Skip to main content

Law enforcement and DNA sequencing

DNA sequencing has risen in popularity in recent years to to the widespread availability of affordable testing kits. Obviously people are opting into participation by uploading their DNA data, in great numbers, but do they fully know how that data will be used?

The Golden State Killer, who terrorized California from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, was recently apprehended by working with a lesser known testing company, Family Tree DNA. Their kits are smaller and so is their database, but their database has an big advantage. The company boasts that it has the largest database Y-DNA database in the world. Y-DNA is very useful in tracing patrilineal ancestry, which is essentially data on who you are related to. This data is how the Golden State Killer was caught. Because some of his relatives had willingly participated in DNA kit testing, law enforcement was able to triangulate his identity.

Use of these databases by law enforcement is a new but already rapidly growing phenomenon. Gene by Gene, the parent company of Family Tree DNA, has stressed that they are able to cooperate with law enforcement without violating users privacy, and that users also have the option to opt out of any non-geneatological uses of their DNA. However, this really undermines the usefulness of testing for consumers, as many people are seeking to locate lost relatives rather than data simply on themselves. We are also told that law enforcement must provide a valid warrant before any cooperation will occur.

While you may be asking yourself some good questions about the Golden State Killer, such as why did he apparently stop committing crimes? Or how did he evade police detection for so long? There are also questions we need to be asking about our DNA data. Other cold-cases have since been cracked by cooperation between law enforcement, private DNA databases, and consumer data. The lure of cracking a decades old violent crime is surely a boon to society, but are we voluntarily eroding what little privacy we have left?

At present, DNA testing is entirely voluntary. However, those convicted of felony crimes are already required to submit their DNA into a federal database. Consumers have the ability to have their DNA data deleted, for now, but convicted felons do not. There is already a very vast amount of data being collected on anyone who owns a smartphone, do we really want to add DNA as well? Are we falsely assuming that we will always have the ability to opt out unless we're criminals? I would hold off on submitting any DNA data voluntarily until there is more transparency and there are more protections in place, because at present I see little preventing abuse. What is preventing, for example, law enforcement from unknowingly collecting data on a different suspect while collecting data on a primary suspect for which they do have a warrant?

--Jay E. blogging for


Popular posts from this blog

On Homelessness

Photo by Quaz Amir It started yesterday, after work as I left my building, I saw them walking. A couple, hauling their belongings in a few neatly stacked boxes that looked like tackle boxes tied to a small luggage cart. The man had crossed the street, along with his dog who stayed faithfully by his side. An older woman was stuck at the intersection waiting for cars to stop. Before long, the cars did stop, she joined her partner, and I didn't spend much more time thinking about them that day. At my job today, I had a great morning. A coworker gave me a great idea for a quick but useful project, which I was able to finish before noon. I feel I am at my best when I am able to be productive. It gives me a sense of purpose for lack of a better word. Feeling good about myself, I set out to buy myself a hamburger for lunch and skip the more healthy option that I brought from home. I drove the short distance to the hamburger joint, the epitome of laziness. As I drove up, I saw the

The Evolution Of Tech Culture

Photo by Skitterphoto The culture associated with technology has a checkered past but maybe not in the way you think. Before it became socially acceptable to tote your pocket supercomputer around, why was technology culture anti-social? Are we more social now, or less? Ars Technica recently interviewed Clive Thompson for his upcoming book  Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World .Thompson specifically focuses on the origins of the culture of programmers, and there are some interesting divergences from the culture as it is today. Traditionally, software programmers are stereotyped but Thompson debunks these myths. Rather than being purely anti-social, programmers are merely intensely focused problem solvers. Programmers will spend many hours trying to fix something, which can be frustrating, but they are a rare breed equipped to handle frustration. Programmers solve hard problems, despite frustration, because this is what they enjoy doing. There is a cos

The Growing Disruption Of Artificial Intelligence

Photo by Frank Wang Artificial intelligence may be as disruptive as the computers used to create it once were, and it could be even bigger. Given the disruption that social media has proven to be, one has to wonder if we are fully prepared for the life altering consequences we are building for ourselves. IBM has been a key player in the artificial intelligence arena for over two decades. Deep Blue was their first tour de force in 1997, when its team of developers received $100,000 for defeating chess champion Gary Kasparov in a game of chess. That watershed moment has its roots all the way back in 1981 when researchers at Bell Labs developed a machine that achieved Master status in chess, for which they were awarded $5000. In 1988, researchers at Carnegie Melon University were awarded $10,000 for creating a machine that achieved international master status at chess. Deep Blue, however, was the first machine to beat the world chess champion. Google has entered the fray as well,