Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New DNA Test to Solve More Cases

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the you-can't-get-away-with-anything-anymore dept.

65

Krishna Dagli writes From the BBC,"Tens of thousands of unsolved crimes could be cracked with a new forensic technique, it has been claimed.The Forensic Science Service (FSS) is piloting a computer-based analysis system which can interpret previously unintelligible DNA samples.It claims the technique is a world first which will boost its crime detection rates by more than 15%.The method is being tested by the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Northumbria and Humberside police forces."

cancel ×

65 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I can summarise TFA pretty quickly: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16314601)

DNA is sampled with a mouth swab from the suspect.

If the president thinks the suspect committed the crime, he or she is locked up for life without possibility of parole or a visit from an attorney.

Re:I can summarise TFA pretty quickly: (1)

Thisfox (994296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315027)

Be careful who you kiss then... A good loving french kiss, and you're suddenly not the suspects' girlfriend, but the suspect himself!

It actually doesn't work out that way, but I can imagine a movie coming out shortly with that as the main storyline, you wait and see...

More Importantly... (4, Insightful)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16314611)

...it will hopefully free lots of people who have been falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit.

Re:More Importantly... (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16314745)

well, except for the dead ones.

Re:More Importantly... (5, Insightful)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16314849)

That seems unlikely to happen; it seems to be more about reading "previously unintelligible DNA samples" then mending false positives. Not to mention that going into the 'solved cases' pile seems less high on their priority's then the 'cold cases' pile (Then again with prison overcrowding as it is, it could get higher on their list...)

Re:More Importantly... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315245)

(Then again with prison overcrowding as it is, it could get higher on their list...)

Step 1: Remove non-violent drug offenders from prison
Step 2: Insert the above into rehabilitation programs
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit

I imagine Step 3 involves Gov't funds being given to (faith based) rehab programs

As for this new DNA test, unless it is faster, cheaper and/or more likely to stand up in court, I don't see it as making a huge difference. From what I understand, DNA testing labs are already at/near max capacity.

A cheaper testing protocol would be much more useful

Re:More Importantly... (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315491)

I don't know about speed, but what it does allow is a mixed DNA sample can now be broken apart into each person who left it.

I am still not sure whether it is based upon sheer pattern matching (the UK has largest DNA database in the world) or if it is some other method.
However in the news I have seen they are comparing cig butts and glasses for things - in my none expert analysis, these things are usually (though not always) single user items.
What they haven't said is the real meaning, mutliple sperm samples or blood pools (they do actually mention sweat).
I also don't understand how they could handle family relationships, ie a pair of brothers with lots of matching DNA.

I hope it isn't based upon a best fit (well suspects A+B+D make up this sample so its them) because that doesn't account for the single person who has the combined DNA.

Re:More Importantly... (2, Insightful)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315521)

"From what I understand, DNA testing labs are already at/near max capacity."
Here in the UK where the research is being pioneered (but I persume it is the same for everywhere,) a large part of the reason for this is that so many DNA sources are contaminated, which means lots more testing for labs, which means capacity is reached sooner.

So yes, it could make a huge difference. It is not expensive to test for DNA, it is expensive to test every single item possibly touched by the offender. If this technique means fewer items need testing then effectively it is a cheaper DNA testing method.

Then again, DNA testing labs will still be at max. capacity, it just means they will be able to use the techniques on crimes of lesser severity.

Re:More Importantly... (1)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315593)

As for this new DNA test, unless it is faster, cheaper and/or more likely to stand up in court, I don't see it as making a huge difference. Well okay, even if it isn't faster, more reliable, more convincing, or helps to relive DNA labs of the large amount of work they have to do, it will still make a difference. If it happens to be more expensive or slower or requires more input (article doesn't say so), well then it only needs to be used on those cases the current system can't read. Maybe a better improvement can be made; a cheaper way, a faster way, whatever they can do, but at least this is technology working in a useful way with useful improvements. If this system means just one person gets caught who could have harmed someone else thats what I'd call a difference. And victims of crime can finally get to know their persecutor has been caught, that's a difference. And to them that could be a huge difference.

Re:More Importantly... (2, Insightful)

JaWiB (963739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16314993)

Yes, but how fast can this techinique be applied? Don't crime labs/law enforcement officials already have far too many cases to devote their time to?

Two major problems (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315061)

...it will hopefully free lots of people who have been falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit.

Two problems: 1)The system/process will be made mostly available to "solving" crimes, not freeing criminals; it's bad prioritization politically, existing criminals could swamp the system, and if a guilty criminal were released after a false negative and was a repeat offender, there'd be hell to pay. 2)While a "maybe a match" will certainly be grounds for the police getting warrants and such, a "maybe not a match" won't get a convicted criminal much.

I'd expect if anything for them to be very cautious about using this tool; DNA match evidence is widely perceived as completely reliable by juries, public, judges, etc...and a less-reliable matching will erode that confidence.

Re:Two major problems (2, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315103)

DNA match evidence is widely perceived as completely reliable by juries, public, judges, etc...and a less-reliable matching will erode that confidence.

Absolutely right! DNA tests are 100% accurate and foolproof [chron.com] . The prosecutors say so themselves [truthinjustice.org] . In fact, this new test is so easy, all you do is push a button, and the screen lights up "guilty".

Re:More Importantly... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315811)

...it will hopefully free lots of people who have been falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit.

It works the opposite way: when you claim there's a false positive, you'll get even less people to believe you, since now "we're 15% more accurate!".

It's just like the lie detector, or monitoring your internet logs for looking up "teen" in google.

Imagine if police could arrest you if your horoscope was certain you'll kill someone today and put you in jail. Crime "discoverability" will certainly raise when the chart heads are making their little statistics in the end of the year.

Re:More Importantly... (1)

noigmn (929935) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316017)

"Imagine if police could arrest you if your horoscope was certain you'll kill someone today"

Imagine how many people of that star sign would be killing people if the horoscope was right.

Re:More Importantly... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316267)

Imagine how many people of that star sign would be killing people if the horoscope was right.

Yup, arresting all those people in advance would be such a win for crime discoverability and prevention.

Re:More Importantly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16317915)

I am not the meat safe murderer! D and A proved I am right, such lovely lads those two must be. I never done, I only said I've done it so they take the traffic cone out of me arse.

West Yorkshire crimes solved! (3, Funny)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 7 years ago | (#16314719)

West Yorkshire. A large number of crimes have recently been solved in this slumbering community. Using a new forensic technique, crime investigators were able to implicate most of the current police force in what was previously reported to be "unsolved" or "mysterious" crimes. 'As our DNA evidence clearly shows, the whole police department was involved in the crimes and their cover up. The crimes were then classified as "unsolved" to cover up their tracks. We have never seen such a wide spread of corruption.' Unidentified sources claimed that the are similar investigation of the police force in 3 other communities.

Re:West Yorkshire crimes solved! (1)

Symp0sium (961148) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315071)

Yes the very same 'slumbering' community that the Yorkshire Ripper resided in.

It has been claimed? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16314747)

It has been claimed?

Wtf.

Where the fuck is this retard from. Can't he fucking speak English?

English, bitch. Do you speak it?

Re:It has been claimed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16314905)

He speaks English.

The Queen's English, that is.

Re:It has been claimed? (0, Offtopic)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315075)

England, you fool. You know, the place where all the guys in the funny hats and white wigs invented, well, uhh...English. Now, any Brits here want to say the obligatory "Damn Yanks?"

Re:It has been claimed? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315347)

Now, any Brits here want to say the obligatory "Damn Yanks?"

I thought only we Southerners said that? And trust me, you have never heard "Damn Yankess" until you've heard it from someone from Mississippi.

Re:It has been claimed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315881)

That's because it takes them about 4 1/2 minutes to drool (drawl?) it out their mouths.

Re:It has been claimed? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 7 years ago | (#16333869)

Now, any Brits here want to say the obligatory "Damn Yanks?"

I thought only we Southerners said that? And trust me, you have never heard "Damn Yankess" until you've heard it from someone from Mississippi.

Here in the UK we call all Americans "Yanks", north or south it's all the same to us, we're not prejudiced ;-)

Re:It has been claimed? (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315451)

Damn Yanks!

Re:It has been claimed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16316055)

Does this mean we will finally find out who "Jack the Ripper" was once and for all?

Re:It has been claimed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16318347)

No thanks; far too busy beating my head off a brick wall in frustration at the police state we've ended up with.

Don't worry, I'll be removing all DNA traces from the wall afterwards...

Suspect Database (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16314783)

But if your suspect hasnt been taken into custody as of yet? Why not just 'swab' the entire world population.

Re:Suspect Database (1, Troll)

8ball629 (963244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315041)

It isn't too far from the truth/future I'm sure. There will eventually be laws passed that will allow a huge database of DNA matched to records of people that both have and have not committed a crime, especially in the US if/when we're under Republican rule again. Once that law has gone into effect, newborns will probably be swabbed at birth and the rest of us will be swabbed the next time we register to vote.

Re:Suspect Database (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315087)

What do you have to hide, citizen? Either you're with us, or you're with the terrists. Comply. Share and Enjoy.

Re:Suspect Database (1)

8ball629 (963244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315165)

Haha, obviously you're joking but the truth is I have plenty of things that I want to "hide" or atleast keep from the prying eyes of the government (nothing a DNA test would bring up).

The government needs to take a few steps back in privacy and I think we all know that.

Re:Suspect Database (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315743)

Here's the secret about DNA tests: They don't identify you.

The original tests looked for a certain number of snippets of DNA that were considered "genes". Fewer than a dozen at first, but towards the end of this test's usage, they were up to about 16. With only 2^16 possibilities ("there or not there", 16 times), it matched you, probably your family members, and about 50 thousand other people, assuming that none of those snippets of DNA were actually the gene for having two arms or something like that, since they didn't really know how all that worked back then.

Now that they have a better idea of how genetics works, they match based on the distance between particular genes on a chromosome. Every time people mate, the chromosome swap doesn't always line up the exact same way leading to genes that move up or down, or so the theory goes. Nobody is actually sure how accurate this is, the only studies done have been by the companies selling the kit or by criminal justice researchers, but simple logic dictates that the gene can only move so far before it runs into another important part of the sequence (unless it moves too, and if all the genes move at once, then the distance between them hasn't changed at all!), meaning that there is some finite limit to the variations this can map.

The only true way to genetically identify someone would be a complete map of at least one chromosome, and preferrably more. The Y chromosome matches every generation in a lineage of men, likewise, the X in a male identifies his mother and brothers, so those are disqualified. Of course, a complete map is ridiculously expensive and time consuming, and in these days of money going to bridges to nowhere and websites to track the money that went to bridges to nowhere, justice has to be done on a discount.

So what does this mean? It means that when the government starts collecting DNA samples from anyone and everyone, they'll have a pool of positive matches from which to pick the easiest sucker to blame the crime on. Of course, the prosecuting attourney won't mention that there are other people who match that sample, when he presents the "evidence" to the jurors, and the expert witness they paid to lie (have you ever seen a prosecutor prosecute their own star witness for perjury? I haven't [offthekuff.com] . They always seem to be just "wrong") will neglect to mention that there were other matches, but they were either politically inconvenient (lol republican [bradblog.com] lol) or just plain rich. They won't need to worry about motive, alibis, or anything else, because the prosecutor will convince the jury who has watched far too much Law and Order that the DNA test is perfect.

Or hell, they could just do what Houston does, and just lie through the teeth about the whole thing [chron.com] .

Re:Suspect Database (1)

8ball629 (963244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316843)

Yeah, so the future's trials don't look too different from today's but DNA is definitely more convincing to most people whether it really is reliable or not.

Re:Suspect Database (2, Informative)

DrMindWarp (663427) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315105)

But if your suspect hasnt been taken into custody as of yet? Why not just 'swab' the entire world population. The UK has the world's largest citizen DNA database. Just about any encounter you have with the UK police, irrespective of your age and state of guilt or innocence, will result in your DNA being taken and integrated into their database. e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4720328.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Suspect Database (1)

Da3vid (926771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316031)

The DNA matching isn't a 100% match. For example, most DNA matching techniques are highly accurate... say they're accurate to 1 in 250 million. Still, if you run a sample only by the USA database... on average, you'd have a wrong match every single search. Sure, it narrows it down... but it just isn't as simple as it sounds.

Re:Suspect Database (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16317965)

That's very nearly what is happening in the UK. Basically anyone who has any dealings with the police has a DNA sample taken, even if they are never charged with anything. And there are plans to fingerprint the entire population.

You mean... (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315099)

You mean the DNA tests for the past few decades havent been 100% ?!?

This sounds like Intel's marketing department.

Re:You mean... (1)

spvo (955716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315319)

Its not saying the old DNA test are inaccurate. This technique just allows them to use DNA that previously they could not test, such as a DNA sample that multiple people had handled.

Re:You mean... (2, Informative)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315413)

You mean the DNA tests for the past few decades havent been 100% ?!?

The DNA can be a match and still not come from the suspect. All DNA is based on statistics.

Marker A is in 0.25% of the population, Marker B is in 0.01%, C is in 0.3% and D is in 0.01% and E is in 1/3. That means that if someone has ABCDE they are 1 in 400,000. Granted, those aren't exactly real numbers and the tests can use over 10 different markers, but it gives you an idea of how the system works. Currently, it is impossible to say DNA X deffinitely came from suspect Y. It is possible to say that there is a Z% chance, though. That is how the system actually works.

I'm reminded of a case in which a paternity test said that a guy was the father when he had never had sex with the mother. Then there is the mother who was not the biological mother of the child she gave birth to (and no invitro or egg donation was involved).

Re:You mean... (1)

Gracenotes (1001843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315749)

DNA testing (in its ideal form) definitely works, as Ironsides describes, but the logistics of it are a bit difficult sometimes. I would not base a case solely upon it, especially if the opposition were to hire a lawyer to perform a Chewbacca defense with stunning, and fatal, precision. Another devastating obstacle is the thing of identical twins. If I wanted to live a life of crime, I would prefer to be an identical twin to someone, because in that case, DNA tests are basically rendered worthless.

Re:You mean... (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316309)

Actually, the identical twins problem has occured before. Fortunately, the other twin has had an airtight alibi for where they were at the time of a crime. Sometimes they other twin happens to be in jail, sometimes out of state, but so far the case of which twin did it has not actually been a problem just yet.

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16316077)

I think anyone who would argue that a 99.9999999999999% chance (yes, this is a real result) that their DNA sample is a match and says "It's only probability, statistics can be wrong!" is guilty by dumbness.

Re:You mean... (1)

Lars Arvestad (5049) | more than 7 years ago | (#16318401)

No, it means that more samples are not rendered useless. Sounds like good science.

The real question... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315237)

Will OJ be able to find the real killers now?

What happened to facing your accuser? (2, Interesting)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315653)

How do you face your accuser when it is a piece of software?

Re:What happened to facing your accuser? (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16319411)

thats like saying "how do you face your accuser when it is a magnifying glass?" the computer is a tool being operated by detectives, it accuses no one of anything.

Re:What happened to facing your accuser? (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16323617)

I think magnifying glasses are more varifiable than software. I can grind my own lens but I can't write a program that verifies another piece of software is correct, perhaps you can?

Re:What happened to facing your accuser? (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16334603)

writing a program to verify to correctness of another program wouldnt solve anything. it jut introduces an infinite regression.

if a case hinged on this one solitary piece of evidence, it would need to be thoroughly manually reverified to make sure it was accurate.

Unsolved, how about wrongly convicted! (1)

Rixel (131146) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315689)

The ghosts of the many executed prisoners who are soon-to-be-exonerated applaud......sort of.

The UK is not the US. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16319015)

We dont have the death penalty.

Re:The UK is not the US. (1)

Rixel (131146) | more than 7 years ago | (#16319301)

Aye, as we do not in Canada...however, no doubt that there are a lot of American's that are looking forward to this technology.

Actually, I am in favour of the death penalty, however, only under a strict set of circumstances:

1. The subject is found guilty by a jury (of peers).
2. The subject is sentenced to death by said jury (of peers).
3. The subject is deemed fit for said punishment and possesses no mental defect of appreciable concern in regards to the proceedings and determination.

and the most important of all,

4. The subject agrees with, and agrees to comply with the sentence. In most likelihood, a psychologist whould be required to determine that this is the true wishes of the subject.

I once asked a proponent of the death penalty how much his wife should get if her husband was put to death accidentally by the state. He could not give me a figure, no matter how much I needled him.

For you non-wetware workers (4, Informative)

DrKyle (818035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316029)

DNA fingerprinting basically measures the number of repeat units at ~13 different locations in the genome. As you have 2 copies of your chromosomes you esentially get a unique 26 digit code. Looking at just one of the repeat locations, let's say the normal range is 8 to 12 repeats, so you can be an 8,8 8,9 8,10, 8,11 8,12 9,9 9,10, 9,11 9,12 10,10 10,11 10,12 11,11 11,12 or 12,12 (so there are 15 possibilities seen in the population, with generally similar frequencies for each). The chance of matching your sample with any randomly selected unknown will be 1 in 15, but if we go up to 13 different markers we have (1/15)^13 which gives a chance of any 2 UNRELATED individuals matching being about 1 in a quadrillion (more people than have ever lived, and likely ever will live). This means a match is a definite match, this doesn't mean evidence wasn't planted or some such conspiracy crap, but a match is a match, no chance of a collision like with 2 people having O- blood.

The "new" stuff here is that they have come up with software which will allow the system to extract 2 sets of "seial numbers" from one reaction. Like having 2 fingerprints on top of one another and seperating them to determine the swirls. They also are claiming a more sensitive technique which will allow for smaller or partially degraded samples to be tested, but this is probably just tweaking the experimental protocol.

This is no new test, just tweaks and algorithms.

Re:For you non-wetware workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16317461)

>> chance of matching your sample with any randomly selected unknown will be 1 in 15, but if we go up to 13 different markers we have (1/15)^13 which gives a chance of any 2 UNRELATED individuals matching being about 1 in a quadrillion

This is overstating it somewhat because you're assuming that the distriubtion of STRs (short tandem repeats) is uniform. In actual fact they follow a normal distribution and you're one in quadrillion may in actual fact be somewhat less. In addition relatives clearly have similar DNA. Which is why, when the police ask, I always say my brother did it :-)

Re:For you non-wetware workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16318153)

You (well, everyone in forensics, I guess) are assuming that the repetitions in those locations are completely independent. Are they?

Re:For you non-wetware workers (1)

DrKyle (818035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16323077)

2 of the sets are on one chromosome, the other 11 are each on different chromosomes, so they assort independently.

Re:For you non-wetware workers (1)

delt0r (999393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16318837)

I'm affaid you are more or less completly wrong.

Unfortunalty we are are all related to some degree and oh yes thats very important. It turns out that a set of good markers for Europe is not a good set for Aficans for example. Different ethinic groups have a different number of alleles in a different distrabution at a givin site for a start. Its not bloody loto, this is population genetics.

Infact most tests hover around the 1 in 3 million of a random person beign the same as someone else. This is not a problem for working out which suspect did it. But because of the birthday paradox it is totaly usless for a Nation wide Database.

Futher different states in the US have used different sets of locus, it is only recently that they have been stardanrdized IIRC.

Re:For you non-wetware workers (1)

DrKyle (818035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16323583)

I'm sorry, did you teach this to 4th year genetics students this semester? No? Well, I did teach this for a couple lectures this year, and while I have simplified the process to make it understandable to non-biologists I will assure you I am pretty right on the money.

The standard CODIS set of 13 microsatellites has been in use since 1997, not really that recent if you ask me.

Birthday paradox... yes, only 365 possibilities, a good chance of collisions, CODIS database, a quintillion combinations (not counting people with very rare alleles) not quite the same thing.

The science behind using it is VERY sound, problems only arise with the people who collect and test the samples.

Re:For you non-wetware workers (1)

delt0r (999393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16333557)

No, but i did teach at a workshop on Population genetics. Also i have worked with a group with the courts on the real probablities. Not the made up probablities, but probablities based on real data. Its not straight forward and its far from cut and dry. We are not using SNP's with the groups I work with. But then thats not the US. As for the birthday paradox there are 400 million people in europe. Thats 80x10^15 pairs of people, so to not have a collision p10^-18. In fact it is assumed that the bigger databases will simply need to assume that collision occure. After all people are related.

Do the math right (1)

squidsuk (850172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16323425)

As has already been commented, it's not necessarilly valid to simply multiply out the individual probabilities as if all the elements were truly independent, since they may not be, and 15^13 is a very big number and an exceedingly bold claim to make. FTFA the chance of a random match between two people is stated as being about 1 in 1 billion, which is roughly what I've seen quoted before for the type of test currently used by the Forensic Science Service.

Now you throw in the effect of the Birthday Paradox [wikipedia.org] , and what you'll discover is that in a population of 60 million people, such as the UK, you should expect to find roughly 3.6 million [*] people who share a profile with at least one other person. Or in other words, there's roughly a 6% chance that there's someone else in the UK with a profile that matches yours. Think about that - what it means is that a national/international database simply doesn't work, because it doesn't scale, even if the test is accurate enough to be (mostly) unique on the current database size.

[*] actually, compared to the birthday paradox, when the random match chance is very small and the size of the database is very large, it's very easy to calculate a good approximation of the expected number not unique. All you do is imagine picking two people at random from the population, the chance that they match must be 1 in one billion. Assume there are n profiles which are shared between two people, and it follows that:

1 / 1e9 = 2n / (population ^ 2)

i.e. with a population of 60e6 there will be 1.8e6 profiles shared between two people, for a total of 3.6e6 people. Discounting the number of triples and higher, of course, which isn't too important for this purpose because once you're starting to get triples "uniqueness " in the database has long since been lost!

Upping the what now? (2, Interesting)

jesdynf (42915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316273)

The /crime detection/ rate is up by 15%? Just great. How many headless corpses and savage beatings were we not noticing before this? Are they finally going to start ticketing that bastard who parks in the middle of four spaces in my complex or something?

Re:Upping the what now? (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16318003)

Suppose there are 10 headless corpses each week, and the police can't explain 5 of them. That's a rate of 50%. All they need to do is to issue tickets to 3 bastards who park in the wrong place, and now they've solved 8 crimes out of 13, so the rate is over 60%, which is more than 15% up.

So yes, I would think that you are probably in luck.

Re:Upping the what now? (1)

rpresser (610529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16323795)

Even if the police "can't explain" a particular headless corpse, they still presumably know a crime was committed! Better/faster DNA analysis does *not* improve *detection* of crimes at all, even if it aids *solution* of crimes.

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16316375)

Lite Is straining for trolls' you down. It was To download the with process and Maintained that too may be hurting the *BSD is dead. Systems. The Gay series of debates

In my day (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16316399)

In my day, lad, we had no fancy DEE ENN AYY scanners. We had to lick the dried blood off the floor and bite all suspects personally, to make a match.

What happens at 100% crime detection rate! (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16316463)

the technique is a world first which will boost its crime detection rates by more than 15%

And when it reaches 100% nobody is safe.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>