Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
Transact Charlie
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3451 Posts |
 Posted - 2010-02-17 : 08:21:46
|
| Hi all.Saw an article on the news recently about DNA profiling. In particular the blanket storage of DNA information for people who have been arrested / suspects in a criminal investigation and then either found innocent or not charged with anything. Aparently their DNA profile goes into a database for at least 5 years (this is from a UK perspective but I'm sure is similar in the US and other places.)Now, obviously this is a pretty sensitive topic as you can use the data in so many ways. There's a huge data protection and human rights question over the whole thing.I was struck by an idea though:what if only a one way HASH of the DNA were stored instead.This way the data would still be useful to place someone at the scene of a crime but you couldn't get any other data out of the hash.Would you feel OK with a HASH of your DNA stored in a criminal databases somewhere? would that still be unacceptable (as I think the blanket profiling of DNA seems to be now)I'm interested to hear any points of view.Charlie===============================================================Msg 3903, Level 16, State 1, Line 1736The ROLLBACK TRANSACTION request has no corresponding BEGIN TRANSACTION |
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-17 : 08:52:16
|
My issue would not be with the government / police using sensitive data, its that a proportion of that data is wrong; lost; out of date; and in a few cases "abused".From what I have read there also seems to be an issue with DNA statistics being wrongly quoted. So the Expert Witness says "Chances of this DNA being for a different person are 1-in-N0,000,0000" - when in fact it should be 1-in-N00,000 or so.So the Jury rate the evidence as "impossible to be the wrong person", whereas they should attach far less weight to it. Perhaps even the DNA match should be excluded from the evidence or significantly down-played in court. Police can use it to home-in on suspects, but not use it to secure the conviction - so they have to find other evidence.Re: your HASH code idea: personally I think it would be much better use of police time that they knocked on the door of the DNA's actually-matched-person(s), rather than those of mathematically mis-matched person(s). What happens when the DNA sample is NOT in the database, how useful is the HASH then (sure if it matches nothing then no one is in the DB, but if it DOES match someone?)Also, I believe that DNA matching is based on the number of bases matched - its thus a fuzzy match, not a simple 99-digit-number - and thus may not be matchable if mangled through a HASH?I read in New Scientist that USA (I think, maybe it was UK) had refused to allow independent academics to run analysis on the DNA database looking for the number of duplicates - i.e. to come up with better real-world figures for how realistic a mis-match is.If everyone in the UK had their DNA in the database it would be possible to say, in court, "this DNA only matches one person resident in the UK". That would convince me more, as a juror, than "This is a 1-in-N0,000,000" chance ... I mean, people buy lottery tickets, what's wrong with a 1-in-N0,000,000 chance?  |
 |
|
|
Transact Charlie
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3451 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-17 : 08:55:39
|
quote:
Also, I believe that DNA matching is based on the number of bases matched - its thus a fuzzy match, not a simple 99-digit-number - and thus may not be matchable if mangled through a HASH?
Ah -- yeah didn't think of that. Would kinda destroy a hash approach.Charlie===============================================================Msg 3903, Level 16, State 1, Line 1736The ROLLBACK TRANSACTION request has no corresponding BEGIN TRANSACTION |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-17 : 09:34:29
|
Ah ... I had hoped you had invented a solution to that ... had made your millions ... and that the beers would be on you  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Storing DNA