Posted on 02/05/2019 2:57:54 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
I can’t believe you’re considering that an equal trade off. Very naive.
#74 The FBI and State Dept etc “find” Trump DNA at any made up crime scene they can think to create.
I figured this DNA craze was nothing more than a con to collect databases.
When facebook skeptics predicted that they would sell user data, the FB believers said they were crazy.
Lord help you if you are found to be a perfect match to some millionaire who needs a liver/lung transplant...
beef wrote: “Data from FamilyTreeDNA would be used only to identify suspects. The final match would be done with DNA they collected from the suspect using formal police procedures.”
Of course, but too many in this thread do not seem to grasp that judicial procedures such as ‘chain of custody’ would preclude using DNA gathered from FamilyTreeDNA, etc., in a court of law.
Store video is kept for a matter of days or maybe months.
Be long gone and copied over.
If the crime scene sample is not good, then it should not be admitted. I am not of of these drones who think the police and persecutors are all angels. I think the so called justice system is seriously broken. Faulty field drug test kits landing innocent people in jail. Prosecutors using their well practiced interrogation techniques to induce innocent people to plead, and failing that, tricking them into contradicting themselves so they can be charged with lying, which BTW is completely legal for the prosecutor. Asset forfeiture. Massive prison sentences for petty crime. Zero tolerance. And don’t even get me started on the civil justice system. You will know if I ever win the lottery, because there will be a massive nationwide ad campaign pointing out the abuse and imploring people to never, ever, ever talk to the police.
“Name a person falsely convicted based upon DNA.”
You gotta be kidding, because you don’t know the name of such a person means it has never happened? There have been many claims that no one has ever been shown to have been executed for a crime he did not commit, do you actually believe that has never happened?
RipSawyer wrote: “You gotta be kidding, because you don’t know the name of such a person means it has never happened?”
The subject of this thread is FamilyTreeDNA sharing DNA data with the FBI. I can assure you that this type of sharing has not resulted in a conviction based upon FamilyTreeDNA data.
The reason I’m so confident is a little legal issue called “Chain of Custody”. For evidence to be introduced into court, the prosecution must establish the custody of the evidence including how it was collected, who controlled it, and who tested it. You cannot establish this kind of custody on a commercially available DNA test.
What FamilyTreeDNA (and others) have done is to allow law enforcement access to their data. This data can point law enforcement to a highly likely suspect but it would not be legally admissible. In effect, all this type of data can do is put law enforcement on the trail. Law enforcement could then obtain additional DNA with a credible chain of custody for prosecution.
Related:
Meanwhile, Bezos works with nsa etc. to set up spying on us and everyone else in the world.
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas wrote: “Programs based on the idea of helping the police, although maybe well-intentioned, can have unintended consequences.”
Why not just get rid of the police then?
That’s not what I said. I think it’s likely that something will go wrong in FTDNA or a similar company and I don’t trust them with my DNA. I hope people do help the police to catch murderers and rapists but I have concerns with this particular kind of business.
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas wrote: “That’s not what I said. I think it’s likely that something will go wrong in FTDNA or a similar company and I don’t trust them with my DNA.”
Because there is no “chain of custody”, FTDNA would not be admissible in a court of law. Law enforcement could use it to identify likely suspects but would have to get a sample of your DNA directly from you to use in court.
Don't have to, the labs conducting the mandatory drug testing the employers are now using can just as easily provide their info to the govt.....For all we know, they just might be doing it now.
That would be a good thing, most of the time. If it results in bankrupting or convicting an innocent person (for example, jurors hear that DNA evidence is very reliable and vote to convict), not so much.
Yes, that can happen in cases that have nothing to do with dna. But what if there are a dozen or more different dna samples at a crime scene.
Is spite of that, you might think you want to share your dna profile. I don't.
Apart from the police and judicial systems, I think there is a risk of sharing dna information because of insurance and employment consequences.
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas wrote: “Law enforcement could use it to identify likely suspects That would be a good thing, most of the time. If it results in bankrupting or convicting an innocent person (for example, jurors hear that DNA evidence is very reliable and vote to convict), not so much.”
Should we do away with eye witness testimony? DNA is probably much more reliable than some eye witness testimony.
“Yes, that can happen in cases that have nothing to do with dna. But what if there are a dozen or more different dna samples at a crime scene.”
Then it’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate why only one DNA sample is pertinent.
“Is spite of that, you might think you want to share your dna profile. I don’t.”
Fine, I used DNA to discover my father (now deceased) was adopted.
“Apart from the police and judicial systems, I think there is a risk of sharing dna information because of insurance and employment consequences.”
Absolutely, but that’s a different subject.
Should we do away with eye witness testimony? DNA is probably much more reliable than some eye witness testimony
Don't do away with either. I am claiming that there are risks involved in letting anyone have your dna profile, if you have a choice.
Fine, I used DNA to discover my father (now deceased) was adopted.
Of course you have every right to do so.
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas wrote: “I am claiming that there are risks involved in letting anyone have your dna profile, if you have a choice.”
Yes, there are risks just as there are benefits to services such as FTDNA. You might be surprised at what you discover. As I said, I found out my father was adopted. Not that big a deal but it demonstrated just how great the man was who adopted him.
Almost all those that knew of the adoption are now deceased. He was adopted before statehood so there were no birth records nor is there a paper record of the adoption. I did find a birth certificate dated 1940 but Dad was born in 1908.
Because of the DNA results I was able to by process of elimination determine my actual grandfather with a very high confidence. Not that it matters, he’s been dead for fifty years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.