Researchers are now vacuuming DNA from the air
36 comments
·June 16, 2025karlperera
qualeed
Even as a big privacy advocate, I don't see much reason to be especially concerned.
The fact that the DNA can be carried off to locations you've never physically been to pretty immediately puts a stop to any use in court and usefulness in any sort of tracking.
Not to mention it seems easily game-able by bad actors. Simply setting up an air filter at work for a few hours, then shaking out the air filter in a park or whatever, would contaminate anything gathered from the park. I would argue this technology is less worrying in the context of privacy than the standard DNA collection we already do.
There are a lot more non-hypothetical attacks on privacy that are succeeding and causing (probably) more damage than this technology theoretically could.
It seems mostly useful as was described in the article, like identifying the presence of an endangered animal within X distance and Y time.
geysersam
The danger depends a lot on the details of the technology. You're assuming the results would be noisy enough that they're more or less useless. But what if they're not that noisy? Maybe it's easy to distinguish if a person passed near the filter or >100 meters away based on the intensity of the collected signal? Maybe you can even approximately distinguish the age of the DNA. Suddenly that sounds quite useful for tracking and for use in courts
qualeed
Noise is not the only thing I mention, it's just one of many reasons. The fact that it is so easily gamed by bad actors is another compelling reason why it wouldn't work in the courts and is a poor tracking technique.
Primarily though, there are more accurate ways of tracking people at this very moment, which are less prone to false positives, less prone to faking, cheaper, more easily scalable, and are already widely used and accepted in courts.
This offers basically no improvement over any existing tracking technology, with a handful of downsides that the others don't suffer from.
While I think it's good to ask these sorts of questions, they need to be asked within the context of what is already happening. If there wasn't cameras everywhere, ubiquitous and accurate phone tracking, internet connected cars, GPS trackers the size of a thumbnail, etc. then yes, this technology would be concerning. But that's not reality.
Privacy advocates are already looked at with a sideways glance. The least we can do is be responsible on when we raise the alarm. This is not one of those times.
rvnx
You can clone fingerprint like here: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611
Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real.
Same for DNA then.
qualeed
>Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real.
>Same for DNA then.
There's a world of difference between cloning a fingerprint/planting DNA (in the traditional sense, like fluids), and this technology.
The air might carry the particulates to areas never traveled to. That... doesn't happen with fingerprints.
Walking around the city with an air filter than traveling to a different city could imply that thousands of people have gone to a city they never went to before. Not happening with fingerprints or traditional DNA.
The noise with this tech is way too high to be useful in privacy-damaging ways. It's useless for tracking, useless for court, and more easily game-able than any other biometric by a lot.
To put it in your terms, this wont be used in forensics because the odds that it is a false positive is higher than the possibility that it is real.
amelius
Photos can be faked.
Yet we still fear face recognition based surveillance.
qualeed
When the wind blows, a photo doesn't get faked, but these particulates will move to areas you haven't been to.
Faking a photo, convincingly enough to pass forensic scrutiny, requires skill, time, and equipment. Faking the results of this DNA vacuuming requires no skill, significantly less time, and the only equipment is an air filter.
I can go on, but I have a sneaking suspicion you're just trying to be contrarian rather than actually care about privacy.
throw83988494
Some countries have very strict rules!
For example in France, doing DNA sequencing without consent of all parties, is crimimal offense with up to one year in prison! Similar in Germany.
Those laws are designed to prevent paternity tests, but can be appplied very broadly!
cypherpunks01
Surely the police will start mass collection after the technology is commercialized, to solve theoretical crimes. And then claim that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, since you freely decided to leave the house and knowingly start shedding DNA in public.
deepfriedchokes
Flock Safety but for DNA is inevitable.
BurningFrog
We're already filmed by several cameras any time we're out in public. We're also tracked by our phones, unless we turn them off.
Privacy of what places you visit is already pretty much dead. We're the last generation who lived like that.
I'm not saying this is good or bad. Just that it is, and we have to adapt.
lazide
Most new phones are trackable even if they are off, even.
RunningDroid
> Most new phones are trackable even if they are off, even.
For anyone wondering how this works: the cellular modem is a separate general-purpose computer that runs code from the manufacturer and the service provider, the only thing needed to allow tracking a phone that's off is circuitry to allow the modem to draw power independent of the rest of the phone.
checker659
Surely it should be possible to spoof presence as well. Non-repudiation is not possible with this alone.
polishdude20
Yeah at what point do we look back at this type of tech and say "the researchers surely knew this was going to be used in a bad way" and then blame them for it?
Like, I get it. The argument that "maybe the tech will be used for good" is an easy one to make. But given how tech is being used more and more for bad these days, surely it's harder to make that moral argument to justify this continued research?
Just because you can come up with one or two good reasons for the tech to exist, doesn't mean you get to ignore the overwhelming amount of reasons it shouldn't.
arddcootvt178
Internet of Smells
The world is wired. Is bathed in wi-fi waves. It is also full of smell.
Eve and Adam meet at a party. Both are good looking, the kind which is so clean that it looks almost puppet like.
When Adam sees Eve and approaches her, Eve is at first welcoming. Her sniffer ring sends her a message. (The sniffer ring is just a ring with a feather moving somehow between a dog tail and a butterfly wing. It is of course connected to the wired/wifi network.)
The message reads: "Adam has a very bad form of cancer. Is not good genetic material to mate with".
As the polite behaviour rules dictate, Eve forwards the notice to Adam, maybe as a visual message, or as a message which appears on his health wristband, then she moves away, looking for other interesting people.
Adam is only mildly concerned. He contacts, privately, his internet+health insurance provider and files a bug request. Then he goes along with the party.
The next scene happens somewhere far, visible from the external conditions (like for example it is day there, while at the party place was night) and from the people in this scene (for example while Adam and Eve might be porcelaine figures, maybe blonds, or maybe japonese, the guys in the new scene are more like indians or pakistani.)
So these are a bunch of Mechanical Turks in a internet cafe like place in India (for example). They receive Adam's bug ticket. We can see one of them, or several doing various stuff on their not so modern computers, but one of them opens on his screen Adam's request.
We can see that the screen has two windows open, one is a REPL Lisp window, the other is a molecular simulation. (This is a hook for a technical audience, important as any hacker movie screenshot.)
On the Lisp REPL there is an error message. The Mechanical Turk fixes it, then runs a molecular simulation. It works.
He then opens a smell convertor. (Variant, he opens "Nozzle", which is just like Google page visually, he searches for a RNA like word, then he hits enter.) Job done.
The third scene is Adam bedroom. He sleeps, not at all concerned, something between a puppet and a child in his bed.
Travelling to a detail in his room, which looks alike the sniffer ring, only that it is a wifi router with a feather. Lights flicker and the feather begins to swosh.
Travelling to the health bracelet of Adam. Shows: "Bug request solved. Status: healty".
The night is quiet and peaceful. The sunrise begins. Adam dreams something nice.
End.
currymj
everyone already leaves DNA everywhere, so it doesn’t seem like a step change.
genetic privacy is a good thing but is utterly artificial, we have to create it if we want it.
arjie
I suppose you could try and see where I've been since I have my sequence publicly stored here https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu81A8CC
If nothing else, I'll serve as a cautionary tale against this if something happens to me as a result of having my DNA publicly available to all.
strangattractor
The Farnsworth Smell-O-Scope was based on this technology;)
kylehotchkiss
This sounds like a fun exercise of signal to noise ratio
dboreham
Mostly measles virus in red states, presumably.
tekla
We used to call them Hoovers 25 years ago. Just call them that again
If this tech becomes widespread and cheap, what are the privacy implications of being able to sequence human DNA floating in the air in any public or private space? It feels like a classic 'can we/should we' problem.