DNA prints: to take or not to take?
I recognize the cute one by the genome:
why America is so afraid of DNA fingerprints (and why we are not afraid)Evgeny Zolotov, Computerra
Biometric identification is a wonderful thing, but not easy.
In theory, according to the physiological characteristics inherent in each person, it is possible to confidently recognize a particular individual. Practice is much less beautiful, because technology always lags behind the flight of thought. In practice, any biometric complex is a choice between price and accuracy. The price is not only in terms of the cost of the procedure, but also in terms of the time required to read the bioidentifier and process it. So, the accuracy is usually selected in such a way that the overhead costs are not impractically large. For example, fingerprint recognition works well for small teams: the method is fast, although not particularly accurate, but with a small number of verifiable errors do not happen too often. But the retina and iris of the eye guarantee much higher accuracy, however, they also require more time.
These nuances are discussed in more detail in a large article in a Business magazine, and here I remembered them in order to approach a technology that many consider to be a kind of ultimate case, an ideal, an absolute measure of biometrics: identification of a person by DNA. The genome (a set of genes), as is known, is certainly unique for every living being and, unlike the vast majority of other bioidentifiers, is not subject to significant changes over time. This makes it possible to build (almost) absolutely reliable identification systems. And as the devices for reading genetic information become cheaper and faster, a bright future in which fingerprints, a photo card, the iris of the eye and so on in documents will be replaced with a single "DNA fingerprint", so, this bright future is coming. However, there is at least one aspect that can prevent a total transition to DNA identification of the population.
The idea of DNA as a universal bioidentifier is not to everyone's liking.
Alarmists warn: let the state and corporations dig into your genes –
and a society like "Gattaca" will be built by itselfIf all other bioidentifiers are just a set of random signs given to us by nature, our genome is the result of mixing the genetic information of our ancestors.
Therefore, if, say, fingerprints are only good for confidently identifying their carrier, DNA analysis allows you to identify connections with other people. For example, to find out who you are related to, and determine its degree, confidently assume nationality, predisposition to diseases, possibly to mental disorders. No one knows for sure what else science will be able to pull out of the black box called "DNA" tomorrow. It is only clear that what has already been extracted is too much to allow anyone to keep a copy of your genome and study it.
Now you understand why, in democratic countries, national DNA fingerprint databases store only samples of genetic information taken from people convicted of crimes. And why laws restrict the right of the state to take a DNA sample from a person without judicial permission. For example, in the United States, this issue is regulated by the so-called Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted already at the end of the XVIII century. According to this document, a citizen cannot be searched to identify his involvement in a crime without court approval and reasonable suspicion of involvement in the case under investigation. If such a search is still carried out, the evidence found will not be able to be used in court. However, last Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled on a minor case with fateful consequences: taking a DNA fingerprint no longer falls under the Fourth Amendment.
This case, known as the State of Maryland v. King, revolves around a certain Alonzo King, who was arrested some time ago on suspicion of murder. The fact of the murder committed in 2009 was proved, but along the way, taking a DNA sample from Alonzo, the police managed to link him to an unsolved rape that happened six years earlier. The investigation had no other leads or evidence other than a match of King's DNA with DNA found on the body of a woman who had been abused. But that was enough to send Alonzo to jail for the rest of his life. Since taking DNA for no reason is contrary to the Fourth Amendment, King appealed and won it in state court. However, then the case got to the highest judicial instance of the country, which this Monday decided that for "persons detained on suspicion of committing serious crimes", it is still worth making an exception: suddenly, may it help to uncover old sins!
Human rights activists met the decision of the Supreme Court not even with shouts, but with a funeral march: "remember this day – the day when Freedom lost to the State." Formally, law-abiding Americans still have nothing to worry about, but legal experts warn that the Court's decision is the first step towards the universal removal of DNA fingerprints from the population. Due to inconsistencies in state legislatures, due to poor elaboration of such a high-tech topic in the laws, law enforcement agencies now actually get the right to take a DNA sample (and store it indefinitely in a single national database) from every detainee, no matter how minor his alleged offense to the state may be, up to violation of traffic rules. And some people assume that, based on the King case, local authorities will take the initiative and begin a continuous DNA biometrization of citizens who apply to government agencies for any reason. DNA fingerprint can now replace fingerprints in the USA. And the common man can only hope for the cleanliness of law enforcement agencies in handling this information.
Since the state clearly intends to equalize DNA with fingerprints, American human rights activists urge at least to implement legislative restrictions that prevent abuse. And they nod at Europe, where a law has been in force since the end of the noughties, calling the gratuitous removal and storage of DNA samples disrespect for the personal lives of citizens and democratic values. Have the charges against the detained citizen been dropped? So remove his DNA from the database!
Russia has its own specifics, but so far we are closer to the United States than to Europe, alas. The collection and use of DNA fingerprints in our country is regulated by the law "On State Genomic Registration". It stipulates the mandatory collection and storage of biomaterials from corpses, persons convicted of a number of crimes, and, finally, from "unidentified persons ... during ... investigative actions." If I understand correctly, such a broad interpretation puts us on a par with the Americans: a Russian detained by law enforcement agencies for an arbitrary reason has no right to prevent taking DNA, sending it to the federal database of genetic information, as well as using it for "establishing family relations" and "preventing, disclosing and investigating crimes."
I would be grateful if one of the readers would clarify the domestic DNA realities in the comments. In the meantime, let me just be surprised at the difference between the reactions of Americans and Russians. The court's decision in the King case immediately became the number one news on Western near-legal Internet resources. And our law on genomic registration has been in effect for the fourth year, and... silence?!
One of the comments to this article, in our opinion, completely dispels the author's perplexities:
"Evgeny, I understand your concerns about Gattac and other genomic discriminations, but at this stage it is absolutely impossible. To accurately determine the identity, not all DNA is used, but only a small piece. It's just that there are some sections of DNA that are different for everyone, while a much larger part of the DNA is the same for everyone or has several variants that are repeated in different people. And it is in this "most part" that all the most interesting things for fascism and other charms are located.
And in general, about the attitude to the topic: DNA, passport photo, fingerprint – does it matter? DNA is also more accurate..." – VM.
The article uses illustrations of Abode of Chaos, Duncan Hull, a frame from the film "Gattaca".
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru06.06.2013