Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 137 posts

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#51

Post by microtonal »

spwa4 wrote: post #28
hvb2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 D…

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.

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#52

Post by amiga386 »

alistairSH wrote: post #26
voidUpdate wrote: post #5

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 "w…

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.

Don't forget the reverse. If your DNA's an insufficient match to your children, they take your kids away.

https://womenherald.com/health/the-chimerism-case-how-lydia-...

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#53

Post by kelvinjps10 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #5

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 "w…

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

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#55

Post by microtonal »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #10
voidUpdate wrote: post #5

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 "w…

There are several European countries that do this from what I understand

If you make big claims like this, please tell us what countries store DNA from birth and give sources.

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#56

Post by amiga386 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #5

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 "w…

On the downside, millions wrongly killed, imprisoned, fined, families torn apart.

On the upside, think how good that Falsehoods Programmers Believe About DNA article will be.

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#57

Post by mathisfun123 »

jackb4040 wrote: post #42
kardianos wrote: post #13

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 n…

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.

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#58

Post by crote »

voidUpdate wrote: post #32
alistairSH wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 brother…

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.

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#59

Post by bell-cot »

alistairSH wrote: post #40
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that one still needs proof. My DNA on a victim's clothes does not mean I committed the crime.

Are you willing to trust 12 random schmoes to make that call correctly? Especially in the face of an overzealous prosecutor?

The fake-it-'till-you-make-it crime lab "scientist" is worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist

Re: ICE Collected Nearly 1M People's DNA Last Year–Including Young Children

#60

Post by K3UL »

voidUpdate wrote: post #5

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 "w…

As someone who loves Gattaca, no thanks !
Post reply on HN