Genealogy DNA site used to catch murderer

p15574 · 27-04-2018 9:10am #1

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 · 27-04-2018 9:13am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:17am

Any chance of a link to the story?

p15574 · 27-04-2018 9:19am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:27am

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

Did he have his own DNA in the database?

p15574 · 27-04-2018 9:30am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:33am

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

Checkmate19 · 27-04-2018 9:35am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:38am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:39am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:42am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:43am

Definitely going to be watching developments with interest.

Peregrinus · 27-04-2018 9:46am

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 · 27-04-2018 2:19pm

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 · 27-04-2018 2:51pm

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 · 28-04-2018 10:32am

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 · 28-04-2018 11:02am

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 · 28-04-2018 4:41pm

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 · 30-04-2018 6:28pm

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 · 30-04-2018 9:21pm

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 · 30-04-2018 11:02pm

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 · 04-05-2018 4:09pm

Further interesting podcast discussion about this.

Waitsian · 04-05-2018 11:17pm

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 · 04-05-2018 11:24pm

mod9maple wrote: »

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

Me too

pedroeibar1 · 04-05-2018 11:43pm

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 · 05-05-2018 11:12pm

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 · 05-05-2018 11:20pm

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 · 06-05-2018 12:04am

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 · 06-05-2018 12:50am

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

srmf5 · 06-05-2018 6:35pm

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 · 06-05-2018 10:51pm

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.

Genealogy DNA site used to catch murderer

Comments