[krick]

This is interesting. But can I know ahead which genes will be tested? Is it always the same set?

Basically, I'm asking: is this really true? Given a drop of your blood I can frame you today for anything plausible for under a $1000? It's kind of difficult to believe.

[bradknowles]

Yup, it's always the same SNPs.

They can only test a relatively small group of SNPs, and they chose the ones that (at the time) believed differed the most from one person to the next, so as to maximize the probability of being able to distinguish between individuals.

But if you've got everyone's DNA, then you can calculate those SNPs for everyone, and then easily create kits that would allow you to frame anyone you want just by leaving behind samples of "their" DNA at the crime scene of choice.

[krick]

I feel like I'm asking something you already answered, but just to make sure: this implies, that to frame specifically you I don't need everyone's DNA, I just need a sample of yours, right? And if I understand correctly, DNA evidence is treated with quite a respect in court?

So, if I really can make a sample of "fake DNA" (that will be indistinguishable from the "real" for forensics purposes) for a couple hundreds dollars, I really can frame anyone I know for anything (right now!), because getting a sample of their DNA isn't really that difficult.

It doesn't quite add up in my head, because if it's so simple, why the courts would even consider it hard evidence?

[Obi_Juan_Kenobi]

DNA fingerprinting does not utilize SNPs; it uses RFLPs.

[DoctorOetker]

if you have the drop of blood, you don't even need to synthesize anything, you just use PCR to amplify the DNA

[NotSammyHagar]

it's true, there have already been demonstrations of this.