That’s true, that they inform the users, but they don’t inform the user’s relatives and it’s those people whose privacy rights are being implicated. I told my H that I didn’t want him putting his DNA results up there because of the potential impact on our kids. His family has heart disease, etc. and I don’t want my kids not getting health of life insurance because of that. This was before the GSK issue came up.
techmom99, exactly whose rights are you saying were violated here? The “user” submits their profile to a site that explicitly informs them that the data can be used to identify relatives that turn out to be criminals or victims. LE submits their DNA profile (that no longer belongs to the original owner, as he discarded it at the crime scene).
The “relative” has given implicit permission to use their profile, the John Doe DNA belongs to law enforcement, so no permission is needed from the suspect. This is not the same as what you are talking about. In your scenario, the kids haven’t put their DNA on the site, but somehow are being connected to your DH. Here, both parties have voluntarily submitted their profiles to a web site that is explicitly there to generate matches of only those who have submitted their profiles.
Plenty of people put up photos on social media sites. Some of the photos may suggest that others are doing illegal activity.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-golden-state-dna-match-20180427-story.html
They took DNA from the crime scene and matched some portions to DNA relatives had submitted to GEDMatch. Doing this they traced back to his ggggrandfather. Genealogists then traced the line that moved to California and found likely people to check out. They then took his discarded DNA from the trash and matched it to the crime scene DNA.
I don’t see any invasion of privacy. If he were smarter, he would have handled his trash in some other way like hauling it himself to a dump site to be mixed in with thousands of others. I heard some speculation that he may have stopped his crime spree when DNA evidence began becoming more in use in police work. Being a former cop, he would have known this and it may have induced him to stop for fear of being caught.
True, but after so many years going undetected, I imagine complacency had set in.
Since there is no law on the books forbidding people from putting their own DNA profiles on the internet to be shared with the public, I’d have to say that as of now, yes, the relative did have the right to “incriminate his kinsman.” Will laws be written to address the possibilities inherent with these genealogy web sites? Time will tell.
@Nrdsb4 -
To quote you, “In your scenario, the kids haven’t put their DNA on the site, but somehow are being connected to your DH. Here, both parties have voluntarily submitted their profiles to a web site that is explicitly there to generate matches of only those who have submitted their profiles.” I didn’t see anywhere that DeAngelo had “voluntarily submitted” his profile to the GEDMatch site. If he did, in fact, put his profile up of his own volition, then there is no potential issue. Do you have a source for that information?
DeAngelo did not own his DNA sample, as he had “voluntarily submitted it” while murdering two people in their home. LE took ownership of it and they in turn voluntarily submitted it to the GEDMatch site. There is no current law prohibiting LE from submitting DNA profiles obtained in a legal manner to genealogy web sites. The investigators got a fair amount of advice from legal experts before they did this, according to the reports I have read about it.
I actually do believe that techmom99’s contentions will be raised by the suspect’s lawyers quite vigorously, but I personally do not believe they will succeed. I’m not a lawyer, though, so anything is possible. Privacy advocates will of course lobby for laws that will catch up to technology. Again, who knows if they will prevail?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article209987599.html
If the judge doesn’t toss the DNA-related evidence, I have no doubt the suspect’s attorneys will appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. At that point, there will be a solid answer as to how DNA can be used in law enforcement and court proceedings.
@Nrdsb4 -
I am a lawyer but my only exposure to either criminal or con law was in the classes I took in pre-DNA days. I want to make it clear that I personally have no issue with the way DeAngelo was captured, but I do think it will be an issue at the trial. Honestly, if his attorneys don’t challenge the way the evidence was gathered, maintained and whatever, they will not be defending him effectively. I agree that this case may wind up providing future guidelines for the gathering and use of familial DNA.
I don’t know if it has happened yet, but I could see a criminal suing the relative who put the DNA on a public website at some point. I don’t know if they would succeed in that suit, but I bet someone will try it.
Suspects don’t voluntarily submit their photographs to the newspapers or TV either. Yet those identifiers are used by LE and people searching the databases in their minds to identify criminals.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one voluntarily submits one’s DNA to one of these hobby DNA sites. Police are allowed to lie to defendants; I don’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed to assume a false identity to access voluntarily submitted data. It’ll be argued endlessly by defense, but it’ll be upheld.