[U] A Great DNA Question -- From An Anonymous Commenter, Below...

Even before the thought provoking and cogent question (below), I had been closely following the developing story of the identification and capture of the so-called Golden State Killer. [And as I had conjectured (but did not yet know) in the comments below, it does turn out that the family was helping catch him, intentionally.]

As many here know, I have shared my DNA with 23andMe.com -- but only for my own personal knowlege -- and later, for academically vetted, peer reviewed, scientific research -- and only in an aggregated (anonymized) form. In sum, I have retained most of my rights to privacy, in this medical data -- my DNA, as sequenced from my saliva four years ago now.

So, tonight, the question comes -- thus:

. . . .Anonymous said. . .

Slightly off topic, but at least crime and science-related: curious what your thoughts are on use of DNA-based geneology services and their data in the identification of suspects in crimes, as appears to be the case with the so-called 'Golden State Killer'. A goldmine of crime-solving data and technology is out there, but what should the limits be?

April 27, 2018 at 8:40 PM. . . .

This is an outstanding question!

And the law here will have to evolve a bit — as to sites like 23&me, I think (because if one checks the right boxes, 23&me will never voluntarily share DNA without a search warrant). . . .

But in the case you mention, it is now clear that his relatives uploaded DNA knowing it was public, and capable of search — by ANYONE, without restriction. And I think finding this killer and rapist in that way (via relatives’ DNA — offered in a very public way). . . is appropriate.

I personally wonder whether the family members suspected it was him, given the wall to wall coverage in the late 1970s, and thought this might help catch him, without being openly accusatory (were it to turn out they were. . . wrong).

The whole topic is both important and. . . fascinating! Thanks!

LATER UPDATE:

Now, where I’ve selected to have my DNA only shared in trusted academic/clinical research settings, and only in aggregated form, it strikes me that law enforcement should need a warrant from a judge.

And a judge won’t issue that warrant where (as in a doctor’s office) I seek treatment privately. So that is akin to pre-existing law, under the fourth amendment.

We also know that law enforcement may search one's trash without a warrant -- and discarded toothbrushes, floss or cotton swabs with blood on them — may be processed lawfully for DNA evidence without such a "probable cause" warrant, in most states.

So be careful how you "dump" personal hygiene items (i.e., drive to a far away gas station, under cover of night. . . to drop that bag!), if you are a crook on the lam! [One cannot (more seriously) really assert a fourth amendment privacy right in something placed on the curb as garbage for public collection.]

I know victims of horrible crimes deserve closure, and this new field of science offers promise -- in perhaps thousands of cold cases, but we should be very wary of warrantless searches of private DNA databases. After all, what if employers and insurers begin discriminating based on what the service consumers assumed would remain entirely private?

And now just imagine that I am the (entirely unknown -- even to me!) love child of Charles Manson. . . should I be involuntarily "outed", as the child of a deranged sociopath (and the implication that I might be genetically predisposed in the same way)? Should I be subject to taunts (or worse!), when for almost a half century. . . I never knew (or suspected) he was my father?! It would be one thing to have to live with that late discovery, privately. . . and a much worse thing, to have it made involuntarily public, in some far-flung criminal investigation. [There is also the story of the ancestry.com customer who spent over a year clearing his name of a suspected rape, even though he wasn't a match -- to the rapist. It turned out the actual perp was a half-brother he barely knew existed. But his life was hell -- for over a year, after ancestry.com shared his (and thousands of others') DNA data willy nilly, with any officer who came knocking. Ancestry.com has since revised their policies, to allow for an opt-out, just like many others. At 23andMe, one must opt-in affirmatively to wide spread sharing -- the default is entirely private.]

Yes. . . it seems the law will have to evolve a bit -- and very clearly proscribe law enforcement searching willy-nilly, in those settings. [Full probable cause warrants ought to be sought, and only obtained in an akin to medical records setting, to use an older bottle of wine -- to hold this new vintage, so to speak].

Great thought provoking question!

If the graphic at right caught your eye -- do go read this, for another dimension to these evolving genomics science questions.

Namaste and goodnight!

नमस्ते