Comment by yannyu

Comment by yannyu 8 hours ago

I agree with you in principle. And I agree that the government has been steadily eroding our privacy. And I agree that California probably shouldn't be retaining these samples forever.

However, the likelihood of being able to "sequence" the biomatter on a blood spot is quite low, and the probability of getting good signal out of it continues to go down over time. It'll still remain useful for various kinds of spot testing and genetic disease testing, but it's not going to produce a fully validated genomic sequence or even be that useful for forensic purposes.

This isn't some sort of sealed blood vial, it's literally just blood on paper.

DoctorOetker 7 hours ago

This is wrong, the sample efficiency of DNA collection, amplification and sequencing technology has gone way up, to the extent that for example bubonic plague could be identified from DNA samples in the dental plaque of skulls which are multiple centuries old.

Also your statement directly conflicts with the purported confirmed utility of law enforcement getting warrants to use said samples.

Reply View 1 reply

yannyu 7 hours ago

You don't think that it's easier to identify whether something is bubonic plague than it would be to identify whether two DNA samples are related? Especially when one of them is aged such that it's not even a whole sequence anymore?
Yes, our ability to manipulate and read DNA has increased significantly in the past 40 years. But you can't create data from something that isn't there or has been corrupted beyond recovery.
And as far as the efficacy of police goes, I don't think that a warrant is sufficient to prove that there's confirmed utility in getting these samples.

Reply View | 0 replies