为什么我们害怕基因线人:利用基因谱系来抓连环杀手。

Teneille R. Brown
{"title":"为什么我们害怕基因线人:利用基因谱系来抓连环杀手。","authors":"Teneille R. Brown","doi":"10.7916/STLR.V21I1.5765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Consumer genetics has exploded, driven by the second-most popular hobby in the United States: genealogy. This hobby has been co-opted by law enforcement to solve cold cases, by linking crime-scene DNA with the DNA of a suspect's relative, which is contained in a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic database. The relative’s genetic data acts as a silent witness, or genetic informant, wordlessly guiding law enforcement to a handful of potential suspects. At least thirty murderers and rapists have been arrested in this way, a process which I describe in careful detail in this article. Legal scholars have sounded many alarms, and have called for immediate bans on this methodology, which is referred to as long- range familial searching (or \"LRFS\"). The opponents’ concerns are many, but generally boil down to fears that LRFS will invade the privacy and autonomy of presumptively innocent individuals. These concerns, I argue, are considerably overblown. Indeed, many aspects of the methodology implicate nothing new, legally or ethically, and might even better protect privacy while exonerating the innocent. Law enforcement’s use of LRFS to solve cold cases is a bogeyman. The real threat to genetic privacy comes from shoddy consumer consent procedures, poor data security standards, and user agreements that permit rampant secondary uses of data. So why do so many legal scholars fear a world where law enforcement uses this methodology? I surmise that our fear of so-called genetic informants stems from the sticky and long-standing traps of genetic essentialism and genetic determinism, where we incorrectly attribute intentional action to our genes and fear a world where humans are controlled by our biology. Rather than banning the use of genetic genealogy to catch serial killers and rapists, I call for improved direct-to-consumer consent processes, and more transparent privacy and security measures. This will better protect genetic privacy in line with consumer expectations, while still permitting the use of LRFS to deliver justice to victims and punish those who commit society's most heinous acts.","PeriodicalId":87208,"journal":{"name":"The Columbia science and technology law review","volume":"68 1","pages":"114-181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WHY WE FEAR GENETIC INFORMANTS: USING GENETIC GENEALOGY TO CATCH SERIAL KILLERS.\",\"authors\":\"Teneille R. Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.7916/STLR.V21I1.5765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Consumer genetics has exploded, driven by the second-most popular hobby in the United States: genealogy. This hobby has been co-opted by law enforcement to solve cold cases, by linking crime-scene DNA with the DNA of a suspect's relative, which is contained in a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic database. The relative’s genetic data acts as a silent witness, or genetic informant, wordlessly guiding law enforcement to a handful of potential suspects. At least thirty murderers and rapists have been arrested in this way, a process which I describe in careful detail in this article. Legal scholars have sounded many alarms, and have called for immediate bans on this methodology, which is referred to as long- range familial searching (or \\\"LRFS\\\"). The opponents’ concerns are many, but generally boil down to fears that LRFS will invade the privacy and autonomy of presumptively innocent individuals. These concerns, I argue, are considerably overblown. Indeed, many aspects of the methodology implicate nothing new, legally or ethically, and might even better protect privacy while exonerating the innocent. Law enforcement’s use of LRFS to solve cold cases is a bogeyman. The real threat to genetic privacy comes from shoddy consumer consent procedures, poor data security standards, and user agreements that permit rampant secondary uses of data. So why do so many legal scholars fear a world where law enforcement uses this methodology? I surmise that our fear of so-called genetic informants stems from the sticky and long-standing traps of genetic essentialism and genetic determinism, where we incorrectly attribute intentional action to our genes and fear a world where humans are controlled by our biology. Rather than banning the use of genetic genealogy to catch serial killers and rapists, I call for improved direct-to-consumer consent processes, and more transparent privacy and security measures. This will better protect genetic privacy in line with consumer expectations, while still permitting the use of LRFS to deliver justice to victims and punish those who commit society's most heinous acts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Columbia science and technology law review\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"114-181\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Columbia science and technology law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7916/STLR.V21I1.5765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Columbia science and technology law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/STLR.V21I1.5765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在美国第二受欢迎的爱好——家谱的推动下,消费者遗传学出现了爆炸式增长。这一爱好已经被执法部门用来解决悬案,通过将犯罪现场的DNA与嫌疑人亲属的DNA联系起来,这些DNA包含在直接面向消费者(DTC)的基因数据库中。亲属的基因数据充当了沉默的证人或基因信息提供者,无声地指导执法部门找到少数潜在的嫌疑人。至少有30名杀人犯和强奸犯以这种方式被捕,我将在本文中详细描述这一过程。法律学者已经敲响了许多警钟,并呼吁立即禁止这种被称为“长期家族搜索”(LRFS)的方法。反对者的担忧有很多,但通常归结为担心LRFS会侵犯假定无辜的个人的隐私和自主权。我认为,这些担忧相当夸张。事实上,这种方法的许多方面在法律上或道德上都没有什么新意,甚至可能在为无辜者开脱的同时更好地保护隐私。执法部门使用LRFS来解决悬案是一种邪恶的行为。对基因隐私的真正威胁来自劣质的消费者同意程序、糟糕的数据安全标准,以及允许猖獗的数据二次使用的用户协议。那么,为什么这么多法律学者害怕执法部门使用这种方法呢?我推测,我们对所谓的基因线人的恐惧源于基因本质主义和基因决定论的顽固和长期陷阱,在这些陷阱中,我们错误地将有意的行为归因于我们的基因,并害怕一个人类被我们的生物学控制的世界。与其禁止使用基因谱系来抓捕连环杀手和强奸犯,我呼吁改进直接面向消费者的同意程序,并采取更透明的隐私和安全措施。这将更好地保护基因隐私,符合消费者的期望,同时仍然允许使用LRFS为受害者伸张正义,惩罚那些犯下社会最令人发指行为的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
WHY WE FEAR GENETIC INFORMANTS: USING GENETIC GENEALOGY TO CATCH SERIAL KILLERS.
Consumer genetics has exploded, driven by the second-most popular hobby in the United States: genealogy. This hobby has been co-opted by law enforcement to solve cold cases, by linking crime-scene DNA with the DNA of a suspect's relative, which is contained in a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic database. The relative’s genetic data acts as a silent witness, or genetic informant, wordlessly guiding law enforcement to a handful of potential suspects. At least thirty murderers and rapists have been arrested in this way, a process which I describe in careful detail in this article. Legal scholars have sounded many alarms, and have called for immediate bans on this methodology, which is referred to as long- range familial searching (or "LRFS"). The opponents’ concerns are many, but generally boil down to fears that LRFS will invade the privacy and autonomy of presumptively innocent individuals. These concerns, I argue, are considerably overblown. Indeed, many aspects of the methodology implicate nothing new, legally or ethically, and might even better protect privacy while exonerating the innocent. Law enforcement’s use of LRFS to solve cold cases is a bogeyman. The real threat to genetic privacy comes from shoddy consumer consent procedures, poor data security standards, and user agreements that permit rampant secondary uses of data. So why do so many legal scholars fear a world where law enforcement uses this methodology? I surmise that our fear of so-called genetic informants stems from the sticky and long-standing traps of genetic essentialism and genetic determinism, where we incorrectly attribute intentional action to our genes and fear a world where humans are controlled by our biology. Rather than banning the use of genetic genealogy to catch serial killers and rapists, I call for improved direct-to-consumer consent processes, and more transparent privacy and security measures. This will better protect genetic privacy in line with consumer expectations, while still permitting the use of LRFS to deliver justice to victims and punish those who commit society's most heinous acts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prosecuting Excessive Pricing of Pharmaceuticals Under Competition Law Noticing Patents Panoptic Employment Regulation of DeFi Lending A Singular Disclosure Requirement Is Necessary For Patent Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1