Yale Law Student Wants Government To Have Everybody's DNA

[Solid Knight]

Again, his proposal is regarding using junk DNA to create an identifier. There would be no need to keep anything else. It's like keeping the MD5 hash of a file, you don't need the file to know the hash.

He is not proposing keeping the information of the entire DNA sequence. Hell, he's not even proposing keeping any sample.

• Putting solely junk DNA on a crime scene would be rather suspicious.
  
• The malicious party would have to create DNA that exactly matches the party to be framed using technology that doesn't currently exist.
  
• The malicious party would need access to the DNA database (that for some reason stores either samples or the full sequence, even though that's not proposed), and obtain some without anyone noticing.
  
• All the evidence at the scene would have to point to that person, without exception.
  

That's a hell of a lot of hurdles for this to be a problem. As it is we already have fingerprinting, which is essentially a unique identifier.

You'd also have to pick somebody who could have done the crime and not just same random person. It's hard to frame somebody when they livr 2,000 miles away and work in front of a security camera.

[imachip]

I would be quite happy if everyone was DNA scanned and gps chipped myself. I believe if you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it? Those that have such worries watch too many horror scifi movies or think themselves as too important (like the govenment is going to watch your toilet movements 24/7 tin-foil hat guys!). Half of you seem to think the government is some sort of alien body hell-bent on manipulating the public... When in reality they work hard trying their best to serve you all.

There are so many benefits, such as crime prevention (e.g. if you got attacked you could automatically activate your gps chip, do not have to prove where you were at such and such time, etc). It would lead to a safer society.

Yup it's all about the 'how' this could be achived... A nigh-on unbreakable system would be needed...

[SaltLife]

So, they would keep a record of the "junk-DNA" on file or as someone else mentioned and/or posted a MD5 Checksum of their DNA. Can MD5 be cracked, and if so, how long did it take? But considering that they are able to easily fabricate DNA now if they have the DNA profile. I could only assume in due time that they would be able to duplicate from an MD5 (or junk-DNA) profile. Perhaps I'm off, but a lot of thought would have to go into this method of protection or crime prevention.

Online Reading: http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(09)00099-4/abstract

I would be quite happy if everyone was DNA scanned and gps chipped myself. I believe if you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it? Those that have such worries watch too many horror scifi movies or think themselves as too important (like the govenment is going to watch your toilet movements 24/7 tin-foil hat guys!). Half of you seem to think the government is some sort of alien body hell-bent on manipulating the public... When in reality they work hard trying their best to serve you all.

There are so many benefits, such as crime prevention (e.g. if you got attacked you could automatically activate your gps chip, do not have to prove where you were at such and such time, etc). It would lead to a safer society.

Yup it's all about the 'how' this could be achived... A nigh-on unbreakable system would be needed...

True, I do agree with that. Just look how incorporating GPS units inside of FedEx and UPS Trucks (or any corporate entity) saved their corporation money by monitoring where their employees where at all times. ;)

And you also have to consider the other spectrum of this. If in fact our government or law enforcement relies to heavily on this method and it turns out to be potentially flawed (as in the case with the DNA now) would we inadvertently end up having to release criminals because they found a loophole? For instance, criminal A claims that the evidence was tampered because scientist D says so. And because officer X didn't follow through on the investigation this known criminal is set free (along with multiple others because of cases like his). Just reiterating my point of a lot of thought needs to go behind this type of crime prevention.

[zhangm Supervisor]

Again, his proposal is regarding using junk DNA to create an identifier. There would be no need to keep anything else. It's like keeping the MD5 hash of a file, you don't need the file to know the hash.

I've just repped up your posts regarding this issue. The majority of people in this thread are clearly deluded by ignorance and common sci-fi mysticism regarding the "magical" properties of DNA.

I suppose I'm more or less a molecular biologist nowadays, and while I might not necessarily find this to be practical to implement, I also don't see any potential violation of privacy. With this method, we can't tell anything about the person. The only information that we can get is "are these two molecular tags identical or not?"

I suppose I'm also able to say that we don't need much DNA at all to produce more copies, so "bucketloads" of DNA lying around aren't necessary. All we need is a single cell sample, and we can make so many copies that it forms a white pellet of goo at the bottom of a tube.

So, they would keep a record of the "junk-DNA" on file or as someone else mentioned and/or posted a MD5 Checksum of their DNA. Can MD5 be cracked, and if so, how long did it take? But considering that they are able to easily fabricate DNA now if they have the DNA profile. I could only assume in due time that they would be able to duplicate from an MD5 (or junk-DNA) profile. Perhaps I'm off, but a lot of thought would have to go into this method of protection or crime prevention.

Being someone who amplifies DNA samples routinely, I can say that we have the capability of telling whether a DNA sample has been artificially prepared or not.

[Solid Knight]

The only other issue I can think of is if they get other people's DNA from your body. Like if they choose to do hair samples and they pull a stand of hair that came from the stylist's clippers.

[zhangm Supervisor]

The only other issue I can think of is if they get other people's DNA from your body. Like if they choose to do hair samples and they pull a stand of hair that came from the stylist's clippers.

There are many methods besides getting DNA from hair; we can take a mouth swab and amplify identifiable chunks of DNA using human-specific primers. The likelyhood of getting another person's DNA through this route is negligible. Alternatively, we can grab DNA from a blood sample.

[SaltLife]

I've just repped up your posts regarding this issue. The majority of people in this thread are clearly deluded by ignorance and common sci-fi mysticism regarding the "magical" properties of DNA.

I suppose I'm more or less a molecular biologist nowadays, and while I might not necessarily find this to be practical to implement, I also don't see any potential violation of privacy. With this method, we can't tell anything about the person. The only information that we can get is "are these two molecular tags identical or not?"

I suppose I'm also able to say that we don't need much DNA at all to produce more copies, so "bucketloads" of DNA lying around aren't necessary. All we need is a single cell sample, and we can make so many copies that it forms a white pellet of goo at the bottom of a tube.

Being someone who amplifies DNA samples routinely, I can say that we have the capability of telling whether a DNA sample has been artificially prepared or not.

Thanks Clears that up

Quote from the site I posted as well:

we developed an authentication assay, which distinguishes between natural and artificial DNA based on methylation analysis of a set of genomic loci: in natural DNA, some loci are methylated and others are unmethylated, while in artificial DNA all loci are unmethylated. The assay was tested on natural and artificial samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces, with complete success

[Kirkburn]

Can MD5 be cracked

While I took MD5 as an example, it doesn't mean the security level would be anything like that. (Though MD5 itself isn't bad in the first place).

Assuming they chose a sensible and secure hash method, essentially the only way to find out what DNA sequences created a specific hash is to brute force it. On a sensible hash, that could take many years of dedicated computing power.

I've just repped up your posts regarding this issue.

Thanks :blush:

[mudslag]

You people make it sound like gallons of DNA are gonna be sitting around in someones house for someone to break into and steal, then dump it at a crime scene.. be realistic people... for the love of god.

In a sense there is, a tooth brush, hair brush, unclean cup, hair in almost any room. To a trainer professional it would be easy to get, staging it for a crime scene is another matter but it is technically possible.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18

I know, but how? Easy enough that you or I could do it?

No

[primexx]

Your sensitive genetic information would be safe. A DNA profile distills a person?s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values, each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person. Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless -- they don?t correlate with any observable characteristics -- tabulating the number of repeats creates a unique identifier, a DNA 'fingerprint.' The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil, because these records include none of the health and biological data present in one?s genome as a whole.

good job on missing the whole point...

it doesn't matter if it uses "real" or "junk" dna data, they can still differentiate between and track everyone whenever they want - which is the whole point of this brain dead suggestion to begin with. That's a HUGE privacy flaw in and of itself.

[zhangm Supervisor]

In a sense there is, a tooth brush, hair brush, unclean cup, hair in almost any room. To a trainer professional it would be easy to get, staging it for a crime scene is another matter but it is technically possible.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18

This has already been covered, and that method leaves telltale signs that the DNA wasn't made in vivo.

"Any biology undergraduate could perform this," Frumkin told the Times.

No, not any undergrad. Exceptional ones could probably produce DNA that can be detected as fake. I know enough to produce "real" DNA, the drawbacks are that 1). it would be hard to make lots of it, and 2). it would leave one hell of a papertrail back to me.

[Nagisan]

That's a HUGE privacy flaw in and of itself.

Explain how collecting junk DNA that holds NO information about the person it came from is a huge privacy flaw, and you may have a valid response.

What there talking about is essentially making a tracer unique to every person and that is it. Its like having a social security card. Your SSN is different then everyone elses, but does not tell anyone about the person it came from. It would be as if you left your SSN at the scene of a crime, the police would be able to use that to figure out who commited the crime, but it would be virtually useless to everyone else. Now, obviously with your SSN, someone could steal your identity, but that is not really possible with junk DNA. Could they duplicate it? Technically yes, but its difficult to do, expensive, and unlikely to work to frame anyone.

Like Kirkburn mentions below me, this is quite similar to a fingerprint. It is unique to each individual, it tells you nothing about the individual that left it, it is in no way an invasion of privacy. The only difference is you cannot change this (with a fingerprint you cannot so much change them, but you can get rid of them at least temporarily or disfigure them) so its pretty much a guaranteed method of identifying someone. And I am sure they will not use just DNA to prove someone was at a crime scene, just like they do not use just finger prints to prove someone was at a crime scene, etc etc.

If you are worried about junk DNA being an invasion of privacy, then you better start wearing gloves every time you leave the house or wiping down everything you touch........fingerprints just as much an invasion of privacy as junk DNA is.

[Kirkburn]

it doesn't matter if it uses "real" or "junk" dna data, they can still differentiate between and track everyone whenever they want - which is the whole point of this brain dead suggestion to begin with. That's a HUGE privacy flaw in and of itself.

How on earth could they track "everyone whenever they want" with this? How is it that different to a fingerprint or, I don't know, a photo?

[Liana]

I have to say that the whole idea makes me rather uneasy. I don't like the fact that people wouldn't get a choice in the matter. It already makes me uncomfortable that the government has my fingerprints on record yet I've never been arrested or done anything wrong.

This article reminds me of the full body scanners in the airports now. They say that the images aren't recorded, and that a person's genital area is blurred out, but the whole idea is just too creepy for me, so I'm choosing not to fly anymore. At least I have that choice. I don't trust strangers to do the right thing with my personal information.

[mokthraka]

It's already been mentioned, but this would make it very easy to frame someone.

with just the data? not actaul biological samples?

can it be created? yes its been done with just having that data that could be got from a stolen laptop with the info on it.

could it be done by someone just trying to frame you? hell no its not a cheap process, if someone is going to take the effort and resource to frame you like this, your screwed regardless

to the guy talking about soical security numbers, it does tell where you came from

http://people.howstuffworks.com/social-security-number2.htm

[mudslag]

Explain how collecting junk DNA that holds NO information about the person it came from is a huge privacy flaw, and you may have a valid response.

What there talking about is essentially making a tracer unique to every person and that is it. Its like having a social security card. Your SSN is different then everyone elses, but does not tell anyone about the person it came from. It would be as if you left your SSN at the scene of a crime, the police would be able to use that to figure out who commited the crime, but it would be virtually useless to everyone else. Now, obviously with your SSN, someone could steal your identity, but that is not really possible with junk DNA. Could they duplicate it? Technically yes, but its difficult to do, expensive, and unlikely to work to frame anyone.

Like Kirkburn mentions below me, this is quite similar to a fingerprint. It is unique to each individual, it tells you nothing about the individual that left it, it is in no way an invasion of privacy. The only difference is you cannot change this (with a fingerprint you cannot so much change them, but you can get rid of them at least temporarily or disfigure them) so its pretty much a guaranteed method of identifying someone. And I am sure they will not use just DNA to prove someone was at a crime scene, just like they do not use just finger prints to prove someone was at a crime scene, etc etc.

If you are worried about junk DNA being an invasion of privacy, then you better start wearing gloves every time you leave the house or wiping down everything you touch........fingerprints just as much an invasion of privacy as junk DNA is.

WTF have you been smoking? Why else would you collect DNA samples of people without having a person associated back to it? Just like how a social security number links back to a person. That SS# gives anyone who can look access to your whole life if they know where to look. DNA can do the same but about the persons body. It can tell you if its male or femal, hair and eye color and other info about the body.

As for the junk DNA, I find it hard that the gov would just throw out the "other" DNA parts and only save the junk. That info holds a lot of power to some people. Insurance companies would love to have their hands on customers DNA, it provides vast amounts of info useful to them. Once that info is out there, you cant get it back.

[zhangm Supervisor]

DNA can do the same but about the persons body. It can tell you if its male or femal, hair and eye color and other info about the body.

The first post explains that this protocol will only harvest "junk DNA", i.e. a small, non-coding fragment of the human genome. The only information that can be derived from these is when they are used for comparison, i.e. answering the question, "Does this fragment match that taken from the suspect?" You cannot tell the individual's gender from this DNA fragment. You cannot tell what color hair they have. You have no information about any genetic predispositions. The information is not there, because all you have is a non-coding DNA fragment.

If you don't know what "junk DNA/non-coding DNA" is, look it up.

As for the junk DNA, I find it hard that the gov would just throw out the "other" DNA parts and only save the junk. That info holds a lot of power to some people. Insurance companies would love to have their hands on customers DNA, it provides vast amounts of info useful to them. Once that info is out there, you cant get it back.

It isn't so much thrown out as the process that generates the fragments isn't really suited for amplifying huge pieces of DNA. PCR can only go so far - maybe 10000 bp. Ok, if you're better than me, you can probably pull 30 - 50kb. The human genome is about 3 billion, so the starting genome is simply lost.

Also, the template genomic DNA would be extremely expensive and tedious to sequence. Commercial sequencers that we use today typically can read less than 1000 nucleotides before simply giving out, plus, to be absolutely certain of the accuracy of a read, you need to do it multiple times. The human genome project divided the work among many labs around the world, and it still took years to compile and assemble the human genome using cutting edge technology. Creating a genomic profile of every child born is an immense task far beyond what we're capable of today.

[Gone]

I would be quite happy if everyone was DNA scanned and gps chipped myself. I believe if you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it? Those that have such worries watch too many horror scifi movies or think themselves as too important (like the govenment is going to watch your toilet movements 24/7 tin-foil hat guys!). Half of you seem to think the government is some sort of alien body hell-bent on manipulating the public... When in reality they work hard trying their best to serve you all.

There are so many benefits, such as crime prevention (e.g. if you got attacked you could automatically activate your gps chip, do not have to prove where you were at such and such time, etc). It would lead to a safer society.

Yup it's all about the 'how' this could be achived... A nigh-on unbreakable system would be needed...

Well this could be going into biblical stuff, I don't recall the exact quote and verse in the bible (and trust me there are plenty of people who live their life by it), but it states you shall bear the mark of the one who's number equal 666 (just out of memory) on your forehead (gps chip well in your neck) and the palm of your hand (dna). They wouldn't dare start doing this because of the "privacy" concern.

Yes a safer society, but it would also be a more controlled society. This could go on to compare to a distopian society such as pictured in 1984, Animal Farm, Equilibrium, just to name a few. Also in the hands of the wrong government, DNA could be used to promote a genocide of a certain race through characteristics of DNA. If in the hands of the wrong people it could be used to frame people, eg "This person did kill so and so, we have proof right here with his DNA strand". They wouldn't even need hard evidence because they have the DNA in the system matched to a name. This could be real useful in eliminated political opponents (thus leading to the societies listed above). The GPS chip could also be used to eliminate political opponents or people of a different race. And don't think it can't happen, because genocide has happened many many times in human history, and well political opponents have been around just as long.

The Holocost

Rwanda

Bosnia

Just to name a few (and really the only ones I know of in our current times at the top of my head).

[tiagosilva29]

Can someone actually post a reason why it would be so bad?

No.

[s1k3sT]

I would be quite happy if everyone was DNA scanned and gps chipped myself. I believe if you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it? Those that have such worries watch too many horror scifi movies or think themselves as too important (like the govenment is going to watch your toilet movements 24/7 tin-foil hat guys!). Half of you seem to think the government is some sort of alien body hell-bent on manipulating the public... When in reality they work hard trying their best to serve you all.

There are so many benefits, such as crime prevention (e.g. if you got attacked you could automatically activate your gps chip, do not have to prove where you were at such and such time, etc). It would lead to a safer society.

Yup it's all about the 'how' this could be achived... A nigh-on unbreakable system would be needed...

Lets say our governments right now don't want to use this for bad uses, even though I would guess a lot of us think otherwise. Even if our government right now have our best interests in mind what would stop a lunatic control freak from getting control and using this for bad things?

People been saying for years that we will switch to a chip based monetary system. If you **** off the wrong people they just turn off your chip. Without a chip you have no way to make money or spend money. Not just that but mark of the beast anyone?!

What you call security we call control. You should think about heeding the words of Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[SyntaxError]

How'd he get into Yale? Seriously.

Daddy's money, that's how. Just like GW Bush.

[s1k3sT]

Daddy's money, that's how. Just like GW Bush.

True. Don't forget about cousin Barry Obama. Bought and paid for like all the rest. "Change" my ass...

[thechronic]

Same here. This is a big NO for me.

The whole idea that someone has suggested this just confirms that privacy is becoming a commodity, not a right.

I know it might seem a little bit 'George Orwell' of me, but what if for example the government does abuse this power? the British government cannot be trusted to file their expenses properly, nevermind dealing with someones DNA. It will probably get sold to companies on the grounds of research and so on as well. People should not have a hold over other people, it's that simple. By doing this, the rights and privacy of the innocent are taken to help identify the guilty and i do not like it. The day this becomes law is the day i go to jail. I would not give this information, even begrudgingly.

[s1k3sT]

The whole idea that someone has suggested this just confirms that privacy is becoming a commodity, not a right.

I know it might seem a little bit 'George Orwell' of me, but what if for example the government does abuse this power? the British government cannot be trusted to file their expenses properly, nevermind dealing with someones DNA. It will probably get sold to companies on the grounds of research and so on as well. People should not have a hold over other people, it's that simple. By doing this, the rights and privacy of the innocent are taken to help identify the guilty and i do not like it. The day this becomes law is the day i go to jail. I would not give this information, even begrudgingly.

I'll take it one step further: give me liberty or give me death! The day they require dna collection and/or microchips is the day I fight to the death to stop it. Until then I will fight it non-violently, but I am not afraid to defend my constitutionally granted rights with violence. Don't tread on me! They've been warned...

[Gotenks98]

You are talking out of your ass.

Gattaca Much??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattica