Topic:
Current law in the U.S. allows DNA to be taken from sex offenders and those convicted or accused of a serious crime. The information is maintained in a national DNA database. The database has been used both to prosecute crimes and to exonerate those wrongfully convicted. With some exceptions, most notably the military, the federal government may not collect DNA from ordinary citizens. Several states, including Utah, have statutorily allowed the collection of DNA from persons arrested and subsequently charged with felonies. In Utah, DNA samples of those arrested, but never charged or later exonerated, must be destroyed. In contrast, Britain more widely collects DNA from ordinary citizens, often in “DNA dragnets” where, for example, DNA samples of all male citizens in a given community are taken to aid in the investigation of a rape. The samples are maintained in a national database.
Blog:
DNA Today
The collection of DNA in the United States has widely grown in a commercial sense, more individuals are voluntary providing samples to get a deeper understanding of their family ties. Companies such as Ancestry provide a service that allows consumers to purchase AncestryDNA kit, and in turn, are given information on the origins of family or potential health implications. While the commercial benefits of DNA testing provide a deeper understanding of self, it also raises concerns for testing in another context: the criminal justice system.
DNA collection of convicted criminals has primarily faced no resistance from United States courts. In fact, many courts have continually backed legislation that supports this collection of data. What is at the forefront of the debate, however, is the collection of DNA of individuals who haven’t been convicted. Currently, the United Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Mayland v. King that the police can collect DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. A comparison has been drawn between DNA samples and standard procedures such as fingerprinting and photographing by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. But it isn’t that simple.
Privacy Concerns Regarding DNA Collection: What Your DNA Reveals About You
DNA sequences provide a profile for you, it reveals the most private information: medical history, family history, genetic health risks etc. A DNA sample is based on genetic profiling, that has the potential to tie you to an investigation. When you give up your DNA, you are rendering a holistic profile of yourself. A sample is similar to a medical record, depending on the type of specimen drawn A sample according to the Guardian, can reveal sex, hair color, and eye color among others listed above. When providing samples to companies such as Ancestry or 23andme you consent to hand over your information to a third party company. Ancestry, for example, will hand over DNA data to the third party for research purposes for human genetics, health, genealogy and anthropology, this is usually consented upon purchasing. Privacy for companies such as Ancestry is explicit with consumers about privacy concerns, here you can read their privacy statement. Ancestry will also delete your data information upon request, and the physical sample will be destroyed only after you speak with management. The information embedded within your DNA raises serious privacy concerns not only in regards to personal information that can affect the way others might view you but also the criminal justice system.
Law enforcement currently utilizes forensic DNA to solve cold cases, rape, and unsolved murder investigations. Police Officers currently uses CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), specifically NDIS a federal national database that stores DNA samples that have been collected after an arrest. Advocates of privacy have raised concerns about the collection and retention of DNA samples at a commercial and state sense. Others are concerned about the privacy violations in regards to the Fourth Amendment for DNA samples collection that occurs preconviction. If you have your DNA on file it eliminates the right to anonymity and direct door for law enforcement to potential suspects.
The Benefits of DNA
Despite the complicated privacy issues concerning DNA, it does assist in different ways those including research purposes, crime investigations, personal purposes. The collection of DNA has revolutionized research, providing a greater insight into human makeup. Personal genome sequencing “assesses the status of all of your genes at one time,” has given insight to potential diseases such as Huntington Disease, or possible markers of cancerous cells that you can take preventive steps to avoid. Personal genome sequencing is currently studied to cure possible diseases as well.
DNA has also revolutionized the criminal justice system. The DNA evidence can be used to clear suspects, solve cold cases, and clear individuals who have been wrongfully accused of a crime. One instance where this occurred was in 1999: “New York authorities connected a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and robberies that had terrorized the city.” It has also been used to identify the remains of a missing person.
The commercial use of DNA has been used to find potential living relatives, understand the family origin and relations. For example, a member of Ancestry, Kyle, who had thought he was German ended up actually finding he has a long lineage of Scottish ancestors.
Current Law Regarding DNA
Currently in the United States, only 31 states take DNA samples from felony arrestees and Utah among 7 other states have expanded to include DNA from those convicted of a misdemeanor. The uses of the DNA stored within the CODIS does not contain any medical or genetic characteristics. The 2013 ruling of Mayland v. King has provided a greater access to DNA samples as previously mentioned. A nondiscrimination act known as GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) was signed by former President Bush, to ensure that Americans genetic information is not used to discriminate in relation to health insurance or employment.
Conclusion
After researching this topic though I do see the potential benefits of mass collection of DNA samples, I do not think it is sound policy. This mass collection eliminates privacy and the right to anonymity. It would be of great concern to have a database with very personal information in a system. Moreover, DNA should be seen as personal property, as it is in some sense an extension of ourselves that should require a warrant or arrest to demand that collection. A massive collection of DNA from citizens would yes produce a better outcome to finding potential suspects and solving cold cases, but it would also be unrealistic. Collecting DNA samples from everyone would be ineffective as there wouldn’t be a realistic way to collect DNA from all citizens. Furthermore to be able to store all that genetic data would overwhelming in the system and would require a massive amount of funding and individuals to log and store that data.
Although I agree with the overall privacy conclusions, I think that storing the genetic data of everyone (moving forward) is relatively achievable. Your analysis mentions the cost of obtaining the data and storing it, as well as the impracticality of instantly obtaining all the data from current individuals. I agree that obtaining genetic data from current individuals is relatively impractical and would take time and energy in far excess of the potential benefits. However, if a law were created to require every newborn child to register their DNA and have it checked when obtaining a drivers license, in addition to the current methods of obtaining genetic information, this would eventually lead to a cataloging of the majority of the populace. The cost of storing this information would be comparatively low as well. After a brief search, I found that the amount of data required to store an individuals DNA ranges between 1 and 3 GB (depending on compression of the data - raw is 3 GB). Using the high end of the range (3 GB), the total amount of data required to store the genetic data of every individual in the US is just under 1 exabyte (~330 M people x 3 GB / person). Although an exabyte is a tremendous amount of data (it's still not that much; the internet is estimated to be ~ 1 zettabyte, or 1000 exabytes), the cost of storing that much data is significantly lower than the size of data suggests. An exabyte is equivalent to 1000000 terabytes; the largest capacity drives available today for consumer use are ~16 TB and cost ~$600. A quick bit of math later ( (1000000 / 16) * $600) and we get the cost of storing genetic data for every person living in the US: ~$37,500,000. 37.5 million dollars sounds like a lot, mainly because it is; however, it amounts to a measly 0.005% of the annual DoD budget (716B), 3.4% of the estimated annual NSA budget (10.8B), or a miniscule percentage of the 1.2T Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor portion of the budget. This cost does not factor in the cost of tests or administering them at least twice in an individuals lifetime, nor does it account for the cost of running and monitoring a minimum of 62500 hard drives. However, it does place the cost of implementing such a system in perspective, and for that reason I think that regulations on the collection and use of genetic data are extremely important. Without the regulations, I feel that the mass collection of genetic data for government and eventually private use is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion that mass collection of DNA shouldn't take place, but for different reasons. Andrew did a pretty good job breaking down the cost factor, and I think collection of DNA at birth would be plausible for collecting DNA of the majority of people as Cole suggested. I feel that mass collection of DNA counts as an unreasonable search and seizure of an individual, because it would be taking place without probable cause of a crime, and DNA can reveal so much about an individual. I think that although people leave their DNA everywhere they go, they still have a reasonable expectation that it is private information, because it reveals more about a person than can be observed otherwise. Also, people don't have a choice as to whether or not they have DNA and what that DNA is, (although life habits can impact how it's expressed), so I think they should have the right to choose how they control that information to as great a degree as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with the fact that DNA should be private, I still believe that the benefits of creating this database are more important than privacy (as can be read in my post). Additionally, if scientists did analyze your DNA and found a sequence that suggested you are more likely to develop a certain disease or illness would you still want them to keep this a secret to you? This could be a possibility to everyone if they desired it. Additionally, if geneticists were able to use this database for research they could link together certain patterns between people and possibly discover much more about the human genome and what every section does. This scientific possibility is another reason why I believe that we should create this database. The DNA should remain private still. There are ways that the scientists could analyze it without knowledge of who it came from.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with your conclusion. While I do believe that DNA samples aught to remain private or protected from misuse, and while I find laws against DNA based discrimination for ANY reason to be an absolute necessity... I think storing DNA is fine. Granted, this may come from the fact that my chosen career path will need me to fingerprinted, photographed, and DNA tested simply to be employed, so I've just given up on this sense of privacy. But I do think that benefits enjoyed because of more accurate evidence in criminal trials will outweigh the costs to privacy. I wouldn't go as far as Great Britain perhaps, but collecting the DNA of people in certain situations as outlined by law doesn't bother me.
ReplyDeleteWhile you make a good point regarding the logic of storing the DNA of millions of individuals I ultimately disagree with your conclusion. I believe collecting DNA for a database is a sound policy, as it can help law enforcement improve their effectiveness. If everyone has DNA in a database that means everyone is equal in regards to criminal cases with DNA evidence. In regard to DNA being classified as personal property, I disagree with that conclusion. It's already incredibly easy to lose DNA, such as by opening doors or having your hair fall out. I personally don't believe that DNA that's no longer attached to you can really be considered an extension of yourself, as you're leaving it everywhere in public. In regard to DNA, I would rather have improved law enforcement rather than the privacy of my DNA.
ReplyDeleteI think you point out very valid points and concerns, Ivana, but I mostly disagree with you on the issue of mass DNA collection. It seems to me like the benefits of a national DNA database would greatly improve the ability of police and other agencies like the FBI to do their jobs when solving crimes. I do understand that there would be significant concerns with this though, and do agree that such a national database would have to be among the most protected and encrypted in the world, among the other concerns regarding racism and prejudice. Because of that, maybe it would be better if each state or even each county individually had its own database of residents' DNA. This would decentralize the data and prevent such a massive swath from being attacked. The FBI or other national agencies could request relevant or nearby DNA samples from a local court and could temporarily store them using their own short-term database. However, this type of system would probably function a lot slower than if the FBI just had its own national database, and it would also essentially mean working backward for them. Ultimately, I think that a federal database, perhaps involving a partnership with local and state agencies, would be the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteYou definitely make a great point so I agree with you a hundred percent. The main fact is that its an invasion of our privacy and thats It. Anonymity is important and this completely rids It as well. Of course there are some potential benefits as you pointed out but too little in the cost of our privacies. I think for this to take place heavy regulations would have to be set on the gathering and viewing of DNA. All In all, very well said.
ReplyDelete