Question of the Week No. 13

A home may be searched without a warrant if consent is given.  Should police be allowed to conduct a warrantless search if one resident, the wife, consents, but the other resident, the husband objects?

Week 11 Takeaways

1. The FCC ruled that ISPs which gather lots of information would be required to get explicit “opt-in” consent before they can share information with a third party. Internal purposes wont require “opt-in” consent, but do require an option to opt out. These rules are proposed and will be implemented pending public comment period.
2. The question of the week was about monitoring the social media accounts of K12 students by school administrators to protect against cyber bullying. None of the class considered such monitoring to be appropriate. Some claimed that the program would not be effective because students use so many social media platforms that the bullies would always migrate to unmonitored services. This was countered with the question, "If this at least stops "casual" bullies, is it not a success?" In a similar vein, some said that students would switch to old fashioned bullying such as beating other students up, and asked the question, "Is it not a judgement call? Deciding whether physical or emotional violence is worse." Finally we discussed whether this is an appropriate role for school administrators, some arguing that this opens up more avenues for creepy abuse by school admins.
3. YikYak is an anonymous social media platform in which users can post in their current geographical area. The app is self regulating, as users can up vote and down vote content to increase or decrease visibility. If a post receives a total score of -5or less, it is removed. In order to combat hate speech, threats of violence, and other objectionable content YikYak automatically warns users if the post that they are about to submit contains certain keyword (ensuring users think twice before posting unsavory content). YikYak also cooperates with law enforcement if physical threats are posted.
4. FBI/Apple case the issue if now mooted, as the FBI has accessed the data on Farook's phone. The FBI has said that they will aid other law enforcement agencies in decrypting other iPhones. There is still some legal question as to whether the FBI has a legal obligation to turn over the flaw which they used to unlock the Farook phone. This flaw or 0-day is still technically a backdoor and it still effects millions of iPhone users work wide. It is unlikely the the FBI will hand it over without a trial, and the results of such a trial are hard to predict.
5. In class we discussed a hypothetical where a girl named Sally is being harassed by a boy named John using school provided iPads that the students can take home. Sally doesn't bring the issue up with school officials or her parents and finally takes her life in the school cafeteria.
   
   The above plot shows how the class awarded the blame. Note that this is a box an whisker plot. For each of the parties, the percents are divided into 4 sections (the two colored rectangles and each of the whiskers. Each of the 4 regions contains 1/4 of the votes for that percentage of blame. This means that we were fairly evenly split from 50% to 80% for the amount of blame John deserved, while most of us attributed zero to 5% blame on Sally and her parents, some of us attributed as high as 10% of the blame to Sally. It was suggested in class that the blame for Sally might be higher, but that no one wanted to blame the victim.

DNA Databases

DNA stores genetic information and is unique to each person, with the exception of identical twins. It is, some might argue, some of the most personal information, both because it is so unique and it carries so much information. A DNA database is a massive collection of this personal information and is used in criminal investigations, medical research, missing persons cases, and more.

Current laws on DNA Databases

The types of offenders required to submit DNA samples to a database varies by state, as well as nationally. Utah’s database, established in 1994 by Utah State Code 53-10-403, has evolved from only including murder and sexual assault to including Felony 1, 2, 3, and Class A misdemeanor convictions, any felony booking, and any convection that includes the offender being added to the sex offender registry.  Laws also govern the use of these databases. The majority of states allow databases to be used for any criminal investigation, but Washington and North Carolina have restricted use of their databases, possibly in an effort to decrease potential for misuse.

At the national level, the National DNA Index System (NDIS) was established by the DNA Identification Act of 1994. The act created the database and regulates its use, access, and security. The Supreme Court recently upheld the inclusion of arrestees in DNA databases in Maryland vs. King, stating that it was a reasonable search under the fourth amendment.

Many other countries have enacted a national DNA database, with various levels of inclusion. For example, Great Britan, with the world’s largest database includes far more people than criminals. A 2012 law did serve to decrease the amount of profiles of innocent people in order to better balance the privacy of individuals with the needs of law enforcement.

DNA databases currently

DNA databases are maintained by many agencies, both law enforcement and not. In the US, the largest database in CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), which connects local, state, and national DNA databases, including NDIS. CODIS is not limited to those convicted of crimes – it also includes people who are arrested, missing persons, and unidentified persons. Additional DNA databases exist that are not associated with law enforcement, run by the branches of the military, genealogical organizations, and medical organizations.

CODIS contains DNA profiles that consist of one of both alleles on 13 genetic loci. Only profiles with 10 loci are included in the database, meaning degraded or incomplete profiles are not included. Criminal profiles are removed after a court document is issued stating that a conviction has been overturned, charges have been dismissed, or that person was acquitted. Database confidentiality is regulated by federal law (DNA Identification Act of 1994) and breaking this is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000. Data is secured by using a physically restricted terminals and protected, limited access servers.

Genetic Markers and Discrimination

While only 13 alleles are currently stored in CODIS, with advances in large data storage, as well as the potential benefits of more stringent matches (including epigenetic markers to differentiate twins), there is the potential for entire genomes to be stored and analyzed. Some genetic markers that have been identified include schizophrenia, bipolardisorder, and the so called “warrior gene”. All three of these genes carry the potential for discrimination – schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because they are falsely associated with violence and the “warrior gene” because it is linked with aggression. While discrimination on the basis of genetics is illegal in the context of hiring and health insurance, there is no such law preventing this discrimination in a legal context. A genetic marker indicates a possible predisposition, not a causation or even 100% correlation, giving an unfounded basis for profiling, constituting discrimination based on an uncontrolled trait.  Genetic discrimination would need to be accounted for when creating a database. One method would be legislating non-discrimination acts. Another would be prohibiting the use of genetic screening on samples or the storage of and access to entire genetic profiles by law enforcement.

Logistics

The logistics of such a program create a variety of problems. The cost of such a program would be huge, and would be an ongoing expense. Who would pay for this? And when would samples be collected? At birth? Not everyone is born in a hospital and parental permission would be needed for testing of the minors. There are also the problems of secure storage, both in the form of digital profiles and the actual samples. The argument could be made for retaining samples in case they need to be retested. However this leads to the need for physical security, increasing costs significantly. Data security, in the form of access to the data and storage of the profiles is also a problem, as such personally identifying information would need to be stored with the highest level of security.

My Thoughts

There are both benefits and drawbacks to the formation of a DNA database that includes all citizens. The main benefit that I can see is helping solve current and past crimes. Another is identification of remains. One of the concerns that sticks out to me is the potential for genetic discrimination and profiling. People can’t help having a genetic marker for an illness or trait, and shouldn’t be punished for having such a trait. Another is access to these profiles. Such a massive amount of personally identifying information would need stringent safeguards to prevent abuse and misuse.

Overall, I believe that the costs of such a program, from both a privacy and a logistics stand point out weigh the potential benefits. The potential for abuse and data compromise are greater than the potential of benefits in criminal investigations, therefore making a universal DNA database not sound public policy.

Question of the Week No. 12

Healthcare providers are moving to a system of electronic health records where an individual’s entire medical history, diagnoses, treatments, medications and other health information are maintained in a digital form.  In order to provide better and more timely health care to individuals, should physicians and other healthcare providers be able to freely access and share this information with each other without a patient’s consent?