Biosignatures, similarly, we may want to only enabling 'matching, and with a warrant' - so that gov may not procure individuals biometrics, but only require a 3rd party lab to do matching, with oversight, process etc.
That would radically limit concentration of of actual power, likelhihood of problems.
If biometric matching companies were liable for failure to implement protocol (aka delete after test) etc - then that's powerful.
Regulations are never perfect, but they work.
Companies can skirt the law - but 99% of the time it's just normal compliance.
The trick is to make regs that don't encourage breaking compliance, and when it happens, the blast radius is limited.
> IF there was a secure and trustable way that a trusted government could retain DNA information
How long does that government need to stay trusted and secure? For the lifetime of the born person only, or should that requirement also extend to the offspring of said person? Can you point to any current government that has been consistently trusted and secure for the past 100 years? How much are you willing to risk on the theory that a government (your choice, pick one) will stay trusted and secure for the next 100 years?
Right, and that's why it's preposterous to even imagine this happening. In no time you'd have an administration that was providing that DNA evidence to defense contractors for Top Secret clearance, background checks, etc.
"We're sorry your job application was rejected because we found you were 4% less maximally conscientious than the median applicant"
I've had job applications (albeit in secured projects) rejected for similarly vague bullshit ("Insufficiently candid")
Indeed. It’s essentially the age-old conundrum: I don’t need to worry about my privacy because I’m not breaking the rules… until someone changes the rules.
In December 2009, then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt famously stated during a CNBC interview, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
When I was a kid, I recall police coming to our classrooms to fingerprint us. The whole school got fingerprinted. The idea was to help police if kids went missing.
Whether or not you believe that justification ("Stranger Danger" was a scare at the time), I can promise you those fingerprints were used to put people in jail later.
I think that's a bit safer, because you could deduce very private information from a DNA sample, but you can't really tell anything about a person from their fingerprints, except maybe the size of their fingers. It's a one way match
ZK, FHE, MPC is written in Rust/Swift/C(pp) to support proper DNA data management. I assume that there is already done research related to DNA. Any modern phone has enough to crank needed bits. These schemes do not need trust to company nor government.
How close does a DNA "match" have to be to get somebody tossed in jail? Do they actually require 100%, or is a "match" something less? What's the false-positive rate? Would a non-twin sibling's DNA "match"?
Yes, I'm aware that, in theory, DNA is unique. As is the theory for finger-prints. But, I'm also aware that theory is rarely reality.
I don’t remember the exact details, because I have watched it long time ago, but they don’t need an exact match. Actually it’s more scary - if your distant cousin has DNA “in the system” - you are in it too.
This 1M DNAs may “help” match an order of magnitude more people.
I think you're thinking of genetic genealogy, where some of those DNA testing providers (like 23andme) submit their records to law enforcement, and they can see something like "this DNA sample is likely to be a brother of this existing sample", and can narrow down investigations based on that
According to wikipedia, "the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in 100 billion (100,000,000,000) although the practical risk is actually 1 in 1,000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human population", so it looks like some twins will cause an issue for DNA-based convictions, but I think a non-twin sibling is probably diverse enough? I have different eye colour, ears, food intolerances to my brothers, so I feel like our DNA is pretty different ("pretty" on a scale of human to human comparisons, since 99.9% of DNA is identical between humans or something like that).
I'd argue that while a DNA match could be a very good starting point for a conviction, other evidence should also be presented, for the reasons you suggest. For example, there is the case of the Phantom of Heillbron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn), where European police found DNA evidence of a woman being at many diverse crime scenes, but it turned out the cotton swabs used for testing were contaminated by at worker at the factory (The swabs weren't certified for police work)
That is a coincidental match, though! It's the risk of a false positive when you compare exactly two samples.
The problem is that we're proposing a DNA database, so you're now comparing 1 sample found at a crime scene with 300ish million people. That's a 300M in 100B chance, or 1 in 333, of some person having a false positive match.
Now combine that with thousands of samples being tested every day (because let's be honest, why wouldn't you use such a database for literally every single crime?) and you're looking at dozens of false-positives per day. It is only a matter of time before it isn't someone with an airtight alibi at the other side of the country, but someone reasonably-close who was just sitting alone on their couch at home all weekend. How are they going to prove they weren't involved in the crime?
This is why large-scale DNA matching is a horrible starting point for a conviction. It gives you a false sense of security, and it makes the investigators lazy. In most cases it is far better if DNA is used as the final nail in the coffin when you've already got a solid case against a suspect.
This is a really interesting article, even though it seems a little biased towards the mother (which, post hoc, if absolutely fair). Would be very cool to see / read this from the position of the judge as the thing unraveled.
Exactly. I’ve served on two juries and the experiences left me shaking my head. In one case the judge’s instructions were dismissed by a majority of the jury members with a “yeah, but…”.
In reality, juries often hold evidence like this (and also-very-unreliable eye witness testimony) in high regard, based on how it's positioned into the narrative.
Your argument boils down to "if people were 100% just, fair, and good, we could do this", so I'm not sure what the point of it is.
(Entertainingly, if people were 100% just, fair, and good, we wouldn't need this database... or police or militaries for that matter.)
At any rate, even if I could ensure, in perpetuity, that my DNA would not be used inappropriately (where I get to decide what that means), I would still not want it collected and database'd. People deserve to have privacy in their bodies.
People don't have to be 100% for it to work, the system would have to be so that if a human was to be evil, then they couldn't compromise it single handed-ly. I'll admit, I've not figured out implementation details, I just like thinking about nice things
Why has to be the government if anything could be done by health providers and be guarded by the existing privacy laws that don’t allow the government to indiscriminately access it
A historical reminder: the Nazis were highly effective at persecuting Jews in the Netherlands precisely because of the country's meticulous population registry.
You never know who will be in power tomorrow. The convenience of a centralized system today does not outweigh the catastrophic danger of that system in the wrong hands in the future. Specially nowadays.
Do what, fingerprinting or collecting DNA? Not sure what you're trying to say, if Europe does it, it's fine?
The gist is that this was always done when people were arrested for criminal offences. They're now doing it for civil offences and, like with all the ICE stuff, it seems to be do first, ask questions later. So you can be a citizen but your data might end up in their systems anyway as it's submitted before they find out you are a citizen...
A few things we can know for sure. The Dutch immigration enforcement authority, IND, has a blanket exception for to the GPDR collecting any kind of information on anybody "for the purposes of immigration enforcement".
10 years ago we found out, from a budget proposal that was in dispute, that the police had sent every mental health database in the Netherlands to Palantir. Regular health databases too, but if you're Dutch, Peter Thiel knows exactly what you told the "the law guarantees you can trust me" social worker 20 years ago. Or what you told any Dutch police officer at the border, on the street, ... Everything. That's what the Dutch state used their authority for.
As far as I know the IND only gives the option for a DNA test (voluntary choice), if as a refugee you want to let your family come over to prove that someone is actually your family. This is not great, but faked familial ties have been used in the past to get people into the country.
Also, the DNA test is not done by the IND, but by the NFI (Dutch Forensic Institute), who destroy the material after six months.
sidewndr46 had a pretty grandiose claim (I don't think there are any European countries that do a DNA test at birth and store the data) and you only come with a lot of handwaving that is not even about DNA.
Slightly biased because I'm a european, but I think a european country is more likely to be trust-able with a country-wide DNA database. Only slightly more though, I still wouldn't trust them to actually do it right
> Slightly biased because I'm a european, but I think a european country is more likely to be trust-able with a country-wide DNA database.
There were multiple governments operating pervasive surveillance states and using them to punish dissidents on the western part of European continent well within a human lifetime from today. What makes you think that won't happen again, this time in a completely iron-clad way?
Generally, we've seen that that was bad and I would hope that we wouldn't do it again. I did also say that I don't think it would actually work out because governments, in my original comment
Even if the government remains perpetually trustworthy (good luck with that), it's inevitable that the database will be hacked by a bad actor, if the information is valuable.
Interested in this as I haven't heard of this from an all population point of view, do you know which European countries this is? I know many have a national DNA database but that is limited to those charged with crimes (or suspected of in some cases, in some countries these are removed later).
Iceland have a _geneological_ database, which is something of a sensible precaution against consanguinity in a small gene pool that was isolated before air travel. I don't think anywhere has population-wide genetic databases and I struggle to see how it would be compatible with GDPR?
(France actually ban paternity testing without a court order!)
> I don't think anywhere has population-wide genetic databases and I struggle to see how it would be compatible with GDPR?
Because the GDPR is only concerned with data collection not explicitly required by law. If a government passes a law to set up a genetic database, then that it totally fine with the GDPR.
They don't mention this, but one major reason for this is to validate claims of family units and prevent trafficking.
This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other then nebulous claims. Yes, DNA is like finger printing someone, which is routinely done for arrests, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of family relations, which is at the heart of many ICE concerns.
They don't mention this, but one major reason for apartheid's Bantustan policy was to recognize distinct homelands and preserve cultural communities. This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other than nebulous claims. Yes, assigning people to ethnic homelands is like any other government record-keeping, which is routinely done, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of separate national identities, which was at the heart of many apartheid concerns.
Apartheid was bad. Immigration enforcement isn't bad... it's what alot of people want. These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country, and owning it they want to exclude people who do not own it.
The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds.
If you say that's bad too and that it's much like Apartheid, then all I can conclude is that maybe I need to learn more about Apartheid. Maybe it's not so bad as I have been told.
> These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country
But they don't in absolutely any sense (legal, moral, philosophical) own the country. And especially they do not "own" the culture (because that's actually impossible). So all you have is jingoism propping up this entire notion.
You realize that what you're commenting on (playing devil's advocate) is strongly encouraged by this site right? People are constantly "steel manning" stupid shit like this here. It's almost a sport.
Like Susan Collins, I shall furrow my brow to indicate my unease with the situation.
Kidding, sort of, if brownshirts and other government-sanctioned thugs show up in November, I'm really not sure what I'll do. They're already making noise about doing extra "Watching" of elections in my area (Fairfax County) and as far as I can tell, the only criteria for that is "they vote blue, so it must be fraud!"
It's a dumb question anyways. What any individual will do to resist is determined by the existence of a social movement, or lack thereof. You don't have to be willing to sacrifice your life or freedom in vain to contribute to that movement. It's a cynical framing by people who have been propagandized into hating nearly-powerless activists more than than the state, or even just support the state outright.
Exactly. I can think of so many bad outcomes. Just the medical point:
both medically ("your sample indicates you may have a higher risk of dementia")
You know how this will end in the modern tech dystopia. In countries where health care insurance is not mandatory or there is a large gap between collectivized and private insurance, DNA would be used to reject or raise the prices for people with 'unlucky DNA'.
A government that could be trusted now is not necessarily trustable in the future. I am pretty sure the orange guy clan would love to lone their pockets by selling such information.
Also, apart from these issues, a lot of people simply do not want to know these things. Suppose that the outcome is "you have a 30% risk of dementia by 60". For most people such kind of information is hard to act on, while it increases worry significantly. I do think it can help for some treatable illnesses, enabling early monitoring.
There are some sorts of protocols and conventions that might help with this.
For example, not-for profit medical systems can hold certain records , then problems are regionally isolated and have extra layers of protection.
Biosignatures, similarly, we may want to only enabling 'matching, and with a warrant' - so that gov may not procure individuals biometrics, but only require a 3rd party lab to do matching, with oversight, process etc.
That would radically limit concentration of of actual power, likelhihood of problems.
If biometric matching companies were liable for failure to implement protocol (aka delete after test) etc - then that's powerful.
Regulations are never perfect, but they work.
Companies can skirt the law - but 99% of the time it's just normal compliance.
The trick is to make regs that don't encourage breaking compliance, and when it happens, the blast radius is limited.
How long does that government need to stay trusted and secure? For the lifetime of the born person only, or should that requirement also extend to the offspring of said person? Can you point to any current government that has been consistently trusted and secure for the past 100 years? How much are you willing to risk on the theory that a government (your choice, pick one) will stay trusted and secure for the next 100 years?
"We're sorry your job application was rejected because we found you were 4% less maximally conscientious than the median applicant"
I've had job applications (albeit in secured projects) rejected for similarly vague bullshit ("Insufficiently candid")
Whether or not you believe that justification ("Stranger Danger" was a scare at the time), I can promise you those fingerprints were used to put people in jail later.
Remaining is to upgrade old phones of every body.
Yes, I'm aware that, in theory, DNA is unique. As is the theory for finger-prints. But, I'm also aware that theory is rarely reality.
I don’t remember the exact details, because I have watched it long time ago, but they don’t need an exact match. Actually it’s more scary - if your distant cousin has DNA “in the system” - you are in it too.
This 1M DNAs may “help” match an order of magnitude more people.
I'd argue that while a DNA match could be a very good starting point for a conviction, other evidence should also be presented, for the reasons you suggest. For example, there is the case of the Phantom of Heillbron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn), where European police found DNA evidence of a woman being at many diverse crime scenes, but it turned out the cotton swabs used for testing were contaminated by at worker at the factory (The swabs weren't certified for police work)
The problem is that we're proposing a DNA database, so you're now comparing 1 sample found at a crime scene with 300ish million people. That's a 300M in 100B chance, or 1 in 333, of some person having a false positive match.
Now combine that with thousands of samples being tested every day (because let's be honest, why wouldn't you use such a database for literally every single crime?) and you're looking at dozens of false-positives per day. It is only a matter of time before it isn't someone with an airtight alibi at the other side of the country, but someone reasonably-close who was just sitting alone on their couch at home all weekend. How are they going to prove they weren't involved in the crime?
This is why large-scale DNA matching is a horrible starting point for a conviction. It gives you a false sense of security, and it makes the investigators lazy. In most cases it is far better if DNA is used as the final nail in the coffin when you've already got a solid case against a suspect.
https://womenherald.com/health/the-chimerism-case-how-lydia-...
In reality, juries often hold evidence like this (and also-very-unreliable eye witness testimony) in high regard, based on how it's positioned into the narrative.
On the upside, think how good that Falsehoods Programmers Believe About DNA article will be.
(Entertainingly, if people were 100% just, fair, and good, we wouldn't need this database... or police or militaries for that matter.)
At any rate, even if I could ensure, in perpetuity, that my DNA would not be used inappropriately (where I get to decide what that means), I would still not want it collected and database'd. People deserve to have privacy in their bodies.
You never know who will be in power tomorrow. The convenience of a centralized system today does not outweigh the catastrophic danger of that system in the wrong hands in the future. Specially nowadays.
The gist is that this was always done when people were arrested for criminal offences. They're now doing it for civil offences and, like with all the ICE stuff, it seems to be do first, ask questions later. So you can be a citizen but your data might end up in their systems anyway as it's submitted before they find out you are a citizen...
10 years ago we found out, from a budget proposal that was in dispute, that the police had sent every mental health database in the Netherlands to Palantir. Regular health databases too, but if you're Dutch, Peter Thiel knows exactly what you told the "the law guarantees you can trust me" social worker 20 years ago. Or what you told any Dutch police officer at the border, on the street, ... Everything. That's what the Dutch state used their authority for.
Also, the DNA test is not done by the IND, but by the NFI (Dutch Forensic Institute), who destroy the material after six months.
sidewndr46 had a pretty grandiose claim (I don't think there are any European countries that do a DNA test at birth and store the data) and you only come with a lot of handwaving that is not even about DNA.
There were multiple governments operating pervasive surveillance states and using them to punish dissidents on the western part of European continent well within a human lifetime from today. What makes you think that won't happen again, this time in a completely iron-clad way?
Generally, we've seen that that was bad and I would hope that we wouldn't do it again. I did also say that I don't think it would actually work out because governments, in my original comment
You can just say "at this very moment".
(France actually ban paternity testing without a court order!)
Because the GDPR is only concerned with data collection not explicitly required by law. If a government passes a law to set up a genetic database, then that it totally fine with the GDPR.
America has yet to learn the same lesson, but has been on the road there for a decade now.
This is, I suspect, a good thing. The article never states any downsides, other then nebulous claims. Yes, DNA is like finger printing someone, which is routinely done for arrests, but has the benefit of assisting in claims of family relations, which is at the heart of many ICE concerns.
The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds.
If you say that's bad too and that it's much like Apartheid, then all I can conclude is that maybe I need to learn more about Apartheid. Maybe it's not so bad as I have been told.
But they don't in absolutely any sense (legal, moral, philosophical) own the country. And especially they do not "own" the culture (because that's actually impossible). So all you have is jingoism propping up this entire notion.
Kidding, sort of, if brownshirts and other government-sanctioned thugs show up in November, I'm really not sure what I'll do. They're already making noise about doing extra "Watching" of elections in my area (Fairfax County) and as far as I can tell, the only criteria for that is "they vote blue, so it must be fraud!"