Dna Data: A Double-Edged Sword For Law Enforcement

DNA results can be used by law enforcement to identify suspects in criminal investigations. This is done by matching a suspect's DNA with DNA from a suspect's distant relatives who have taken a commercial at-home DNA test. This practice, known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), has raised ethical concerns regarding privacy and informed consent. While individuals have a right to privacy, law enforcement may violate this right by uploading DNA data to a public database, revealing information about the suspect's relatives. This has led to discussions about how to balance privacy rights with the need for public safety and the use of new technologies by law enforcement.

DNA testing and privacy rights

DNA testing has become increasingly popular, with over 30 million people worldwide taking a commercial at-home DNA test. These tests can reveal a lot of sensitive information about an individual, including their health, characteristics, ancestry, and family tree. While DNA testing can provide valuable insights, it is important to consider the privacy implications, especially when it comes to law enforcement.

Law enforcement agencies have recognized the value of DNA testing in solving crimes, including cold cases. They can use DNA profiles to identify suspects and match them to DNA found at crime scenes. However, this practice raises ethical and privacy concerns. When law enforcement uploads a suspect's DNA to a public open-source DNA database, they also reveal information about the suspect's relatives. This information may include sensitive traits and genetic data, which the relatives have a right to keep private.

In the United States, there are limited federal laws governing the privacy of genetic information. While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken action against some companies for deceptive trade practices and subpar data security, there are no federal laws prohibiting companies from providing individuals' genetic information to third parties, including law enforcement. As a result, law enforcement may have access to genetic data without the consent of the individuals involved.

To address these concerns, some states have enacted privacy laws for direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. For example, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have passed laws that create consumer rights to access and delete personal data, prohibit sharing genetic information with insurers and employers, and mandate the creation of security programs to protect individuals' data. These laws also require separate consent for the use of data in marketing, research, and third-party sharing. However, these state laws do not always address key elements of privacy best practices, such as transparency about law enforcement access to data and minors' rights to their genetic data.

As DNA testing continues to advance and become more accessible, it is important to strike a balance between the benefits of this technology and the privacy rights of individuals. This includes ensuring that law enforcement agencies use DNA testing ethically and responsibly, with appropriate safeguards in place to protect the privacy of both suspects and their relatives.

Open-source DNA databases

The rise of direct-to-consumer genetic testing has led to the creation of vast databases containing the DNA profiles of millions of individuals. These databases were initially intended to help people learn about their ancestry, identify potential health risks, and connect with distant relatives. However, law enforcement agencies have increasingly recognised the value of this genetic information in solving crimes, particularly in cold cases where traditional investigative methods have failed to identify suspects.

By uploading crime scene DNA profiles to open-source databases, law enforcement officers can identify suspects through their genetic relatives, who may have taken commercial DNA tests and uploaded their results to these public platforms. This practice, known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), has been used in various countries, including the Philippines, Canada, and the United States, and has successfully solved cold cases, including the high-profile Golden State Killer case.

While the use of open-source DNA databases by law enforcement can be a powerful tool for solving crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice, it raises significant ethical and privacy concerns. When a person uploads their DNA to an open-source database, they inadvertently expose their blood relatives to potential privacy violations, as law enforcement can access and utilise this genetic information without explicit consent. Additionally, there are concerns about the security of DNA data in open-source databases, as anonymous profiles may not be truly anonymous, and sensitive genetic information could be exposed or misused.

As the capabilities of DNA testing and the size of genetic databases continue to expand, law enforcement agencies must carefully navigate the balance between utilising this technology to solve crimes and respecting the privacy rights of individuals and their families.

Law enforcement and DNA collection

DNA has been a powerful tool for law enforcement for decades, and its use has grown immensely in recent years. DNA evidence can be collected from virtually anywhere, and only a few cells are needed to obtain useful information. DNA is similar to fingerprint analysis in how matches are determined. When using either DNA or a fingerprint to identify a suspect, the evidence collected from the crime scene is compared with the “known” print. If even one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is determined not to have come from that suspect.

In the late 1980s, the federal government laid the groundwork for a system of national, state, and local DNA databases for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), maintains DNA profiles obtained under the federal, state, and local systems in a set of databases that are available to law enforcement agencies across the country for law enforcement purposes. CODIS can compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders and can also link DNA evidence obtained from different crime scenes, thereby identifying serial criminals.

However, the use of DNA by law enforcement has raised concerns about privacy rights. When law enforcement uploads a suspect's DNA to a public open-source DNA database, they also reveal information about the suspect's relatives. As DNA testing has become more accessible and popular, with over 30 million people worldwide having taken a commercial at-home DNA test, law enforcement can use these databases to identify suspects by matching their DNA with that of distant relatives who have taken similar tests. This practice, known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), has been used to solve cold cases and track down individuals such as sex tourists or aid workers who sexually abuse minors.

While the use of DNA technology in law enforcement can aid in solving crimes, it is important to consider the potential invasion of privacy and the need for informed consent. Law enforcement must exercise caution when using open-source DNA databases to ensure that the privacy rights of individuals and their relatives are respected.

DNA testing companies' policies

The genetic information space is largely uncharted legislative territory, and consumers are taking companies at their word when they state that protecting customers' privacy is their highest priority. While most direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies provide detailed information on their websites about their privacy and security practices, there are concerns about whether consumers fully or partially understand the policies and agreements, which are often written at college reading levels.

In 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating 23andMe and Ancestry over their policies for handling personal information and genetic data and how they share that information with third parties. The FTC has also taken action against other companies, including CRI Genetics, 1Health/Vitagene, and Genelink, for issues such as failing to secure customer accounts, making false claims about the accuracy of their tests, and unfairly changing privacy policies without customers' consent.

In terms of law enforcement access to genetic data, some companies explicitly state whether and how genetic data may be accessed by officials. Tech companies tend to fight requests from law enforcement and require them to go through a legal process, and they are watching cases of law enforcement uploading suspect DNA samples to open databases very carefully. However, consumers may not realize that their non-DNA data is not treated with the same care as their DNA data, and companies may overshare this information with third parties.

To promote consumer privacy, the Future of Privacy Forum has established some best practices, including promoting transparency about how genetic information is used, collected, and shared; providing consumers with choices about consent for research and destruction of DNA samples; and ensuring that genetic information is shared in accordance with applicable laws and strong data security practices.

DNA results and ethics

DNA results have become an increasingly important tool for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to identify suspects and solve crimes, including cold cases. However, the use of DNA results by law enforcement raises several ethical concerns, particularly regarding privacy and informed consent.

One of the main ethical issues surrounding the use of DNA results by law enforcement is the potential violation of privacy rights. When law enforcement agencies upload a suspect's DNA to a public open-source database, they inadvertently reveal genetic information about the suspect's relatives. This information can include sensitive traits and disease predispositions, which the relatives may not have consented to share. As such, law enforcement's use of open-source DNA databases has been criticised as a violation of privacy rights, as it exposes innocent individuals' genetic data.

Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for genetic discrimination. Commercial organisations, such as insurance companies and employers, may have access to an individual's genetic test results and could potentially use this information to exert power or treat individuals unfairly based on their genetic makeup. This could lead to unjustified treatment or discrimination against individuals based on their health status or predisposition to certain diseases.

The use of DNA results by law enforcement also raises questions about consent. In some cases, law enforcement agencies have used DNA samples from newborn screening programs for criminal investigations, without obtaining proper consent from the individuals or their families. This lack of consent can be problematic, especially when the DNA is used for purposes beyond its original intention.

Furthermore, the accuracy and interpretation of DNA results can be complex. While DNA evidence can be valuable in identifying suspects, it should be used cautiously and in conjunction with other forms of evidence. Environmental factors and contamination can affect the integrity of DNA evidence, and partial match results may not always lead to a definitive conclusion.

To address these ethical concerns, it is important to have clear guidelines and regulations in place. This includes obtaining informed consent from individuals, protecting the privacy and confidentiality of genetic data, and ensuring that DNA results are handled securely and accessed only by authorised individuals. Additionally, researchers and law enforcement agencies should adhere to globally applicable ethical guidelines when working with DNA, such as minimising damage to human remains, making data available for critical re-examination, and engaging with stakeholders to respect their perspectives.

Frequently asked questions