Genealogy DNA site used to catch murderer

p15574

It's great that he was caught and all that, but I wonder if there are any legal or ethical issues with this? Would this be the first known use of a website's DNA database for law enforcement purposes? Possible 'Big Brother' type future uses?

PirateShampoo

It's not just a issue right now but will be a massive issue for your future generations who might not even submit dna.

evolving_doors

Any chance of a link to the story?

p15574

evolving_doors wrote: »

Any chance of a link to the story?

It's in the post above, hyperlink under "this". Here it is again:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joseph-james-deangelo-golden-state-killer-suspect-genealogy-website/

pinkypinky

I'd like to know more about how they used it.

Did he have his own DNA in the database?

p15574

pinkypinky wrote: »

I'd like to know more about how they used it.

Did he have his own DNA in the database?

I'd say they had his DNA from a crime scene (blood or bodily fluids) and either submitted it as 'him' (probably unlikely as they use cheek swabs), or else did the DNA analysis and then uploaded it, as 'him' again, to, say, MyHeritage as coming from another website. You know the way you can import your results from other DNA websites to MyHeritage. Then they must have matched on cousins or something and used that to narrow down suspects.

pinkypinky

Well that would have dodgy ethics: you have to have the person's permission to put their DNA into those databases.

Checkmate19

Delighted they caught him obviously. But i reckon websites that track ancestors this way may see business down. They are going to have to disclose surely how they done this. I'd say they got a subpoena or something judicial to get the companies to allow to run his dna against their database. I would be shocked if his dna was on it and it was probably a relative and they went from there.

Checkmate19

Be interesting how this plays out in court if it does go to trial. They more than likely have got the right man and i'm delighted. Closure for the family's and one of the most evil men alive brought to justice. But i'd say there will be questions on the legalities of they way they have done this. Could they use this method to catch more. Because i'm sure as **** they will try.

Vetch

pinkypinky wrote: »

Well that would have dodgy ethics: you have to have the person's permission to put their DNA into those databases.

Depends on the jurisdiction but things like the detection, investigation of crime and national security would often override usual rules.

crossman47

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Delighted they caught him obviously. But i reckon websites that track ancestors this way may see business down. They are going to have to disclose surely how they done this. I'd say they got a subpoena or something judicial to get the companies to allow to run his dna against their database. I would be shocked if his dna was on it and it was probably a relative and they went from there.

I think thats right.They ran the DNA they had from the crime scene against the data base and so came up with a family that had links to the suspect. They then narrowed it down based on location, etc. He became their main suspecct and they got a sample of his DNA from a cigarette butt or such.

pinkypinky

Definitely going to be watching developments with interest.

Peregrinus

pinkypinky wrote: »

I'd like to know more about how they used it.

Did he have his own DNA in the database?

No, he didn't. But various of his relatives did, which meant that the police knew that the crime was committed by someone who was related to several identifiable people. Which of course is a pretty small pool of suspects.

Which means, yeah, there are some genuine issues here. Obviously I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for a serial rapist/killer who got caught because some of his relatives put their DNA into this database (for genealogical research purposes, presumably). But next time round it could be you, getting refused life insurance, or getting denied a job, because of inferences drawn from DNA contributed by family members to a database such as this.

pinkypinky

Article in the Irish Times now which confirms that law enforcement did obtain a DNA sample from old evidence and put it into a database. Ancestry and 23andMe have denied it was them but they use saliva samples anyway. FTDNA is a cheek swab.

pjproby

Gedmatch is the site the police used.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/26/17288532/golden-state-killer-east-area-rapist-genealogy-websites-dna-genetic-investigation

DunnoKidz

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, he didn't. But various of his relatives did, which meant that the police knew that the crime was committed by someone who was related to several identifiable people. Which of course is a pretty small pool of suspects.

Which means, yeah, there are some genuine issues here. Obviously I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for a serial rapist/killer who got caught because some of his relatives put their DNA into this database (for genealogical research purposes, presumably). But next time round it could be you, getting refused life insurance, or getting denied a job, because of inferences drawn from DNA contributed by family members to a database such as this.

I couldn't agree more... (nor say it better Peregrinus)

Vetch

DunnoKidz wrote: »

Not only crime - there have been several articles, over the years, warning that our desire to find our roots is being exploited.
DNA harvested (under a wholesome guise), explicitly to be sold to the (any) highest bidder, ad nauseum.
Read on...

What The Golden State Killer Case Means For Your Genetic Privacy ("GEDmatch's clauses allow them to change their policy as they choose")

Ancestry Takes DNA Ownership Rights From Customers And Their Relatives

Genetic Test Could Allow Ancestry To Exploit You

Ancestry.Com Is Quietly Transforming Itself Into A Medical Research Juggernaut

The real kicker is, it matters not whether you personally adhere to the strictest privacy agreement (not only due to their policy change loopholes), since they are willing to use other peoples/relations DNA expressly against you, without your consent. As the articles' suggest, this extends far beyond law enforcement - the insurance industry is potentially big business for DNA companies -> and that can have a dramatic effect on those who have (or have family who have) donated DNA "to the cause."

Yes agreed, just mentioned crime as it was relevant in the context of the thread. Here's Facebook wanting to get involved in medical records:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/facebook-building-8-explored-data-sharing-agreement-with-hospitals.html

There was another thread on here the other day about free DNA testing with one of the genealogy companies for adopted people who want to find their birth families. If it helps some people, good, but I'd wonder about this also.

pjproby

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/golden-state-killer-2018-case-solved-identity-genetic-genealogy-websites-dna-joseph-james-deangelo-a8326946.html

More information on that story here

Ipso

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, he didn't. But various of his relatives did, which meant that the police knew that the crime was committed by someone who was related to several identifiable people. Which of course is a pretty small pool of suspects.

Which means, yeah, there are some genuine issues here. Obviously I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for a serial rapist/killer who got caught because some of his relatives put their DNA into this database (for genealogical research purposes, presumably). But next time round it could be you, getting refused life insurance, or getting denied a job, because of inferences drawn from DNA contributed by family members to a database such as this.

With gedmatch something like that could theoretically happen currently.
I consider what happened with the Golden State killer a necessary evil under exceptional circumstances.

pinkypinky

This post from Roberta Estes is the detailed journalism I was waiting for.

Her blog is worth following if you are interested in DNA testing for genealogy.

VirginiaB

Thank you for the link to the most informative Roberta Estes article.

The Boston Globe had the most complete brief article I have seen on this. It was GedMatch, completely public. They uploaded the perp's DNA from one of the crime scenes, found some relatives and quickly narrowed it down to several possible relatives, not on GedMatch. They also had a detailed profile of the perp, not emphasized enough in most artlcles. Among other matters, police thought the perp was likely either police or military or had been for reasons too long to describe here. And he was. Interestingly, as soon as DNA began to be used in criminal investigations, the crimes stopped.

This is definitely going to affect genealogical DNA testing, at least in the short run. Ancestry sent out a new detailed privacy policy just today, altho none of the paid commercial sites were involved in this case. News articles say that at least in the US, a court order is required for them to supply someone's DNA results. Also interesting, way down in the privacy policy, Ancestry says it sees and saves the sites you visit immediately before and after you visit Ancestry. So be careful out there.

pinkypinky

Further interesting podcast discussion about this.

Waitsian

VirginiaB wrote: »

Also interesting, way down in the privacy policy, Ancestry says it sees and saves the sites you visit immediately before and after you visit Ancestry. So be careful out there.

Whaaat?! How is that even possible? I find that very hard to believe.

KathleenGrant

mod9maple wrote: »

Whaaat?! How is that even possible? I find that very hard to believe.

Me too

pedroeibar1

mod9maple wrote: »

Whaaat?! How is that even possible? I find that very hard to believe.

VirginiaB is correct, collecting that data is quite simple, Ancestry do it and it is listed in their conditions. (No. 4 HERE)

The really interesting thing about this case is people’s reaction and the impact it will have on public awareness of data privacy. I’m always amazed by the stuff people place online without a thought – Facebook and LinkedIn, Twitter, and WhatsApp groups. Look at the number of people who put their family trees online, open for all to see. It is simple for retailers to build personal profiles using travel loyalty cards, petrol cards, store cards. With the latter, ever notice that the coupons you get with a statement are specific – for products you never or very rarely buy and often are for a named brand when you buy an ‘own brand’. Most people already have a huge data footprint, arguably it’s far bigger and more damaging than any DNA listing.

With regard to those comments on insurance, the insurance aspect of genetic testing is a much more complex issue. In Ireland it is an offence for insurers (and employers) to gain access to a person’s genetic test results. (I think it’s covered in the Disability Act 2005.) Alongside that, life insurers have always been entitled to ask about a person’s existing medical condition, lifestyle and the family medical history. If unhappy they can – and do - decline to quote. However, insurance is a contract entered into ‘in the utmost good faith’ meaning that details cannot be hidden. So, for example, if you are diagnosed with a terminal cancer and then rush out to buy life insurance, the chances are that the insurer will not pay out. Some insurance companies ask and require full and complete disclosure for policy coverage amounts above a certain threshold. BUT – and this is where it is AFAIK still a grey area – if you simply buy a ‘predictive’ test i.e. one that shows the likelihood of you getting cancer, you are not obliged to disclose the results to a life insurer. The rules differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction – e.g. in Germany predictive kits are banned, in the UK the insurance industry has a self-imposed moratorium against using predictive genetic information until 2020(?); in the US they have GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act since 2008.

There are also positives – many lives have been saved by predictive genetics – e.g. early diagnosis of those carrying the ‘bad’ BRCA gene.

Earnest

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

VirginiaB is correct, collecting that data is quite simple, Ancestry do it and it is listed in their conditions. (No. 4 HERE)

The really interesting thing about this case is people’s reaction and the impact it will have on public awareness of data privacy. I’m always amazed by the stuff people place online without a thought – Facebook and LinkedIn, Twitter, and WhatsApp groups. Look at the number of people who put their family trees online, open for all to see.

Of the two online family tree systems I am familiar with, ancestry blocks the names of living people and geni requires you to know the name already. I am always puzzled at the number of people on ancestry who make their family trees private. The amount of information that can be gleaned from one's ancestors is surely rather limited.

Lackey

Checkmate19 wrote: »

. Could they use this method to catch more. Because i'm sure as **** they will try.

I think I read on the unsolved mysteries thread that it has been reported that they will use the same technology to find the zodiac killer.

Hermy

Earnest wrote: »

I am always puzzled at the number of people on ancestry who make their family trees private. The amount of information that can be gleaned from one's ancestors is surely rather limited.

Well there's all my hard work and research which I'm tired of seeing people cutting and pasting to their own trees for one.

KildareFan

also... alleged murderer..... he hasn't been found guilty

srmf5

Earnest wrote: »

I am always puzzled at the number of people on ancestry who make their family trees private. The amount of information that can be gleaned from one's ancestors is surely rather limited.

Well I keep mine private for a few reasons. The main one is that it contains some sensitive information that I don't want relatives coming across that they didn't know about their family. I have no problem with them uncovering it themselves but I don't want them to find it out from my tree. I have already seen a relative's tree that had a cause of death for an a relative (their grandfather) as being something completely different to what it actually was. Another one is that I was in contact with someone trying to see if we were connected. I gave them the information that I had and they wrongly linked their family to my ancestors. I am now seeing this false information on other trees as well. I want to prevent false information being spread as much as possible. That's just two examples. I have no problem giving information from my tree to someone looking for it if they contact me. I've also given many people access to my tree.

tabbey

srmf5 wrote: »

I have already seen a relative's tree that had a cause of death for an a relative (their grandfather) as being something completely different to what it actually was. Another one is that I was in contact with someone trying to see if we were connected. I gave them the information that I had and they wrongly linked their family to my ancestors.

Sometimes the cause of death discrepancy is due to varying sources.

The person who gives the details to the office in Glasnevin, may state the deceased died from a chest infection, while the informant to the registrar may say died of senile decay. The causes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both may be true in their own way.

It is always best to check all available sources and analyse the possible interpretations.

As for the other issue, I entirely agree. There is so much sloppy research,many people are ancestor collectors rather than genealogists or family historians.

srmf5

tabbey wrote: »

Sometimes the cause of death discrepancy is due to varying sources.

The person who gives the details to the office in Glasnevin, may state the deceased died from a chest infection, while the informant to the registrar may say died of senile decay. The causes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both may be true in their own way.

It is always best to check all available sources and analyse the possible interpretations.

Not in this case. The person's tree was based on passed down information. The person was clearly told a cause of death that wasn't true since it would be less upsetting than the truth.

Gobble deGook

pinkypinky wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times now which confirms that law enforcement did obtain a DNA sample from old evidence and put it into a database. Ancestry and 23andMe have denied it was them but they use saliva samples anyway. FTDNA is a cheek swab.

True it does raise data protection issues
And in reality the cops uncovered relatives of the murderer who were able to point them in the right direction - so not a direct 'hit'
But uncovering such a murderer from way back was a great success and worth it

Earnest

srmf5 wrote: »

Well I keep mine private for a few reasons. The main one is that it contains some sensitive information that I don't want relatives coming across that they didn't know about their family. I have no problem with them uncovering it themselves but I don't want them to find it out from my tree. I have already seen a relative's tree that had a cause of death for an a relative (their grandfather) as being something completely different to what it actually was. Another one is that I was in contact with someone trying to see if we were connected. I gave them the information that I had and they wrongly linked their family to my ancestors. I am now seeing this false information on other trees as well. I want to prevent false information being spread as much as possible. That's just two examples. I have no problem giving information from my tree to someone looking for it if they contact me. I've also given many people access to my tree.

I quite understand that in some cases there can be sensitive information. But I cannot see the point in withholding information on the grounds that false information can be spread. By withholding true information the false information will spread: people will not realise that there are two versions of the story and judge which seems better.

pinkypinky

If you want to talk about misinformation in family trees online, please open a new thread.

Let's keep this one for the Golden State Killer case.

pinkypinky

Blog from John Grenham on the subject too.

He's not update to on the legislation re: accessing genetic material that Pedro quoted above either!

pedroeibar1

pinkypinky wrote: »

Blog from John Grenham on the subject too.

He's not update to on the legislation re: accessing genetic material that Pedro quoted above either!

There is a very blue moon when I might know something more than JG.
It is no surprise that there is confusion/misinformation as we have seen a lot of nonsense and ill-informed comment in the media about this. JG does make some very valid points though and I fully agree with two of his key statements (a) “I have made the DNA of hundreds of related people also available for searching. I consented, they didn’t” and (b) “ the cat is out of the bag”

With regard to (a) he hits the nail on the head – under GDPR anybody can now write to any of the geno sites and say ‘I don’t want my details on your database, I did not give my consent to cousin X to put them there so please delete them.’ (The fact that some are hidden does not matter, the geno companies have them as datacontrollers.) Also, anyone after May 25 can write to any geno company and ask for a copy of all their details held on file and if unhappy ask for them to be deleted. Le chat est bien sorti du sac!

p15574

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

under GDPR anybody can now write to any of the geno sites and say ‘I don’t want my details on your database, I did not give my consent to cousin X to put them there so please delete them.’ (The fact that some are hidden does not matter, the geno companies have them as datacontrollers.) Also, anyone after May 25 can write to any geno company and ask for a copy of all their details held on file and if unhappy ask for them to be deleted.[/I]

Even if those websites are hosted in the U.S., and thus operate under American, and not European law?

KildareFan

<With regard to (a) he hits the nail on the head – under GDPR anybody can now write to any of the geno sites and say ‘I don’t want my details on your database, I did not give my consent to cousin X to put them there so please delete them.’ (The fact that some are hidden does not matter, the geno companies have them as datacontrollers.) Also, anyone after May 25 can write to any geno company and ask for a copy of all their details held on file and if unhappy ask for them to be deleted. Le chat est bien sorti du sac!>

Sounds like fun, but I'm sensing a chilling effect on genealogy research already.

I don't put up details of living relatives on these sites; Ancestry doesn't publish the names of living relatives on the website, but obviously has whatever details are put up by the tree owner.

However, is it possible that someone can say take my mother's details down, even if she is deceased, because part of my personal information relates to my mother....

I'm harvesting all the information I can offline so when they pull the plug....

pedroeibar1

p15574 wrote: »

Even if those websites are hosted in the U.S., and thus operate under American, and not European law?

If the US company has operations in the EU it will have to comply with GDPR. Ancestry is a typical example of a US company in the EU.

The situation is not exactly clear on US-EU legalities because the Safe Harbour legislation was struck down in 2015 by the European Court of Justice. In brief, that case was taken by an Austrian (Schrems) who argued that transfers of personal data from Facebook Ireland to Facebook in the US should be stopped because of Edward Snowden’s revelations on the surveillance antics of the US NSA (National Security Agency). He won.

Secondly, the failed Safe Harbor legislation was replaced by the ‘EU-U.S. Privacy Shield’ which in turn effectively got thrown out of the pram by Trump when in he was upgrading anti-immigration legislation - ‘Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information’.
All that is now being contested on both sides of the pond - there is a US Judicial Redress Act that supposedly rectifies this but many do not accept that and legally it remains a grey area.

But in relation to Ancestry Ireland, you pay them a few euro (a nominal sum, about a fiver I think) to see what they have on you, then ask them to delete if you are unhappy and they must comply. Nutters and Cranks’ paradise.

dubhthach

FTDNA have rolled out fairly comprehensive GDPR rules, even though like most sites the bulk of the database is made up of US testers. Here's a copy/paste of a recent email (some of formatting obviously lost)

Dear Group Project Administrators,

As we previously shared, we are preparing to meet the requirements of the GDPR, the new data protection law coming into force on May 25, 2018. Today, we are sharing more about important changes that may impact your Group Projects and other updates in preparation for the GDPR. This email requires your attention and action even if your Group Project Members are not based in the European Economic Area (EEA).

We will continue to update you as we make updates in preparation for the GDPR.
GAP Guidelines

The new GAP guidelines will be published soon. Administrators must sign in to GAP, read, and agree to them within 90 days from the date they are published. At the end of 90 days, those administrators who have not read and agreed to the updated guidelines will have their administrator access suspended.

Action: Please sign in and read and agree to the updated GAP Guidelines within 90 days.
Group Project Format Updates

All projects will be switched to the myGroups format.

Additional details:
Group Projects already using the myGroups format that do not have their activity feed turned on or have it set to “members only” will not be impacted by this.
For existing projects not currently using the myGroups format, the activity feed will default to inactive when the changes occur, but you may turn it on at any time after the new format is implemented.
The activity feed for new projects will default to “members only,” but you may change this setting at any time.

Please note: When the activity feed is set to be publicly visible, you will only be visible to signed-in members.

Action: Please sign in to your Group Projects and verify your activity feed settings.
Other Group Project Updates

Coding region sharing. The option to make the mtDNA Coding Region viewable to Group Project Administrators will no longer be project-by-project. Testers can share with all Group Project Administrators or none at all.

No Copy Protection. All Genetic reports in GAP now have No Copy Protection prohibiting anyone from being able to click and copy any report or data in GAP.

Reports available for download. All reports available for download in GAP are updated to reflect member privacy settings.

Action: If you have an externally-hosted site, you need to update the Y-DNA and mtDNA results right away to reflect all changes, and regularly do so thereafter.

Recap of Previous Email

Group Project Administrator first and last name is required. All Group Project Administrators are required to display their first and last name on the Group Project page allowing members ability to know who has access to their information.

To update your name, please: (1) sign in to GAP, (2) go to the My Account tab, (3) and enter your name on the Contact Information page.

Please note: If you are known by a nickname or initials instead of a first name, for example, “A.J. Foyt” is acceptable instead of Anthony Joseph Foyt, or “Gussie Busch” will work instead of “Augustus Busch.” An alias such as “Cat Lady” is not acceptable...sorry!

Group Project Members leaving a project. When Group Project Members leave a Group Project, an email is sent notifying Group Project Administrators of this departure. Previously, we allowed Administrators the ability to unsubscribe from these emails, but this will no longer be an option. When a Group Project Member chooses to leave a Group Project, you must remove any information about them you have posted internally and externally as well as any information from files you have downloaded.

Group Project Administrator access. Group Project Members will have the ability to choose the level of access for each Group Project Administrator with access to their results in their Project Preferences.

View Group Project Administrator access levels and their specific details here.


Further details about Group Project Administrator access:
If you previously added the kit as “Full Access” through GAP using the member-supplied kit number and password, you should still have Full Access. Otherwise, you should have Limited Access.
Members joining after the update will default to “Group Project Access,” originally called No Access. Unless a member changes their settings, administrators will not be able to click through to the member’s myFTDNA dashboard page.
If you add a new Group Administrator or Co-administrator to your project, the new person will default to “Group Project Access” unless members update their settings to allow Limited or Full Access.

We appreciate your continued support.

Sincerely,
FamilyTreeDNA & The Group Projects Team

When somebody leaves a FTDNA project now you get a mention of GDPR in the leaving email.

Dear Group Project Administrator,

The below member has chosen to leave the following Group Project.

If you maintain a website not hosted by FamilyTreeDNA, please remove the member's publicly shown information within 30 days as required by the European protection law known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Group Project: IrelandHeritage
Member Name: <redacted>
Kit #:<redacted>
The Reason for Leaving: None

We appreciate your cooperation,

Family Tree DNA
http://www.FamilyTreeDNA.com
"History Unearthed Daily"



Please note: GDPR requires that an individual be able to request that their data be removed, known as either “right of erasure” or the “right to be forgotten.” When a member leaves a project, the member will be informed that if they provided the administrator with any information that the member wants to have removed from any website, other than the project results page at FamilyTreeDNA, they need to contact the administrator(s) directly. This includes any administrator pages where information is added by administrators at FamilyTreeDNA including results, activity feed, overview, goals, background or news.
This message contains informational content. Please do not reply to this message. Replies to this message will not be read.

As can you see they are basically enforcing GDPR across their entire userbase so as to avoid problems, you could technically have a project made up only of US citizens and the above rules would still apply.

pinkypinky

I don't want this thread to derail into a discussion of GDPR please. We can have a separate thread for that.

dubhthach

Ok we now have a second case where a suspect has been arrested for a double murder in 1987 using Gedmatch!

https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/cook-van-cuylenborg-murder-dna-genealogy?utm_term=.mr5NqONM8#.loVqNKqkx



News Conference here -- well worth watching/listening to on methodology used:

https://www.facebook.com/KIRO7Seattle/videos/2089682751051467/

dubhthach

The NY Times have some articles on both this plus on an earlier cold case where the killer had died in prison a number of years ago:

"Technique Used to Find Golden State Killer Leads to a Suspect in 1987 Murders"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/science/ancestry-site-arrest-washington.html

"The Cold Case That Inspired the ‘Golden State Killer’ Detective to Try Genealogy"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/golden-state-killer-genealogy.html

tabbey

A number of cold cases have been re-opened in Ireland in recent years.

Are these connected to DNA evidence?

L1011

tabbey wrote: »

A number of cold cases have been re-opened in Ireland in recent years.

Are these connected to DNA evidence?

Some of them would be down to DNA being now recoverable; although I'm not sure we use low copy number techniques which have been found to be not entirely reliable so far.

dubhthach

Well the case that has gotten the most publicity recently is the 'Kerry babies' case, in that situation it would seem they have a full genome (from tissue samples kept on ice), as a result they could technically use the same methodology as has been used in the states with these recent cases (eg. produce a pseudo-Ancestry/23andme data file and upload to Gedmatch). The major issue in sense as L1011 points to is that most criminal DNA database (such as CODIS) are based off STR tests's which is teeny-weeny bit of genetic data in context of your full genome. The press conference on recent Washington state case mentions this, it's only when they had the full genome and were able to used methods tied to autosomal DNA analysis that the got a hit. The suspect wasn't in any criminal database.

The important thing is that the cost of doing a full genome sequence has fallen off a cliff, the first human genome which was published back in 2003 cost a couple billion dollars. Now a days the cost of a full genome has fallen to under ~$1,000. In another 2-3 years ye probably be down at sub $100/per genome tests. As a result it will be possible to collect huge amounts of potential information from fairly minimum samples (at either crime-scenes or other contexts)

BowWow

"Hi xxxxxx,

As you may know, we at GEDmatch recently instituted a change of policy regarding law enforcement (LE) use of our site. We now require specific approval from each user who wishes to have their information available for LE use. If permission is not given there is no change in user ability to use GEDmatch for genealogical purposes. We have also redefined the definition of violent crimes in our Terms of Service to better fit the national standard established by the FBI. This email will bring you up to date on these changes.

Most importantly, we wish to make it clear that we strongly support law enforcement. The use of genetic genealogy for providing leads in violent crimes has been called the “Biggest crime-fighting breakthrough in decades” Its incredible success to date has been due almost entirely to the GEDmatch database. We encourage users who approve of LE use to “opt-in” (make their information available for use in catching violent criminals). Those who opt-in may never know if their information has been used to catch a murderer, rapist or otherwise dangerous person. One reason police do not contact users whose information might be used to solve cases is that it runs the risk of alerting a potential suspect. It is also important to note that LE does not have any special access to GEDmatch. They simply use the system and its features in the exact same manner as any member of the public but are limited to seeing only matches with opted-in kits.

There may be some users of GEDmatch who do not wish to make their information available to LE. These persons do not need to take any action; their previously uploaded kits are automatically “opted-out.” They can use GEDmatch as they always have and their information remains invisible to LE.

It is important to understand the role played by genetic genealogy in solving cases. Genetic genealogy does NOT identify suspects. It points to a complicated process involving many people, that if successful will result in identifying persons of interest. Most cases that do not go cold start with persons of interest. Genetic genealogy simply puts police in the position most cases start; it provides a person or persons of interest where none existed previously. Once LE has a person of interest it is up to them to use traditional investigative techniques to identify and arrest a suspect.

We have clarified our definition of violent crimes because the original definition was not consistent with the definition in general use by the FBI and others. We learned this when a 71 year old church organist was attacked and apparently left for dead as she practiced alone in church. There was no known motive for the attack other than possibly the thrill of doing it. There are those who felt that this did not fit our definition of a violent crime.

We changed our Terms to require an affirmative action by the kit owner to allow information to be visible to LE because we believe it is the right thing to do. Because there are those who do not wish to have their information used for LE purposes, we believe the ethically responsible position is to require users to specifically agree to the LE use of their data. This was a very difficult decision to make because of the temporary immediate impact it will have.

We are concerned about the handicap our actions have placed on solving cold cases. There are millions of victims, including family and friends of violent crime victims and unidentified remains who need some sense of closure. We have a fast start to rebuilding the LE portion of the GEDmatch database. We encourage everyone who has had a genetic DNA test done to consider helping to build the database for law enforcement use as quickly as possible.

The GEDmatch Management"

pinkypinky

Yes, that's been up a while.

There's a huge row going on about this stuff in the GG community. Lines drawn and all!

www.legalgenealogist.com has some good posts as does Debbie Kennett - https://cruwys.blogspot.com/