One of the Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working with the FBI

Post by incompatible » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:17 AM UTC

jyrkesh wrote: post #194

kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what they're doing to themselves and their families. This only encourages me. My DNA is on record in various places, and if any relative of mine commits a crime I want the honor of being the person who fucked them and sent them to prison. I would tout the event as an esteemed accomplishment. Everyone seems to be worried about a sci-fi movie where clones are made from cheek swabs or corporations use DNA to deny certa…

Does anyone else feel like there's a growing assumption of benevolent governments and states? It might just be my own anecdotal experience, but I'm constantly surprised at how often people overlook the entire point of the 4th and 5th Amendment because Western states have been "mostly better" (these are both relative qualifiers, I am NOT saying they're perfect) in the last 10-30 years. This entire post read as if ther…

Post by mikeash » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:26 AM UTC

kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #188

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fingerprinting is a notoriously inaccurate pseudoscience along with polygraph testing. As was seen on HN[1], consumer DNA tests are also inaccurate. In fact, up to 40% of gene variants on consumer DNA tests are false positives[2]. False positives happen with criminal investigations and DNA testing[3]. And now, consumer DNA databases are generating false positives[4] that upend and potentially ruin innocent people's l…

Fingerprinting is inaccurate. DNA tests are inaccurate. Witness statements are inaccurate. Confessions are inaccurate. Thanks to deepfakes, video is inaccurate. Someone steals your car, eyewitnesses claim they saw them in possession of it, their fingerprints are in it, their hair is in it, a gas station security camera recorded them in it, cops found them in it, and they confessed. "Your honor that evidence is, in or…

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:28 AM UTC

lemmsjid wrote: post #70

emiliobumachar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. What political groups rely heavily on not being identified? Most political groups have leaders whose identity is public knowledge.

I think it's less about the leaders of a group than about its members themselves. When I read about the government having access to identification attributes of the general populace, I recall that a focal part of the Nazi attempts to eradicate European Jews was actually finding them. One theory for why Dutch Jews were killed at a higher rate than neighboring countries was that the government kept religious affiliatio…

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #4

I am torn on this, as on the one hand it does violate privacy to a very large degree and provide massive power to the government. Things I am very much against. On the other hand, essentially all this does is provide law enforcement a means to potentially quickly identify violent criminals via physical traits as opposed to the contents of their mind such as forcing someone to unlock a phone which I am very against. A…

Post by decebalus1 » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

coldcasecracker wrote: post #177

while i am on the side of the militant pro-Wikileaks, anti-DeepState, anti-Mass-Surveillance wing and i would happily volunteer to drive the bulldozer over the mass graves of the hundreds of thousands of Cleared Deep State personnel traitors, i don't have much of problem with the FBI querying DNA databases. have you ever looked at how many cold case serial killers there are? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unso…