> I did not lick the envelope
So what if he did? Even if we had his DNA, we wouldn’t know whose DNA it is. It would be as useful as finding a key on the ground without knowing which house it unlocks.
So what if he did? Even if we had his DNA, we wouldn’t know whose DNA it is. It would be as useful as finding a key on the ground without knowing which house it unlocks.
It would depend on the country whether or not their DNA is likely on record. Most Americans do not have their DNA on record. However it’s interesting that Kenya recently required collection of DNA from all citizens.
But yep those who have signed up for 23 and Me with their real name (or maybe a close relative) can be identified from an anonymous DNA sample. Or previously incarcerated, since then the government would have their DNA on record.
Or if they were already a suspect, then their DNA could then be taken and matched against the anonymous sample.
So maybe by disclosing that he didn’t lick the envelope, he’s inadvertently telling us that his DNA is on record somewhere?
Basically because your generic relatives have submitted their DNA to these services, a small pool of potential candidates for your DNA can be identified, and traditional investigation methods can identify you in that pool.
As the density of people who have submitted DNA to these services increases in the total population, identifying random samples will be easier. (It is already getting easier.)
These techniques were publicized with the Golden State Killer case but have been used in several other law enforcement investigations.
My contact with this field is mostly through friends in the industry, but The Daily podcast’s series on it seemed like a good introduction:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/podcasts/the-daily/dna-ge...