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

121–130 of 136 posts

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

#121

Post by Izkata »

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.

A woman's DNA match to a dead baby from before she was born led to the arrest of her grandmother: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/us/baby-garnet-cold-case-mich...

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

#123

Post by assimpleaspossi »

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 same process we've used for centuries? You got something better? I'm sure you don't. You are also ignoring that the 12 random schmoes are selected by both sides attorneys and given instructions and facts and can still be overruled by a judge (under circumstances) plus the possibility of appeal.

Your response is very uninformed at best.

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

#124

Post by alistairSH »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #123
alistairSH wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The same process we've used for centuries? You got something better? I'm sure you don't. You are also ignoring that the 12 random schmoes are selected by both sides attorneys and given instructions and facts and can still be overruled by a judge (under circumstances) plus the possibility of appeal. Your response is very uninformed at best.

[flagged]

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

alistairSH wrote: post #124
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same process we've used for centuries? You got something better? I'm sure you don't. You are also ignoring that the 12 random schmoes are selected by both sides attorneys and given instructions and facts and can still be overruled by a judge (under circumstances) plus the possibility of appeal. Your response is very uninformed at best.

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by pibaker »

haritha-j wrote: post #86
microtonal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

The US has the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and I'm sure you can find similar laws elsewhere.

The problem is a law can be repealed any time. Might take some heavy lobbying to get there but nothing is impossible.

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

#127

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #103
wang_li wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens most certainly do own the country. It comes directly from the fact that all government power is granted to it by the people. >That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed To the extent that the land claimed as part of the United States belongs to and is controlled by the United States, it belongs to the people. People certainly…

> Citizens most certainly do own the country.. To the extent that the land claimed as part of the United States belongs to and is controlled by the United States, it belongs to the people. Citizens are the beneficiaries of a trust. The land is held in a trust. That is not the same thing as ownership . Think about it: in some other countries you can't even outright own land. That should indicate to you that your notio…

>Citizens are the beneficiaries of a trust. The land is held in a trust. That is not the same thing as ownership.

Citizenship is the most absolute (though diluted) ownership possible. I own a car, but if I commit a crime heinous enough I can have that confiscated as a penalty. On the other hand, in the United States there is no crime for which my citizenship can be revoked. What about the other elements of ownership? Participating in the decision-making process of the disposition of the property for instance... that's called voting or representative democracy or whatever you want to call it. At times, the government, acting on behalf and with the consent of people, has bought more territory, or traded it away to other nations. We employ a policy of absolute defense against any belligerent encroachers.

Looks like ownership to me. Calling it a "trust" is just the weasel words.

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

#128

Post by ExoticPearTree »

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…

In some countries, when you go to work there they take full fingerprints (fingers, palm, etc.) plus a blood sample for DNA. Works extremely well in deterring crime.

From a technology perspective, it is really not that hard to keep all this on an air-gapped network and just run comparisons against it "offline" and get a result back with all the info you need when there is a match.

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

#129

Post by jackb4040 »

kardianos wrote: post #105
jackb4040 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Dude. Trafficking minors is bad. DNA literally can help establish family relationships.

Dude. Trafficking minors is bad. Bantustans can literally help establish family relationships.

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

#130

Post by mft_ »

redsparrow wrote: post #115
mft_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't close the door when I'm taking a crap because I have something to hide, I do it for privacy. And whether people are breaking the rules or not, the more someone knows about you the easier it is for them to influence and manipulate you. (This is the basis of the online advertising industry.) I think people who don't value privacy must not know what it is.

To build on your analogy, one could easily imagine a situation where there was no need to close the toilet door - because there's no-one around, or if there is, no-one cares about you taking a crap, and no-one pays any attention. In this case, 'privacy' is unnecessary.

(You, personally, in 2026 feel the need to close the door for 'privacy' because of some combination of societal programming, learned experience, personal psychology, choice, whatever.)

Post reply on HN