Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Idaho Murder Suspect ID'd Via PUBLIC DNA DATABASE: Report. Privacy Advocates Raise RED FLAGS" video.

  1.  @dustinavant2003  If that is true, then it is worthless for identification.
    3
  2.  @tlt43  We'll have to see. I am so sorry that these young people were so trusting that their door was open to so many people. Too many stories have turned out to be dubious once we took a close look. Remember how "profilers" were saying in the beginning that this was a "personal" crime? Some contended it was not likely to be a first offense. I don't like how we are now being manipulated into rushing to judgment. Once you've decided that someone is guilty, it is psychologically very, very hard to walk it back.
    3
  3. No one would say that. That's why the families of victims don't get to dictate privacy laws. If it were me, who knows, I might want to overturn the entire Bill of Rights. Let's hope no one would listen to me.
    2
  4. My DNA isn't in any database. How did yours get there?
    2
  5.  @dustinavant2003  My relatives are either very distant cousins or not in the US. Their DNA isn't mine in any case, it simply shows a high degree of probability that we are related.
    2
  6.  @wallacethomas9844  I understand that it was genealogical data, but exactly how close was not revealed. Just how many 4th cousins does an average person have? At that level, Europeans display Neanderthal DNA, do they not? By that I mean, as if we had great-great-great parents who were primarily Neanderthal; one great-great-great grandparent contributed a little over 3% of your DNA.
    2
  7. Opt out? Wow are you naive. DNA can always be handed over to law enforcement because that is an extraordinary circumstance and is not done for commercial purposes. It can also be subpoenaed, and for that very reason, the companies will forego being subpoenaed, and hand it over in cases where they know they can and will be, to avoid any possible expense. So, you handed over your DNA, huh? LOL
    2
  8. This was on NPR years ago -- well before the pandemic. I was surprised they alerted people, actually.
    2
  9. I don't believe this. They may deny general access, and I can believe they do, but in extraordinary cases they can be subpoenaed anyway. They may simply forego the subpoena and hand it over to avoid the possible expense. Also, this is a policy (edit: meaning, their privacy policy) that can be changed at any time. No, you did not know "exactly what you were doing." If in the future the information is misused in any way, contrary to your contract or your reasonable reliance, do you have the money to sue them? Then how do you expect to enforce your rights?
    1
  10.  @dawnclabaugh3598  Er, no. Not at all.
    1
  11. I've never been MORE glad that all of my relatives are in Europe now.
    1
  12.  @maxpower8429  HIPAA says so, but after this COVID nonsense, well . . . I am not holding my breath over it.
    1
  13.  @maxpower8429  Wow, I didn't know that about blood donation. Thank you for the information. Things are worse than I thought, frankly.
    1
  14.  @maxpower8429  I will definitely look to inform myself on this. Feel free to recommend a book, article, etc.
    1
  15. If a member of my family were killed, I may want to suspend the entire Bill of Rights, especially the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments. That is why we don't let victims dictate the laws.
    1
  16.  @Population11  I don't have skeletons in my closet. Only people who have skeletons in their closets think other people must have skeletons in their closets, too.
    1
  17.  @taubevictor8989  "Conservatives usually side with the individual rights of a person?" Wow, where to begin? Have you forgotten that "corporations are people, too?"
    1
  18. Ahhhh . . . what to say to this? Are people doing this now??
    1
  19.  @donaldvonglitchenberger4108  My relatives are in Europe and they would go to a fortune teller for entertainment before they would do a DNA test. Catch me for what?
    1
  20.  @wallacethomas9844  DUH, that was the premise of the whole discussion. Did you all hand over your DNA without HIPAA protection? ;)
    1
  21.  weneedangels1632  We know that they need a sample FROM him, and that there are many ways to obtain one without a warrant. The sole issue here was how they first zeroed in on him.
    1
  22.  @mboiko  Proves too much, as it could glibly excuse anything. "Have to?" What are actual "have to's?" There's the rub.
    1
  23.  @lady4191  Or because most people don't have the patience to listen to her finish a sentence.
    1
  24. Good for you.
    1
  25. If a person isn't paying attention, they might miss one line above: "The cops then used public information to find him." DNA tests for entertainment were not supposed to be "public information." No one thought so. Having said that, anyone who handed theirs over with an expectation of privacy is naive. DNA can always be handed over to law enforcement because that is an extraordinary circumstance and is not done for commercial purposes. It can also be subpoenaed, and for that very reason, the companies will forego being subpoenaed, and just hand it over in cases where they know they can and will be, to avoid any possible expense. Business is business. (Of course, once an arrest is made, Kohberger's own DNA can be gathered. A person can also be tricked into handing it over voluntarily prior to arrest.) But do the people who used these commercial DNA tests know this? Now they do. Another line: "You do not own rights to the data that comes from your DNA or the DNA of your family members." I certainly do own "the rights" to the data that comes from my DNA, though not anyone else's, insofar as I have the right to say who can see that data. I have never provided DNA except where the results of the analysis were protected by HIPAA. And we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that, under the Fourth Amendment, because federal law protects it. So there. Study harder in law school. :)
    1
  26. If they did that, it would be HIPAA protected.
    1
  27. Transparency and limited power? Now is a good time to read the Church Committee report.
    1
  28. That is not what I've heard, on NPR, specifically. DNA can always be handed over to law enforcement because that is an extraordinary circumstance and is not done for commercial purposes. It can also be subpoenaed, and for that very reason, the companies will forego being subpoenaed, and hand it over in cases where they know they can and will be, to avoid any possible expense.
    1
  29.  @02biddle  I didn't say warrant, I said subpoena, which is by no means the same thing, or the same standard, but you are correct that without having examined these court documents directly, I don't know what they say. I do know that in general companies will share data with law enforcement in cases where they believe a subpoena could issue. Maybe some wait to be served. I think they should.
    1
  30.  @02biddle  Commercial purposes is the main reason any of the data you provide is shared. Other companies might want to advertise to you, life insurance companies might want to see the average life expectancy of your closest relatives, that sort of thing. I wonder, has anyone who used DNA testing for genealogy ever gotten ads from related companies? Even a "paleo diet" company would cause me to wonder why I was targeted.
    1
  31. This is obvious when you see the remarkably high rate of unsolved homicides, and the number of innocent people in jail for decades.
    1
  32. Lie detector tests don't work. They are used to intimidate a suspect who imagines they can be exonerated by submitting to the test. Moreover, police are allowed to lie to you and say you failed, to test your reaction. That is their most common use today.
    1