Wana buy a nice little data bank?

[Burning Petard]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gene ... 58491.html

23 and me is up for sale. What is the duty of the bankruptcy court? Does the court have any concern about the possible uses of the assets of the company in chapter 11, beyond maximize its value to get the biggest return to creditor? Does the 'privacy policy'( that nobody ever understands) of the company have any life after the company reorganizes?

This has already been used to track relatives of 'persons of interest' whose DNA was found at crime scenes.

snailgate.

[BoSoxGal]

For your consideration: every human born should be swabbed and their DNA entered into CODIS or the equivalent in whatever other jurisdiction on earth. This will facilitate the solving of horrific crimes and potentially reduce the rate of such crimes. People who don't engage in criminal activity will have nothing to fear.

Thoughts?

[Burning Petard]

nothing to fear? I guess I can go back to worrying about where to live so I can have potable water and a good probability my home will make it through the next weather cycle. I remind the good people here that anyone who has served in the military in this century [and sometime before] already has their fingerprints and DNA on file with the US government.

[ex-khobar Andy]

"People who don't engage in criminal activity will have nothing to fear." Strange to hear an attorney making that point, BSG.

I agree with your general point because it is, essentially, now a fait accompli. Many of us have fingerprints on file through criminal activity, immigration status etc. Kids' feet are photographed at birth as a way of identifying them and I don't doubt that there are toe print characteristics which last a lifetime. And companies like '23 and Me' own all sorts of data and I am certain they still own it and the rights which are worth something. If you have never used them it is pretty sure that some relative somewhere has; and even if it's a second cousin twice removed there will be enough there to make the match.

[BoSoxGal]

"People who don't engage in criminal activity will have nothing to fear." Strange to hear an attorney making that point, BSG.

I know right? But while I feel that I am a very principled person in terms of my impassioned support for individual rights, some naive part of me thinks that there is only a positive side to cataloguing DNA for the solving of crimes.

The argument I used to hear was that it could be used to plant evidence against someone but that’s silly - you test the DNA at birth and destroy the physical sample just the profile stays on record. As far as I know, that’s how it happens when a criminal conviction or in some jurisdictions a mere arrest requires a DNA sample and entry to CODIS. So use of one’s catalogued DNA to frame them for a future crime would require next level framing like misrepresentation of a sample actually collected from a crime scene it just seems terribly unlikely.

Also one of the fears I’ve heard expressed is DNA out there in a catalogue could result in refusal of healthcare coverage for having a genetic mutation that causes a particular condition or illness. I think we have already addressed that with legislative prohibitions on preexisting conditions as a basis for denial of healthcare coverage.

I am actually very fascinated with the new science of genetic genealogy using DNA databases and familial DNA to track perpetrators of unsolved crimes. I am working on making connections to see if this is an area I could work in after my current hospice patient transitions to the next realm. I love puzzles and played a lot in the genealogy databases tracking my own family tree I think it would be stimulating work and of course there is nothing so rewarding as to provide certain answers to victims of crime.

Just imagine all the lives we could save if we caught raping and murdering bastards the very first time.

And think of all the innocent people who languished in prison for decades before being exonerated by DNA. That’s a lot of life we could be saving, too.

[Burning Petard]

By the way, is there any evidence, beyond more than a century of anecdotal experience, that fingerprints should be unique to an individual?

snailgate.

[Crackpot]

Unfalsifiable. Due to testing methods fingerprinting doesn’t wouldn’t even sufficiently eliminate everyone in a decently sized city. It is however, accurate enough that a false match would be highly unlikely.

[ex-khobar Andy]

The problem with DNA evidence is this. Scientifically there is no issue. A match is a match, and nowadays the testing is straightforward. Extract the DNA from the blood or semen or whatever is left at the scene of the crime; snip out the pieces of interest (bearing in mind that you share 99% of your DNA with the average chimpanzee, you need to figure out which bits vary among humans); grow them using polymerase chain reaction; and take a look. Very reliable and nowadays pretty easy if you have the right equipment.

The big hole in the procedure is chain-of-custody - can you prove that the blood sample tested was in fact the blood left at the murder scene and not planted by the cops? Because the testing gives a one in several billion chance of being some other person - and bearing in mind that 'reasonable doubt' usually means 95% or better - juries and public opinion usually says 'that's it, then' and often ignores the second part. Essentially, sloppy chain-of-custody was one of the reasons for OJ Simpson's acquittal in his trial for the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.

[BoSoxGal]

I think the DNA technology of today makes DNA match results WAY more reliable than a one in several billion chance of being somebody else - the numbers used at recent trials I've observed are numbers only university math majors ever learn, or jurors on juries with DNA evidence - nonillion comes to mind, which is 10 billion times bigger than a billion. The trial I'm currently observing has a DNA match off the alleged murder weapon which is 749 nonillion times more likely to be the victim's than the investigators who collected the evidence which are the match comparisons.

Chain of custody issues in the OJ case were all reliant upon the racist cops/corrupt cops premise - without it, the chain of custody in that case wasn't really subject to a reasonable doubt. That case is just a really, really bad case to use as a comparative or instructive for the system as a whole - except that it is instructive to cops that their prejudices can ruin their cases if they ever come to light, and the way they conduct themselves in their duties as cops will also color how some jurors perceive their credibility and the reliability of their investigative efforts.

[Burning Petard]

Unlike fingerprints, the presence of DNA on the murder weapon does NOT prove some one actually did touch it. DNA is very small stuff in a cloud of molecules one leaves behind everywhere one has been have been. 'DNA transfer' is a big hole to bring in reasonable doubt. That is why I think it is far more useful in civil trials.

snailgate

[ex-khobar Andy]

Unlike fingerprints, the presence of DNA on the murder weapon does NOT prove some one actually did touch it. DNA is very small stuff in a cloud of molecules one leaves behind everywhere one has been have been. 'DNA transfer' is a big hole to bring in reasonable doubt. That is why I think it is far more useful in civil trials.

Assuming that chain-of-custody is not an issue - and yes, BSG, racist cops were at the heart of the c-o-c problems in the Simpson case: it may be that they in fact did not blow the handling of the evidence but the defense team introduced enough doubt about the cops' motives that everything they did that night was in reasonable doubt - then DNA presence on the murder weapon is pretty compelling. Yes he could have sneezed on it but there might also be equally innocent explanations for fingerprints.