Open up those DNA databases
Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
How can privacy be the issue? much more likely scientific corruption around
all this stuff. I know-not what algorithm is used but 10 minutes to do an
each profile partial match comparison with each other in 65,000 , 13 loci
DNA profiles.
(Anyone know an algorithm name for this sort of maximal partial match
check?)
How long to do 7 million ? how long 4.5million 10 loci ones?
Only necessary, initially, to disclose the 9/10/11/12 numbers of partial
matches and keep quiet about the number of 13 as it is the pattern that
matters , not how many repeat/alias entries are in the 13 numbers, that can
be interpolated. No reason to identify persons or full profiles. A
supplementary analysis of allele frequency rarities would show whether
likely/unlikely related partial-matches. Perhaps a random sampling of 10
percent of the 13 loci matches, fully researched , to at least rule out
repeats/aliases and simple relatedness.
We already know that Bayes is dead from the Arizona disclosure unless
Mueller et al have since managed to synthesise an Arizona population to get
that 122/20/1 pattern.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527424.700-unreliable-evidence-time-
to-open-up-dna-databases.html
and editorial
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527423.500-time-for-full-and-frank-d
ata-disclosure.html
"... Access to DNA databases is not just about preventing potential
miscarriages of justice. In 2003, when Krane was given limited access to the
DNA database for the Australian state of Victoria as part of the inquest
into the death of a toddler, he noticed a cluster of 32 profiles that seemed
to match at 17 of the 18 alleles tested for. This was odd because far fewer
matched at just 16 alleles - you would expect the opposite to be the case.
Krane says the most likely cause is mistakes made when the samples were
entered into the database, which he estimates may be present in as many as 1
in 1000 samples.
Access to CODIS would reveal if it contains errors, too, which could be
causing investigators searching for a cold hit to miss potential suspects.
"If you have mistyped an allele or a locus, then you have a person in a
database whose profile would not match his own DNA," says signatory Bicka
Barlow at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office.
Will the FBI grant scientists access to CODIS? Director of the FBI
Laboratory, Christian Hassell, says he appreciates the concerns the Science
letter raises. "We are exploring ways to investigate some of the topics," he
adds. But he has turned down the request for access, citing concerns about
genetic privacy. ... "
ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Mr. Wymore
script )" <nutte...@quickfindit.com> wrote:
> Calls the New Scientist , ten years after myself
>
> How can privacy be the issue? much more likely scientific corruption around
> all this stuff. I know-not what algorithm is used but 10 minutes to do an
> each profile partial match comparison with each other in 65,000 , 13 loci
> DNA profiles.
> (Anyone know an algorithm name for this sort of maximal partial match
> check?)
> How long to do 7 million ? how long 4.5million 10 loci ones?
> Only necessary, initially, to disclose the 9/10/11/12 numbers of partial
> matches and keep quiet about the number of 13 as it is the pattern that
> matters , not how many repeat/alias entries are in the 13 numbers, that can
> be interpolated. No reason to identify persons or full profiles. A
> supplementary analysis of allele frequency rarities would show whether
> likely/unlikely related partial-matches. Perhaps a random sampling of 10
> percent of the 13 loci matches, fully researched , to at least rule out
> repeats/aliases and simple relatedness.
> We already know that Bayes is dead from the Arizona disclosure unless
> Mueller et al have since managed to synthesise an Arizona population to get
> that 122/20/1 pattern.
>
> to-open-up-dna-databases.html
> and editorial
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527423.500-time-for-full-and-...
> ata-disclosure.html
>
> "... Access to DNA databases is not just about preventing potential
> miscarriages of justice. In 2003, when Krane was given limited access to the
> DNA database for the Australian state of Victoria as part of the inquest
> into the death of a toddler, he noticed a cluster of 32 profiles that seemed
> to match at 17 of the 18 alleles tested for. This was odd because far fewer
> matched at just 16 alleles - you would expect the opposite to be the case.
> Krane says the most likely cause is mistakes made when the samples were
> entered into the database, which he estimates may be present in as many as 1
> in 1000 samples.
>
> Access to CODIS would reveal if it contains errors, too, which could be
> causing investigators searching for a cold hit to miss potential suspects.
> "If you have mistyped an allele or a locus, then you have a person in a
> database whose profile would not match his own DNA," says signatory Bicka
> Barlow at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office.
>
> Will the FBI grant scientists access to CODIS? Director of the FBI
> Laboratory, Christian Hassell, says he appreciates the concerns the Science
> letter raises. "We are exploring ways to investigate some of the topics," he
> adds. But he has turned down the request for access, citing concerns about
> genetic privacy. ... "
>
> ps
> What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> or nutteingd in a search engine.
>
> Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
> Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
> it is defunct due to spam.
This is a security vs. privacy issue. I recommend reading "The
Traveller" by John Twelve Hawks. When you give people power in the
name of security, the ultimate cost is freedom.
Steve Walker
> Calls the New Scientist , ten years after myself
You deserve enormous credit for your persistent campaigning on this, Paul.