Off-Topic Idaho murders

[NC_Canes_11]

When you do the ancestry or 23&me stuff are you consenting to that information being given to the feds? Is there a disclaimer in there? I could’ve sworn years ago they said they didn’t share the information. That was around the time they got the California serial killer using one of those sites databases. I’m guessing that changed?

 

[scrantoncane]

Got this text earlier today from my brother, believe it was sent to a friend of his by a pa state cop. I have no idea if it is true, but I got it before the cops publicly talked about the DNA stuff. TIFWIW:

So I guess this guy is a serial killer. Has a PHD. Was going to WSU which isn’t far from Idaho. They got his DNA off a button at the scene. And uploaded it into 23andme. His relatives were on there so they tracked him down. His parents live in Monroe county. We went through his trash got more DNA. PSP flew the trash out to Idaho where they got a match on the DNA. Then our SERT guys served the warrant last night. They think he killed somebody in Allentown and in Washington. White car was at his parents.

The rest of this turned out to be pretty dead on.

Curios to hear about Allentown and Washington.

 

[hotshot]

When you do the ancestry or 23&me stuff are you consenting to that information being given to the feds? Is there a disclaimer in there? I could’ve sworn years ago they said they didn’t share the information. That was around the time they got the California serial killer using one of those sites databases. I’m guessing that changed?

Think you're right. These sites used to tout privacy/confidentiality. Now, I think some (all?) have the disclaimer about sharing.

Law Enforcement Requests in the United States:
Ancestry will release basic subscriber information as defined in 18 USC § 2703(c)(2) about Ancestry users to law enforcement only in response to a valid trial, grand jury or administrative subpoena.

Ancestry will release additional account information or transactional information pertaining to an account (such as search terms, but not including the contents of communications) only in response to a court order issued pursuant to 18 USC § 2703(d).

Contents of communications and any data relating to the DNA of an Ancestry user will be released only pursuant to a valid search warrant from a government agency with proper jurisdiction.

If we receive a valid request under U.S. law to preserve records that constitute potentially relevant evidence in legal proceedings, we will preserve, but not disclose, a temporary snapshot of the relevant account records for 90 days pending service of valid legal process as described above.

 

[JD08]

It pains me to say this, but Europe's GPDR is stronger at protecting privacy than anything we have. I'm fairly confident that once you get your results, you could ask for your data to be deleted and they have to comply.

 

[CaneintheWilderness]

When you do the ancestry or 23&me stuff are you consenting to that information being given to the feds? Is there a disclaimer in there? I could’ve sworn years ago they said they didn’t share the information. That was around the time they got the California serial killer using one of those sites databases. I’m guessing that changed?

There's a few possibilities, each of which might be simultaneously true to different degrees. The first is that no matter how much the companies tout privacy, that's mostly just marketing; as soon as they want/need to sell the data, they will. There might also be some kind of law enforcement exceptions for certain searches that you have to dig into the fine print of the user agreements to find. Then there's the fact that the average person using 23 & Me or Ancestry is probably more focused on finding out their ancestry or family history than manually opting out of or into all the privacy related stuff. For instance, I know 23 & Me has an opt-in feature where it will tell you if you are related to anyone else who sends in a sample to them. If you select this feature, they'll pop up as possible relatives when you get your results back or you'll be pinged if in the future one of these people submits their own sample. I believe this is how they got the California guy - they created a fake profile, submitted the DNA, and he popped up as a possible relative.

 

[blushrts]

People willingly send their DNA to private companies and believe them when they say they will keep it secure and confidential?

Also glad they caught this POS

 

[Tony4Canes]

Anyone read why they didn't call 911 sooner? So crazy

Police believe suspect in the University of Idaho murders returned to the crime scene hours later, before 911 was called, affidavit says

Police say the suspect's phone was back at the crime scene approximately four hours after it first left that location.

www.insider.com

 

[Zombie-Cane]

Ancenstry.com and 23andme.com have opened up huge avenues for LEO to track down previously unknown genetic material.

Brave new world.

Which is why I won't use those things.......wait, what?

 

[ithacane]

Anyone read why they didn't call 911 sooner? So crazy

Police believe suspect in the University of Idaho murders returned to the crime scene hours later, before 911 was called, affidavit says

Police say the suspect's phone was back at the crime scene approximately four hours after it first left that location.

www.insider.com

That’s my question for the person (DM) that supposedly opened the door three times and was somehow able to make out the guy had “bushy eyebrows”.

The story just doesn’t make sense. Why would u lock your door after u see him and NOT call the cops… or go check on your roommates at some point BEFORE 11am?!?

Is anyone asking that question? From all the news I’ve seen… I haven’t heard anyone ask the questions that seem obvious. All I hear is “imagine how terrifying that is”! I don’t get it

 

[JD08]

That’s my question for the person (DM) that supposedly opened the door three times and was somehow able to make out the guy had “bushy eyebrows”.

The story just doesn’t make sense. Why would u lock your door after u see him and NOT call the cops… or go check on your roommates at some point BEFORE 11am?!?

Is anyone asking that question? From all the news I’ve seen… I haven’t heard anyone ask the questions that seem obvious. All I hear is “imagine how terrifying that is”! I don’t get it

If a person had been drinking, sleepy, or otherwise impaired enough to think it might not really be what they were seeing. And in a house with multiple occupants with people coming and going at all hours, it might not be all that threatening.

 

[TpaBayFlyFisher]

It pains me to say this, but Europe's GPDR is stronger at protecting privacy than anything we have. I'm fairly confident that once you get your results, you could ask for your data to be deleted and they have to comply.

I am sure that they always comply!

 

[Tony4Canes]

If a person had been drinking, sleepy, or otherwise impaired enough to think it might not really be what they were seeing. And in a house with multiple occupants with people coming and going at all hours, it might not be all that threatening.

True but she had to hear the crying, dog barking and thud then no crying

Definitely could have dialed 911 at that point

 

[JD08]

I am sure that they always comply!

The point is that we don't even have the same level of protection and lawmakers seemingly have no interest in pursuing it. That's the cause for concern. The new narrative seems to be if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about rather than ensuring an individual's privacy is protected.

 

[JD08]

True but she had to hear the crying, dog barking and thud then no crying

Definitely could have dialed 911 at that point

All I'm saying is being impaired can impact judgement. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure she wouldn't have questioned whether it was just something harmless and gone back to sleep.

 

[hotshot]

People willingly send their DNA to private companies and believe them when they say they will keep it secure and confidential?

Also glad they caught this POS

And the Golden State Killer. Not to mention closing many cold cases from the past that were thought insolvable.

Already one of the better tools the police have. Degree of accuracy much higher than many options they have at their disposal.

 

[TpaBayFlyFisher]

The point is that we don't even have the same level of protection and lawmakers seemingly have no interest in pursuing it. That's the cause for concern. The new narrative seems to be if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about rather than ensuring an individual's privacy is protected.

I agree the new America loves Big Brother!

 

[ithacane]

If a person had been drinking, sleepy, or otherwise impaired enough to think it might not really be what they were seeing. And in a house with multiple occupants with people coming and going at all hours, it might not be all that threatening.

But they heard potential crying and then allegedly closed and locked their door. Also, they opened the door three times cause of the noises and also was aware enough to describe “bushy eyebrows” and a description of the man.

I did think that at first, but then after hearing all that and that the DM person closed and locked the door when the killer approached… not calling 911 for 6-8 hours later is suspect

Also, I heard her room was on the 2nd floor today too

Now, if these things are incorrectly relayed… then maybe there is a rational reason for her actions. But what they’ve described so far doesn’t add up to me

 

[NC_Canes_11]

Think you're right. These sites used to tout privacy/confidentiality. Now, I think some (all?) have the disclaimer about sharing.

Law Enforcement Requests in the United States:
Ancestry will release basic subscriber information as defined in 18 USC § 2703(c)(2) about Ancestry users to law enforcement only in response to a valid trial, grand jury or administrative subpoena.

Ancestry will release additional account information or transactional information pertaining to an account (such as search terms, but not including the contents of communications) only in response to a court order issued pursuant to 18 USC § 2703(d).

Contents of communications and any data relating to the DNA of an Ancestry user will be released only pursuant to a valid search warrant from a government agency with proper jurisdiction.

If we receive a valid request under U.S. law to preserve records that constitute potentially relevant evidence in legal proceedings, we will preserve, but not disclose, a temporary snapshot of the relevant account records for 90 days pending service of valid legal process as described above.

I figured if they hadn’t been taken to court about this, they had to have something. And this disclaimer is pretty clear.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

There's a few possibilities, each of which might be simultaneously true to different degrees. The first is that no matter how much the companies tout privacy, that's mostly just marketing; as soon as they want/need to sell the data, they will. There might also be some kind of law enforcement exceptions for certain searches that you have to dig into the fine print of the user agreements to find. Then there's the fact that the average person using 23 & Me or Ancestry is probably more focused on finding out their ancestry or family history than manually opting out of or into all the privacy related stuff. For instance, I know 23 & Me has an opt-in feature where it will tell you if you are related to anyone else who sends in a sample to them. If you select this feature, they'll pop up as possible relatives when you get your results back or you'll be pinged if in the future one of these people submits their own sample. I believe this is how they got the California guy - they created a fake profile, submitted the DNA, and he popped up as a possible relative.

When they first touted the privacy aspect, I knew it was a lie. I was just curious about the disclaimer bc idk if they had one when they first started. Crazy to me that people willingly send in DNA to anyone.

 

[hotshot]

From a Daily Beast report:

University of Idaho undergrad Dylan Mortensen said she first woke up around 4 a.m. on Nov. 13 to what she assumed was the sound of her roommate, Kaylee Goncalves, playing with her dog upstairs.

A short time later, Mortensen thought she heard her 21-year-old friend say, “There’s someone here.” But when Mortensen looked out of her bedroom, she didn’t see a thing. She peeked outside her bedroom door a second time when she heard crying coming from the bedroom of her other roommate, Xana Kernodle. “It’s OK, I’m going to help you,” Mortensen told authorities she heard a male voice say.

The third time Mortensen opened her bedroom door to a far more terrifying sight: “a figure clad in black clothing and a mask that covered the person’s mouth and nose walking toward her.” But the masked man just walked past her and left the home through the back sliding-glass door as she stood there in “frozen shock.”

Hours later, Mortensen would learn that three of her roommates—and one of their boyfriends—had been brutally murdered.