Current Events > Do you agree ethically with the method they used to catch Golden State Killer?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Any method used to get a serial killer apprehended is a good method.

pinky0926 posted...

The wider argument isn't generally about how to catch horrific serial killers but about how this technique could be used in virtually anything.

But what is the actual implication here? If it's being used to solve crimes then I have no problem with that.

DipDipDiver posted...

But what is the actual implication here? If it's being used to solve crimes then I have no problem with that.

The direct issue is that the people who submitted their DNA to a geneolgy website were doing it explicitly for the purpose of knowing more about their family tree. They aren't consenting for their DNA to be used in criminal cases, but it is.

The other main issue is it could be used to solve any crime from virtually any modern era.Nothing stopping this technique being used for petty crime, drug use, etc.

The other issue is that it could be used to solve things that aren't even crimes. We're not quite here yet, but you can imagine a life insurance company using AI matching software to figure out if you are at a higher risk of certain diseases based on your geneology.

The other issue is false positives.

bigblu89 posted...

Any method used to get a serial killer apprehended is a good method.

That's absurd. So imprisoning the entire country because you're gonna get the serial killer eventually is a good method?

pinky0926 posted...

The direct issue is that the people who submitted their DNA to a geology website were doing it explicitly for the purpose of knowing more about their family tree. They aren't consenting for their DNA to be used in criminal cases, but it is.

The other main issue is it could be used to solve any crime from virtually any modern era. Nothing stopping this technique being used for petty crime, drug use, etc.

The other issue is that it could be used to solve things that aren't even crimes. We're not quite here yet, but you can imagine a life insurance company using AI matching software to figure out if you are at a higher risk of certain diseases based on your genealogy.

The other issue is false positives.

1 - Gotta read the fine print on those ancestry sites, because many times you're actually agreeing to have your DNA be put in a database for use in things like this.

2 - As far as insurance, I highly doubt it, but can be used to keep premiums down, as insurance companies can only take on the most low-risk clients possible.

3 - It's very rare that DNA alone is the reason for charges being filed or people being convicted, so false positives "should" hold no bearing when it comes to a situation like this

bigblu89 posted...

1 - Gotta read the fine print on those ancestry sites, because many times you're actually agreeing to have your DNA be put in a database for use in things like this.

I'm not very clued up on law but is there a term for insidious agreements in T&Cs documents? Like every website you go on presents a thesis of information that literally no one in their right mind is reading unless you have a few hours to pour through pages of legalese every time you want to order a bathroom matt or whatever.

Maybe this is a core agreement for these sorts of sites but my general point is that we're in a pretty shitty situation where we're expected to just be ok with signing away our data all the time simply because it says it there in the privacy policy, while having no idea what that actually looks like in the practical sense. The cambridge analytica case was a good example of this. People sign up to facebook to post pictures of their grandkids for their friends, not to have their data sold off to third parties for voter manipulation.

How reliable is the science is my question. Errors or unknown variables in the testing or evidence gathering/storage could lead to innocent people unrelated to the crime being charged or incarcerated.

VampireCoyote posted...

How reliable is the science is my question. Errors or unknown variables in the testing or evidence gathering/storage could lead to innocent people unrelated to the crime being charged or incarcerated.

They still have to do the detective work. It's not like "Hey buddy, you have the same ancestor as some dude who killed people, so get in the cell"

It worked, so all's well that ends well.

If they use the data within the terms that people who submitted their DNA agreed to, I don't think you can say they did anything wrong.

I personally don't agree with having my biodata used in this way and so would never submit myself to a database like that. But then again, my dentist has my dental records, my eye doctor has my retinal scans, and the state has my fingerprints. I have no control over how any of that data is used.

C_Pain posted...

That's absurd. So imprisoning the entire country because you're gonna get the serial killer eventually is a good method?

that's an absurd leap of logic

Ive paid for family members to go to private and confidential labs for dna testing when I heard they were going to use those mail in ones.

ROBANN_88 posted...

that's an absurd leap of logic

It proves the point perfectly and shot down the ridiculous statement bigblu89 made without thinking.