Ellie
Dessart
Mr.
Ippolito
Forensics
C Odd
13
December 2019
Current
Event 11
Citation:
Hill,
Kashmir, and Heather Murphy. “Your DNA Profile Is Private? A Florida Judge Just
Said
Otherwise.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Nov.
2019,
Hill and Murphy’s article discusses the controversy over whether
or not law enforcement should have access to private DNA profiles. In the past,
sites such as Ancenstry.com, 23andMe, and GEDmatch have “long pledged to keep their users’ genetic information
private,” but recently, for the first time, a Florida judge granted an
investigator a warrant to search GEDmatch’s full database of 1.2 million users.
DNA policy experts anticipate a surge in similar warrant requests in the near
future as a result of this court decision, which would jeopardize people’s
genetic privacy. This could affect not only users of these sites, but also
those who have never taken a DNA test before, since “the emerging forensic
technique makes it possible to identify a DNA profile through distant family
relationships” already entered in the database. Before GEDmatch changed its
policy (police previously had access to search the site without a warrant), in
April 2018, California law enforcement found a match for the man they believed
to be the infamous Golden State Killer. Since then, investigators have turned
to genetic genealogy to identify suspects and criminals. Unfortunately, while
accessing genealogy sites could solve “hundreds and hundreds of cases solved
overnight,” police must be wary of privacy concerns as the debate continues.
This article delves into the complex relationship
between science and society. As technology advances and forensic scientists
adopt new techniques and methods, potential breakthroughs arise, and while that
alone should be celebrated (yay science!), new issues, such as privacy
concerns, often emerge. The controversy described in the article is complicated
because we, as humans, value both privacy and justice. Forensic science helps
law enforcement convict criminals and protect the people, but if it requires
unwanted database searches, doesn’t that infringe on the very protection it was
supposed to ensure? What contributions to science are we obligated to make, if
any? Such questions can only be answered with time and future
developments.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the article.
Firstly, the piece was concise and simple to follow, as opposed to past lengthy
New York Times posts I’ve read. The authors structured it well by first giving
some context, then detailing the Florida court ruling, and finishing with a
discussion of the issue’s prevalence in recent years since the Golden State
Killer arrest. Additionally, the article compelled me to consider the rights I
most value and question the extent to which I’m willing to give them up.
However, the authors fell short on some minor aspects. Firstly, they failed to
define ‘genetic genealogy.’ If they had provided a brief explanation of the
term, it would have helped younger readers, like myself, to better understand
the subject matter. Secondly, while the article does a nice job focusing on the
scientific complexities of the controversy, it could have made some additional,
broader connections to society as a whole. For example, I found it particularly
interesting how the investigators and genetic profiling companies share the
same argument, same goal, but different viewpoints. The police want access to
the profiles so they can do their job (protect the people), and the companies
want to deny such access so they can do the same (protect the people)! Can the
two sides reach a compromise, or is such a clash inevitable? It’s an
interesting dynamic, and to create more depth to the article, I’d consider
adding some of these observations.
