Privacy Digest

News that can impact your privacy.
Login/Register
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
Home Blogs MacRonin's blog
  • FAQ
  • Wishlists
  • Contact
  • Categories/RSS

Bookmark Us

Bookmark Privacy Digest 
Bookmark This Page 

RSS Feed + Site Map

Syndicate content
more

Advertisements

GPS Tracking
Search By Phone Number
Hosting
Home Security Systems Toronto
Mercedes-Benz Luxury Cars News
Disk Encryption
spy camera

Popular content

Last viewed:

  • 3 Things on AT&T's Proposed Net Filtering Plan
  • CFP08 - Former Prosecutor: ISP Content Filtering Might be a 'Five Year Felony'
  • Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig Explores A Bid for Congress
  • Extraordinary Abuse
  • Screenshot Purports to Show Hackers with Root Access on MediaDefender Server in April
  • EFF Urges Court to Block Government's Ploy for Cell Phone Location Information
  • Black Hat : The World's Premier Technical Security Conference ( August 2-7, 2008)

tags in Topics

Activists Alert Companies Congress Copyright Court (US) Databases Data Mining Editorial EFF Entertainment Exploits Fourth Amendment Government Hmmm ID Infrastructure Law Enforcement Laws Politics Privacy Remember Reports Rights Security Software Spin Zone Surveillance Telecommunications Tracking
more tags

Performancing Metrics Blog Statistics
EatonWeb Blog Directory
Listed on BlogShares
View blog authority
Congressional Research
Broadcast Flag

Feds to Collect Millions of DNA Profiles Yearly, Stay Out if You Can

Submitted by MacRonin on May 13, 2008 - 1:07pm.
  • Activists
  • Alert
  • Anonymity
  • Court (US)
  • Data Mining
  • Databases
  • DNA & Genetics
  • DOJ - Dept of Justice
  • Editorial
  • FBI - Federal Bureau Of Investigation
  • Fourth Amendment
  • Government
  • Hmmm
  • ID
  • Law Enforcement
  • News Follow-up Update/Correction
  • Privacy
  • Remember
  • Rights
  • Spin Zone

Feds to Collect Millions of DNA Profiles Yearly, Stay Out if You Can - Via Threat Level:

The feds will soon be collecting about one million DNA samples a year under a new program that lets federal agents collect cheek swabs from citizens merely arrested for any federal crime or from any non-citizen detained by federal agents -- including visitors to the country who have visas.

The intent is build a massive database of DNA samples (.pdf) that police can use to catch rapists and murderers, but even the innocent should fear being in the database, due to the vagaries of how cold case DNA searches can easily pinpoint an innocent person.

Thanks to an amendment in the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that was sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the feds now have the authority to immediately take DNA from any arrestee or 'detained' non-citizen and immediately upload it to the FBI's CODIS database.  That database is currently fed by federal law enforcement agencies and all 50 states, a few of which collect and upload DNA samples from people arrested, but not convicted of a crime. 

DNA profiles are composed of 13 genetic markers that are meant not to reveal genetic makeup or disease. Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and scientifically sound evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence found at the scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA link for someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the odds against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.

But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the chances that a match between a DNA sample -- especially an incomplete one -- and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has different math. Very different math.

So if you have a probability of 1 in 1.1 million chance of people having a certain sequence of DNA markers and you have a database of 550,000 people, you have a 50% chance of making a match. That's great, if you know that the perpetrator is in that database. But what it also means is that as you start testing DNA profiles against more and more people, the chances that you will match an innocent person to a DNA profile from a crime scene gets higher.

A recent L.A. Times story about a cold case prosecution of a 1972 rape and murder in California, where 30 years later, police matched a DNA sample from the scene to that of a convicted rapist in its 338,000 profile strong DNA database. Given the number of markers that were used there was a one in three chance that some profile in the database would match. In this case, it matched John Puckett, who lived in the same city.

The jury however, wasn't told about the probability that someone in the database would match against the profile (The L.A. Times story erroneously says that there was a 1/3 chance that someone innocent would be fingered in such a search. If one knew for a fact that every person in the database were innocent, then there was a 1 in 3 chance that an innocent person would get fingered, but in Puckett's case, one simply knows that there was a one in three chance someone in the California criminal database would be fingered.)

And that's a problem when the government starts collecting millions of DNA samples, sticking them in a massive database and finding 'cold hits.'

Imagine the innocent man facing down a jury of his peers, hoping that they understand something about statistics.

The Justice Department is taking comments on the proposed DNA rules until Monday, May 19.

Photo: National Institute of Health

(Read Original Article - Via Threat Level.)


Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious Delicious
  • Digg Digg
  • Reddit Reddit
  • Google Google
  • Yahoo Yahoo
  • Technorati Technorati
  • MacRonin's blog
  • Add new comment

Recent blog posts

  • Apple patching serious SMS vulnerability on iPhone
  • Enter the Advertisers - self-regulatory principles ?
  • Out of business, Clear may sell customer data
  • TSA asked to ensure safety of customer data after Clear closing
  • Several Facts about Google and HTTPS
  • China thinks twice – and its 300m internet users scent a rare victory
  • Did the Sanford E-Mail Tipster or the Newspaper Break the Law?
  • Supreme Court Serves Up Remote-Recording Victory
  • Deep-Packet Inspection in U.S. Scrutinized Following Iran Surveillance
  • ATM Vendor Halts Researcher’s Talk on Vulnerability
more
Compilation © Copyright 1997-2009 Paul Hardwick, with Web Hosting provided by MacRonin.com.