Spin Forum Dumping Bin

[RallyMo]

7 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

And they can find them through your DNA 

If this concern is about "finding" a non-consenting individual, then it's important to remember that it only works if you have a DNA sample submitted for the person you're concerned about them "finding" in the first place. In such a case the person has already consented to be "found" via the service agreement or somebody else is submitting a sample unbeknownst to the person who it came from, both of which happened in this serial killer case.

[Blarg]

It's probably a good thing to know if you have a serial killer in your family tree. At least for anecdotal party ice breakers.

[RallyMo]

15 hours ago, Geoff said:

 

So the answer is, he didn't give them the option.

 

 

The option to do what?

[Spirit]

11 hours ago, RallyMo said:

If this concern is about "finding" a non-consenting individual, then it's important to remember that it only works if you have a DNA sample submitted for the person you're concerned about them "finding" in the first place. In such a case the person has already consented to be "found" via the service agreement or somebody else is submitting a sample unbeknownst to the person who it came from, both of which happened in this serial killer case.

 

So the Golden State Killer himself submitted a sample to the DNA ancestry website and that's how they found him?  Because I was under the impression that the matches found in GEDmatch were to relatives of the suspect, not the suspect himself.  But maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

[gotbeer]

So @RallyMo.  You'd be ok for the police to search your house, question you for hours.  All because you had some genetic anomally similar to a mass murderer rapist, all provided by a sixth cousin that you had no idea existed.  And you, in your family tree, happen to meet the broad age and geographic location?  

This will actually be an interesting case to follow.  If I were defense, I would say that using a DNA site to match violates the 4th amendment, and constitutes an invasion of privacy and warrantless search.  If the defense can get this DNA site match thrown out, then it's fruit of the poison tree, and all DNA would have to be thrown out, and they'd have no case.

In the end, I think this goes all the way up to the Supreme Court to decide.  

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

 

So the Golden State Killer himself submitted a sample to the DNA ancestry website and that's how they found him?  Because I was under the impression that the matches found in GEDmatch were to relatives of the suspect, not the suspect himself.  But maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

I don't think you are wrong but I think you need to revisit my post as you may have responded a little hastily.

[Spirit]

6 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

I don't think you are wrong but I think you need to revisit my post as you may have responded a little hastily.

 

I revisited, despite the lukewarm TripAdvisor reviews.  I came away with the same thoughts that I did after my first visit.

 

 

[RallyMo]

11 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

I revisited, despite the lukewarm TripAdvisor reviews.  I came away with the same thoughts that I did after my first visit.

 

 

So you think that I believe the suspected killer submitted his own sample?

[Spirit]

I do not.

 

[RallyMo]

9 minutes ago, Geoff said:

I do not.

 

Then are we in actual disagreement about anything here? If so, what?

[Spirit]

2 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

Then are we in actual disagreement about anything here? If so, what?

 

Who knows.  I forgot what we were even talking about.

 

 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

Who knows.  I forgot what we were even talking about.

We're talking about bringing home the troops 

[Tank]

i thought we were talking about misappropriating rally's DNA.

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

We're talking about bringing home the troops 

 

56 minutes ago, Tank said:

i thought we were talking about misappropriating rally's DNA.

What kind of DNA are we talking about? 

[Spirit]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

We're talking about bringing home the troops 

 

Oh, I'm in favor of that.

 

 

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

i thought we were talking about misappropriating rally's DNA.

 

Oh, I'm not in favor of that.

 

 

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

 

Oh, I'm not in favor of that.

 

 

Nobody is, but that's how Tank's mind works. He is who he is.

[RallyMo]

On 4/27/2018 at 1:49 PM, well_red said:

It's all fine when they are going after serial murderers.  But what happens when someone in Alabama wants to figure out who got an abortion?  Or some DEA agent wants to know who smoke a doobie in Colorado?  The precedent is staggering due to it's potential for abuse.

I completely agree, but that has much more to do with setting limits on DNA submission. It's very interesting. I don't agree with the notion that one needs to receive consent from relatives in order to submit their own personal DNA. That's just silly, IMO.

[mtangelsfan]

Why though?  You are basically putting their DNA out there too.  That is how the found the guy.

[RallyMo]

52 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Why though?  You are basically putting their DNA out there too.  That is how the found the guy.

...with his DNA, no? 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

According to the article posted earlier http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dna-golden-state-killer-20180426-story.html 

"Law enforcement sources told The Times that information from the websites dramatically reduced the the size of their search. Eventually they narrowed the investigation to several families listed in the database, with a pool of about about 100 men who fit the age profile of the killer, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Maybe there's other articles discussing it more now but based on the above it sure sounds like they narrowed it down because of someone in his family submitting DNA.  If he submitted himself I don't see why there would be any need to narrow it down.

My wife bought a 23andme for her dad for Christmas and it was a buy one get one free deal.  She gave me the free one and the main reason I hadn't done it yet was because of my concern with them selling or using the information in another way.  Catching a killer is great but we've seen time and time again information getting abused by companies and the authorities.      

 

[RallyMo]

20 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Maybe there's other articles discussing it more now but based on the above it sure sounds like they narrowed it down because of someone in his family submitting DNA.  If he submitted himself I don't see why there would be any need to narrow it down.

Exactly this. Police submitted DNA from the crime scenes. It was the run in the database against samples presumably submitted by this murderer's family members who had already consented (via use of the service and its terms) to have their DNA matched against other submitted samples. At that point, they then narrowed based on research. Once they find their guy, they run his DNA against the crime scene DNA and then they have a same person match.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/27/golden-state-killer-dna-website-gedmatch-was-used-to-identify-joseph-deangelo-as-suspect-police-say/

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Yes and while he deserves to spend eternity roasting on a spit in hell that's extremely unsettling.  History has shown us that information like that won't stop at finding killers or even just criminals it will end up being used for marketing and everything under the sun.    

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Yes and while he deserves to spend eternity roasting on a spit in hell that's extremely unsettling.  History has shown us that information like that won't stop at finding killers or even just criminals it will end up being used for marketing and everything under the sun.    

Absolutely, but this kind of situation was due to happen. The world is going to change a lot in the next decade in terms of stuff like this.

[mtangelsfan]

4 hours ago, RallyMo said:

...with his DNA, no? 

Stop being obtuse, you know that isn't what I said.