FTDNA database now wide open to law enforcement
The Legal Genealogist has long been one of the biggest fans of the DNA testing company, Family Tree DNA (FTDNA), part of the Gene by Gene companies of Houston, Texas.
A company established by genealogists for genealogists, and the only major DNA testing company today that offers YDNA and mitochondrial DNA testing for genealogy, FTDNA has long been my company of choice for personal and family DNA testing for genealogical research.
But a story that broke yesterday may have brought that enthusiasm to a screeching halt.
The story, first published in Buzzfeed, reported that FTDNA has quietly, without any advance warning to customers and without any notice being sent afterwards to customers, changed its terms of service to allow law enforcement agencies access to customers’ test results — and that such access has already taken place.1
I’ve done my own checking on this and — sigh — that’s pretty much an accurate report of what’s happened here.
And, as a result, it surely appears, the floodgates are now wide open to the police.
The prior version of FTDNA’s terms of use stated that users were not permitted to use its services “for any law enforcement purposes, forensic examinations, criminal investigations, and/or similar purposes without the required legal documentation and written permission from FamilyTreeDNA.”2 In that context, “required legal documentation” appeared to mean an appropriate court order or subpoena, issued with appropriate judicial oversight, especially when read in conjunction with the FTDNA Privacy Statement’s promise that personal information would be disclosed only “if we believe it is reasonably necessary to … comply with a valid legal process (e.g., subpoenas, warrants)…”3
As of today — and as of some unspecified point in December 2018 — the terms of use allow law enforcement to use the FTDNA database to try to find matches for any “DNA Sample submitted or Genetic Information supplied (that) was obtained and authorized by law enforcement to either: (1) identify a perpetrator of a violent crime, as defined in 18 U.S. Code § (924)(e)(2)(B), against another individual, including sexual assault, rape, and homicide; or (2) identify the remains of a deceased individual.”4
There is no date on the page showing exactly when the terms of use changed; an email from FTDNA’s publicists states: “In May of 2018, in response to GDPR (note: the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation), FTDNA changed its Terms of Service. Those changes included law enforcement use which was broadly defined. Customers were informed of the changes to the Terms of Service at that time. In December of 2018, that paragraph was amended to more narrowly focus those restrictions to define violent crimes.”5
In announcing the new law enforcement access to the FTDNA service, a press release from FTDNA acknowledged the changed terms of use and stated that:
After receiving inquiries from the FBI, (FTDNA founder and president Bennett) Greenspan found himself asking whether, as a trusted guardian of consumer DNA data and consumer privacy according to U.S. News and World Reports, FamilyTreeDNA in good conscience and without violating consumers’ trust could help the FBI identify the remains of deceased persons or perpetrators of violent crimes (as defined in 18 U.S. Code § (924) (e) (2) (B)), saving lives and preventing others from becoming victims?”
“We came to the conclusion,” says Greenspan, “that if law enforcement created accounts, with the same level of access to the database as the standard FamilyTreeDNA user, they would not be violating user privacy and confidentiality. In order for the FBI to obtain any additional information, they would have to provide a valid court-order such as a subpoena or search warrant.”
Working with law enforcement to process DNA samples from the scene of a violent crime or identifying an unknown victim does not change our policy never to sell or barter our customers’ private information with a third party. Our policy remains fully intact and in force.”
As specified in FamilyTreeDNA’s Terms of Service – law enforcement can only receive information not already accessible to the standard user by providing FamilyTreeDNA with valid legal process, such as a subpoena or a search warrant.6
And, the press release goes on, DNA samples generated in criminal investigations can be uploaded to “all public DNA databases, one of which belongs to FamilyTreeDNA, by law enforcement officials in their effort to build the suspect’s or deceased individual’s family tree.”7
FTDNA’s publicity team explains today that: “FTDNA has not given access to law enforcement that is not already available to any member of the public worldwide. We are still promising privacy, unless there is a match of some sort, and we are served with a valid court ordered subpoena or search warrant. What we are reporting is that law enforcement is uploading samples and will continue to do so. It does not effect us genealogists unless we are protecting killers or rapists in our families.” 8
Now… that sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? After all, since May 2018 GEDmatch.com has been allowing access to its DNA database to investigate cases of rape and murder,9 — and who can be against solving heinous cases of rape and murder, right?
There are just a few problems here.
1. Until that press release yesterday, and the explanations today, nobody but nobody who tested with FTDNA would have read those May terms of use as allowing law enforcement access to the FTDNA database without a warrant or other court order. Maybe we should have, but considering the changes were to comply with the GDPR, and the GDPR flatly prohibits processing of genetic data unless express consent is given for a specific purpose, it’s perfectly reasonable that we didn’t read the changes that way.
2. Until that press release yesterday, nobody but nobody who tested with FTDNA would have considered the paid company service to be a “public DNA database.” The DNA-testing-company-owned-and-run databases have always been thought of as proprietary and private, and thus very different from non-commercial open-access databases or registered-user databases like GEDmatch. Defining company databases as “public DNA databases” is a game-changer in a fundamental way.
3. The information a standard user has access to can be fairly substantial information that can and typically does include a user’s full name, email address, and family tree data, and — depending on the type of test taken — matching autosomal segment data, YDNA haplogroup and markers and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup and characteristics. Much of that isn’t open to “any member of the public worldwide” but only to customers with customer log-in identifications. And, of course, a law enforcement agency isn’t a standard FamilyTreeDNA user, using the data for the same reasons as that standard user.
4. The definition of allowable law enforcement uses adopted by FTDNA is in no way limited to rape and murder. Using 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B) as a definition allows any law enforcement agency anywhere to use the database to investigate any “violent felony” — defined as “any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device”. The definition reaches any crime involving “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another … or … conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”10
In other words, law enforcement can use the FTDNA database to investigate just about any felony anywhere under any circumstances even if no-one was actually harmed. While the press release and other comments have spoken only about the FBI, and only highlight cases involving rape or murder, there’s no such limit in the terms of use whatsoever.
The floodgates have been opened to almost unlimited police use of data collected solely for genealogical purposes, without the informed consent of users, and without any realistic prospect of gaining informed consent, since so many FTDNA test-takers who were early adopters of this technology are now deceased. Users who are in a position to decide for themselves can only prevent this use of their data in the database by deleting their accounts or opting out of matching — which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of testing with FTDNA.
The Fourth Amendment, protecting people against unreasonable searches and seizures, has pretty much been written out of genealogical DNA testing now. No judge will ever be asked to review what the police intend to do with this information before they get access to it. With the way the court system works, it can’t even be challenged in a criminal case resulting from an identification using FTDNA data: a criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy in DNA left at a crime scene; the defendant can’t raise the privacy rights of other FTDNA customers in their data; and those other customers have no voice (“standing” in the words of the law) to be heard in the criminal case.
Frankly, I’m flummoxed — downright gobsmacked. To say that this “does not effect us genealogists unless we are protecting killers or rapists in our families” is like saying we shouldn’t care about keeping police out of our houses unless we’re hiding evidence of crime there.
At one time here in America, we thought that privacy existed whether or not our homes, papers or effects might contain evidence the police might be interested in — and whether or not we might have crime suspects in our family trees … or in our DNA match lists.
Apparently, not any more.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Opening the DNA floodgates,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 1 Feb 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed (date)).
SOURCES
- Salvador Hernandez, “One Of The Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working With The FBI,” Buzzfeed, posted 31 Jan 2019 (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ : accessed 1 Feb 2019). ↩
- December 2018 version, Paragraph 6(B)(xii), “Your Use of the Services: Requirements for Using the Services,” in “Terms of Service,” FamilyTreeDNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/ : accessed 1 Feb 2019). ↩
- Paragraph 5D, “How FamilyTreeDNA shares your information: For Legal or Regulatory Process” in “FamilyTreeDNA Privacy Statement”, FamilyTreeDNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/legal/privacy-statement). ↩
- Current version, Paragraph 6(B)(xii), “Your Use of the Services: Requirements for Using the Services,” in “Terms of Service,” FamilyTreeDNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/ : accessed 1 Feb 2019). ↩
- Hapner Hart Media to Judy G. Russell, email, 1 Feb 2019. ↩
- “Pioneers in Direct-to-Consumer DNA Test Kits Work with F.B.I. to Catch Killers,” FamilyTreeDNA Press Release via Harper Hart Media, 31 Jan 2019, received by email 1 Feb 2019. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Hapner Hart Media to Judy G. Russell, email, 1 Feb 2019. ↩
- “Terms of Service and Privacy Policy: Raw DNA Data Provided to GEDmatch,” revised 20 May 2018, GEDmatch (https://www.gedmatch.com/ : accessed 1 Feb 2019). ↩
- See 18 U.S.C. 924. ↩
Do you think contacting FTDNA (many,many people contacting FTDNA) might impact this? And do you have an email address for FTDNA and/or Bennett?
I have no idea what might impact this decision. There is a contact page at the FTDNA website if you choose to speak out: https://www.familytreedna.com/contact
Thank you for your analysis. Always appreciate your thoughts on these issues. I have opted out of matching over due to concern over this issue. Is there anything else we can do to save genetic genealogy?
The thing that saddens me the most is there is no competition for YDNA and mtDNA testing. Not to mention having paid to have my privacy violated.
This changes everything … I was thinking about using mtDNA, but now …..
I am very, very shocked. I’ve been defending genetic genealogy in several comments sections as the news filled with these recent cold case revelations, plus ongoing fears of building DNA databases for nefarious purposes. Technically my data is a transfer from another company, so I was only there for matching. But I’m really not sure what to do for the deceased relative’s data I manage who tested with FTDNA.
I even checked my email in case I missed a TOS update from the company, as I actually do pay attention to those things (thanks in large part to reading this site). Nothing I could find. I was literally about to purchase mtDNA…maybe based on a sale…but probably not now.
Well expressed, Judy. I have a couple additional thoughts.
1. Under my understanding of the terms of service a subscriber must provide his real name, an email address, and consent of some kind. He/she would be in violation of FTDNA’s terms if he used a false name (separate from any alias for public display), or didn’t give whatever consent is required. Prior to this announcement that meant that the only was law enforcement could access the database was either through a court order or by faking one or all of those terms since clearly they aren’t the source of the suspect dna, don’t know his name, and haven’t his consent. Therefore LE could not access the larger database for any of the many types of tests. LE could, of course, do what Parabon is doing by creating a compatible sample from their suspect and upload it to FTDNA, paying a fee for additional services. The same TOS proscriptions apply however and LE would be in violation. So technically they previously had “normal subscriber access” but they would have to use subterfuge to gain it. Greenspan is being disingenuous if he says otherwise.
Second point: FTDNA is now willing to test samples provided by LE. Perhaps they always did that through their other divisions/companies/whatever, but presumably those samples were not added to the consumer database. Now they are doing exactly that – mixing the two businesses and, again, claiming no actual change in policy. Furthermore if I understand the announcement correctly it appear they are tailoring their test offerings specifically to LE requirements.
Third point: Apparently they are not just including autosomal dna but also Y and mitochondrial. As we know, neither of those are reliable within a genealogical time frame. If LE uses those results it will require considerably more resources (effort/time/money) to accomplish their goals. I am struggling for any reason that these should be offered to LE unless the test results have information hidden in them that is not currently available to the consumer.
Forth point: Motivation. FTDNA is likely on a financial slide – market share is everything and Ancestry (and, to a lesser degree, 23andMe) certainly eclipses FTDNA as far as new autosomal consumers except for the small number that want to test everywhere or want Y and/or mt-dna tests. This change may be an effort to prop up their business or make it attractive for a takeover (Parabon?) or perhaps to convert it out of the consumer market entirely. Or maybe they are thinking of becoming a competitor to Parabon in the LE marketplace. In any case what they may have just done is nearly destroy any potential future growth. The backlash, I fear, is just starting.
“Forth point: Motivation. FTDNA is likely on a financial slide”
That’s my feeling as well, they need to increase there revenue.
They have build a decent database, now time to sell its use. And nothing better than becoming a government contractor.
Now I must say I like MyHeritage TOS.
“It is our policy to resist law enforcement inquiries to protect the privacy of our customers”
FTDNA instead is jumping to bed with them.
Mouth gaping…
I am going to be in the minority on this one, but I have come to the conclusion that in this day and age, my DNA is no more private than my fingerprints. I feel a frisson of pleasure each time that I read of a child case murder or sexual assault being solved through DNA identification (including those based on genealogical DNA records). I admit that these records are being used without the express consent of the contributing parties, but I think that in this case, the lack of such consent is trumped (no pun intended) by the public good.
“The end justifies the means” has never been a good excuse for ignoring privacy rules or things like constitutional protections. And broad-based permissions to law enforcement invite the use of these investigative techniques for things that are not malum in se (wrong because they’re just wrong like murder and rape) but rather malum prohibitum (wrong because the law of the majority at this moment says they’re wrong — like perhaps being a member of a disadvantaged population… or a discriminated-against religion).
There may come a time in the future when reasonable expectations of privacy don’t include DNA tests taken for geneaology. Then and only then will this sort of “well we just changed the rules” be fair.
Look carefully at the FTDNA statement. Contrary to initial impressions, this “change” does NOT give law enforcement unlimited browsing privileges in the database; they are simply allowed to create an account giving them the same access that you and I (or any other FTDNA member) currently enjoy. Anything beyond that will require a warrant or a subpoena.
As I noted, that gives them access to names, emails, segment data, haplogroups and family trees. A good part of that is information that would require a warrant or subpoena in any other setting — the fact that this makes it easier to solve crimes doesn’t change that.
I never expected my DNA results to remain private. It doesn’t bother me. Let’s catch those criminals !!
I am with you. Privacy is largely an illusion these days with smartphones and companies tracking your every move and decision. If they can catch criminals with my DNA, they are more than welcome to it.
I assume you’re happy with police access to your online banking as well?
Maybe FTDNA should do as the other testing companies do and make the emails blind. On My Heritage, Ancestry and 23&Me the emails are hidden and to contact a match has to be done through their blind system.
That’s not enough. The minute there’s a fairly close match, there may well be probable cause to get a warrant. It’s getting into the database at all that poses the privacy risk, and users should have to opt in to that use (not opt out which forces them to lose the benefit of their tests),.
The “banking records” snide response is unwarranted. We do not submit our banking records for matches with other people. The expectation of privacy is reduced when you choose to submit to a database for the purpose of matching. I agree it would have been better to have a more explicit opt-in, and perhaps this panel that FTDNA says they are putting together for recommendations will do just that.
It’s not entirely unwarranted: any banking record we submit may very well have a match (with another party to the transaction). I expect my bank to provide a copy of a check I deposit to the party who wrote the check. I don’t expect anyone else to be able to see the details just because they have some distant relationship to the transaction. Here my DNA information is being disclosed to the police if I am even a distant cousin match to a crime scene sample — even if that sample has been contaminated and isn’t the sample of the criminal at all.
Judy, would you be able to comment on if this is acceptable under the GDPR. As someone outside of the US I’m curious.
My own personal view is that changing these TOS in this fashion would not accord with the GDPR. It remains to be see what, if anything, the EU regulators will conclude.
I think FTDNA may possibly have different Terms of Service with a different Privacy Policy statement for their GDPR customers.
That may be true — and would only make it worse.
Here’s a link to a European person’s question on their Facebook and the FTDNA response. Seems like they are not complying to the GDPR. https://www.facebook.com/FamilyTreeDNA/posts/2212595708792798
I read the same report and was shocked – but not. Unfortunately, it was just a matter of time before our DNA became available to any law enforcement people who went looking for a nice collection of DNA to help them. I have not only my own DNA but that of people no longer alive who cannot say what they want or don’t want. But at the request of my brother, we pulled all of our results from GEDmatch and now I”m wondering whether it’s safe to keep at FTDNA – and in Ancestry and 23andMe, too, for that matter. If law enforcement can use my DNA, what’s to stop other government entities from using it and using it against me? I have a DNA kit on the counter to give to someone and am now questioning whether it’s something I want to continue to do.
I just went to FTDNA and changed the consent on all kits I manage AND went to account settings and changed names (used an alias as suggested by FTDNA support) and addresses as well as blanked out email address. Zeroed out zip codes and phone numbers. Note I had to do each line at a time and then save it. Might not stop anyone, but might slow them down.
Use “Bennett Greenspan” as alias. But I think that will violate paragraph 8 on there TOS.
Andi Durbin, I tried that a couple hours ago, and then (and still now) you cannot even remove information from optional fields!
My techy brother has long anticipated this and has refused steadfastly to do a DNA test, which I have longed for to help my mother’s tree. I hate to admit he was right. His privacy, my brick walls.
I am all for this, any clues to catch the Unsolved cases of rape, murder etc far outweighs the right to protect the bad seeds of the family.
When may we send your local police over to search your house, please? Hey, anything to catch the bad dudes, right? Seriously, this is the same thing as a totally unregulated police search of any premises. We insist on having a neutral and detached magistrate decide whether that search should take place unless we have informed consent. Here, an opt-in system would clearly be based on informed consent; an opt-out system where opting out means you lose the benefit of the test you paid for is not informed consent at all.
Guess what, serial killers and rapists keep on killing and need to be stopped. People who knowingly protect them are an accessory after the fact and are perverting the course of justice. We should be doing the happy dance some may be caught. I know that I am
So… when may we send your local police over to search your house, too? The idea that the end justifies the means is horrific, and so very easily abused. Catching serial murderers and rapists sounds so very nice until you realize that the exact same methodology could be used to target unwanted minority groups and religions linked closely to ethnicity — right up to and including genocide in the hands of an inappropriate regime. I understand that you think this is fine, so let’s all agree that a system where those who think it’s fine can opt in when they test (or at any time thereafter) to let the police have unfettered access to their data. The rest of us like the Fourth Amendment just the way it is thankyouverymuch.
The definition of “serious crime” in the section of law FTDNA’s new Terms of Service reference appear to go well beyong murder and rape. The words used in the definition all have very technical meanings which the average person who is not a criminal lawyer may not recognize or understand. I looked it up and read it carefully several times and am not confident I fully ujderstand the llatitude this new FTDNA policy may potentialy give law enforcement personnel for the types of cases in which they will be able to access the FTDNA matching system.
I find it interesting in these comments and comments made in other forums on this same topic that people are all for turning in the family’s bad seeds with nary a second thought. Is it because “turning in bad seeds” is cold and bloodless via a DNA database like FTDNA or GedMatch?
It runs counter to real-life examples… The Unabomber’s brother struggled psychologically with turning him in back in ’98 and is quoted in the NYTimes (8/21/1998) as saying “I hope that Ted will someday forgive me”. And Eric Rudolph, now convicted and incarcerated for the 1996 Olympic (and other) bombings, was on the run for 5 years, protected by his family, who were convinced he was innocent.
I am skeptical of “crowdsourcing” catching criminals.
I would love to see the actual percentages of users who would actually opt into such a system — actually check a box to allow this — rather than the number who end up in such a system because they don’t know (or don’t know how) to opt out.
These crimes are horrific. Consider the real victims here. The Golden State killer was not caught for decades, justice unnecessarily delayed. Why put more obstacles in the way of police? I hope an unwanted DNA sample doesn’t land in your lap
Nobody is suggesting putting in more obstacles. We’re insisting that the police follow the same-old-tried-and-true rules that had their origins in the Magna Carta of 1215, and that we as a society agreed on when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. Unless, of course, to you the Fourth Amendment is merely “more obstacles”…
It’s really too bad that the author’s we’ll thought out and written piece has to appears on the same page as your ignorant, unconstructive comment. Everyone is in favor of catching horrible criminals, and my concerns don’t run a as deep as the author’s, but it would be truly ignorant to ignore her points about how LR talks about catching serial killers but FTDNA had defined a policy that could a allow my DNA to be used to catch a political rival or a weed dealer. Try and bring a well reasoned response to a well reasoned article next time…
I’m going to allow this comment to go public but with a caution: it’s very close to the line between debate and ad hominem attack to bandy words like “ignorant” about. All of the comments here have been pretty much focused on the issues, and I’d really appreciate it if everybody would keep it on that level.
Shall FTDNA also invite other country law enforcement to increase there revenue stream. Why not let Canadian police use it. FTDNA has big presence in Scandinavia, definitely get the hands of some money from there law enforcement.
Hmmm thinking about it, why not let Putin and Erdogan on this as well. A murder is still a murder wherever it happen. From this country the revenue stream can increase even further, lots of DNA in a room full of escaped dissidents.
I must admit I am jaded in this. I have always believed that law enforcement would use any DNA database regardless of what the terms and conditions state. For me, once the Patriot Act passed all bets were off. Any believe I had that law enforcement would not use every tool in the book went out the window.
I have always expected law enforcement to try everything it could. I didn’t expect one of the big companies to cave without a fight and impose an opt-out system where opting out costs its customers everything they paid for.
I would be okay with an opt-in or opt-out system with informed consent at the time of purchase. To pull this nonsense on customers who purchased from them in good faith is reprehensible. The choice we are left with is allow law enforcement free access to our data without our knowledge or permission OR remove the matching option which negates one of the main reasons for testing. I suppose the individuals who are in favor of DNA being made available to anyone in law enforcement are also in favor of their banking records, health records, private papers in their homes, etc., being made available to anyone in law enforcement without law enforcement having to convince a judge of the need.
Hi Judy – Long time, no talkee, eh?
I see where you are coming from and agree. I also see where the folks who have no problem with the police rummaging around in their dna matches, and agree. It is hard having a foot in both camps – what solutions can be found?
I also agree with the first comment here – pressure by FTDNA users on the company to change the TOS. After all, if the company changed the TOS to something we users really don’t agree with, then user pressure should see them change back. Especially if they see a big drop in sales.
Another possibility is that the company might agree to meet folks halfway in this – FTDNA could provide an extra flag on the users dashboard: “Opt in to Police search”. If they check that box, then the police can look. If unchecked the police don’t see that match. Maybe that will keep everyone happy? You could leave the box blank, and I could leave it tick it. Just another bit of “opting in/out”. Would that be a workaround, do you think? Would FTDNA agree? Back to user pressure again.
Opting in as a system is just fine. It’s perfectly legal for anyone to consent to allow this sort of use of their results. The problem is with the choice of forcing people who have paid for tests to either let this use be made or opt out of the very functions like matching for which they agreed to test — and for which they paid.
Once again, what access is granted to law enforcement by this new policy that does not already exist for you, me, or any other FTDNA member?
Access to the information of people they do not match. That access is not granted to anyone else, whose ability to see information is limited strictly to his or her own genetic matches. Each of us who has tested has consented to the disclosure of our information to our own genetic matches and to no one else. Understand that I have no problem at all with anyone who chooses to grant access to more people — or even more data. You can invite anybody you want into your house. But in this, as with any other data, it should be opt in, and not opt out (and lose the benefits of your own test that you paid for).
I agree – the pressure from the customers! I have written an e-nail about this to FTDNA and I hope and I would encourage more users to write to them! Opting in system is just fine – tick it in in your profile if you want or not. It should be transparent to the user and with the possibility to opt out anytime in the future. I removed tests from GEDmatch and if FTDNA chooses to go this way, then I will request removal from their site and consinder other tests.
Sadly, I think there needed to be a tl;dr version of this post. What disturbs me the most is “In other words, law enforcement can use the FTDNA database to investigate just about any felony anywhere under any circumstances even if no-one was actually harmed. While the press release and other comments have spoken only about the FBI, and only highlight cases involving rape or murder, there’s no such limit in the terms of use whatsoever.”
We are not talking about catching just murderers and rapists, which by the way, I am all for. This change in TOS however, takes it to a whole different level.
tl;dr on 1500 words is sad indeed but a tl;dr version couldn’t have told the whole story — and it’s the nuances here that are critical.
It would be courteous to put the meaning of slang terms right after the first appearance for us non-hip readers!
“tl;dr” means “too long, didn’t read” — or (as some of us think) “too lazy, didn’t read.”
As posted above, FTDNA’s new Terms of Service talk about violent crime “as defined in 18 U.S. Code § (924) (e) (2) (B)” Upon reading the statute, it appears to me to be a very complicated definition, written in words which have technical law enforcement meanings the average person who is not a criminal judtice professional (police officer, prosecutor, judge of criminal defense lawyer) would not normally think of. It obviously includes a lot more types of cases than just murder or rape. Even such seemingly simply phrases as “use of force” have historically been construed very broadly. From reading it, I can’t be sure it wouldn’t allow law enforcement to use FTDNA’s matching system to solve a case of “porch-pirating.” I don’t think the disclosue statement would have been adequate to obtain any customer’s informed consent to the new policy, even if FTDNA had not violated its own duty to notify the customer of its unilateral change in terms. The whole episode smacks of bad faith and an intent to conceal the truth.
It’s my understanding that additional specific DNA evidence must be gathered to match DNA at a crime scene. How is that different than a police sketch put on TV, or a fingerprint match? All these methods are a “narrowing down” of the possibilities. If anything happened to a family member (God forbid), I would want all avenues pursued. And if the cops have a proper warrant to come into my house, let them. I think folks are overreacting. The biggest threats to our privacy are from the business world.
A proper warrant has to come from a judge who considers all the facts and decides if it’s appropriate. If the police have that kind proper warrant to come into the database, I certainly won’t object. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t stop all searches. It regulates police conduct to ensure that searches that are permitted are reasonable in the specific circumstances of each case.
The real problem here is that FTDNA did not clearly indicate the change and did not provide notice to its users and a way to respond. A lot of trust has been lost by doing this.
Geoff Doherty’s suggestion is a way to rectify the situation. FTDNA should immediately implement the “Opt Out/Opt In” solutin by setting everyone as “Opt out”, and providing notice of the change, and the opportunity to “Opt In” or stay as “Opt Out”.
Personally, I would “Opt In” but each user should have the opportunity to make that decision.
Another additional option would be to mark forensic searches with a marker, like “LE” on the match name.
Disclaimer: I am an inactive member of the Ohio Bar and this is not meant as legal advice.
I’ve been informed that there is to be no indicator on the kits being used by law enforcement.
One of my concerns with the LE account not being identified as such is that I freely give information on myself and my family members (with their permission, of course) when I am helping someone who was adopted or was born out of wedlock to discover who their biological parents and/or siblings are. How can I be sure that I am not unknowingly giving information to an LE agent who then might apprehend a relative of mine who turns out to be innocent?
You can’t be sure. Not now.
“Another additional option would be to mark forensic searches with a marker”
Would be surprised if you will get any match with LE. FTDNA and LE has most likely come up with a solution where they can see matches. But you will *not* be able to see there searches. And why should they, they can’t reveal DNA of suspect I assume they are still considered “Innocent until proven guilty…..”
Judy,
Thanks for the excellent points and the commentors for bringing out more issues. Most of the cases reaching the press, so far, have been long standing cold cases involving real bad dudes. Would a judge likely grant a warrant under these circumstances to use databases like FTDNA? Probably not?
With forensic DNA advances these issues may be moot in a few years. Craig Ventor first showed, and Parabon has now commercialized, mug shots from DNA. It may soon be common practice to use crime scene DNA (no warrant required) to visualize the subject. Combine this with rather ubiquitous facial recognition systems,and the bad guy will met a quicker fate.
Also, CODIS is an antique DNA system which law enforcement will likely upgrade. This too can raise some intersting issues, such as the son’s felony and DNA testing leading to his seemingly innocuous father’s arrest as a serial killer. What is the legal opinion on this … no search warrant, but dad just popped up.
Dave
Interestingly, some states don’t permit their own police agencies to do familial searching (looking for relatives of suspect to try to identify suspect) in their own DNA databases because of concerns that it invades the privacy of those relatives — who wouldn’t be in those databases but for their own criminal activity.
Thanks so much for this article Judy. So what can like-minded individuals do to fight this? Can we find European citizen customers who can file a complaint with their government under GDPR? GDPR can provide for heavily penalties and this seems a pretty egregious violation that could well attract government attention.
Can US FTDNA customers sue for violations of privacy law due to this undisclosed change in terms of service and/or behavior contrary to the plain language of the terms of service?
Is the Fourth Amendment really written out of consumer DNA testing? Once there are court cases that use consumer DNA data as evidence, can’t there be challenges on the admissibility of evidence? It seems you could as this is brand new territory, but I am no lawyer. Perhaps the ACLU could get involved?
I’d rather see a solution reached by some sort of interaction between the testing company and its customers. A GDPR penalty in the EU (if one would be warranted) or the mere costs of a lawsuit here might be fatal to the company, and we wouldn’t want that either. But as for challenges in the criminal case, nope, I don’t see that happening. As I noted in the post, the criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy in DNA left at the crime scene. The defendant can’t raise the privacy rights of the other customers whose DNA was used to identify him because his standing (a legal term for the right to raise an issue) only extends to his own privacy rights and not those of other people. The other people can’t be heard in the criminal case because they don’t have standing in that venue.
Thanks for this reply Judy. To help me understand – say in a criminal case that evidence was seized from a relative of the defendant without a warrant or in some other way that violated constitutional rights. Isn’t there some way to challenge the admissibility of that evidence even if the relative does not have standing? I’m looking for parallels in the non-DNA area but as a non-lawyer I know my analogies could be quite faulty. Thanks!
A defendant can only challenge the use of evidence obtained in violation of his or her own personal rights — his or her own reasonable expectation of privacy. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140 (1978), requiring a defendant to show that “the disputed search and seizure has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect” (emphasis added).
Hi Michael,
I live in Ireland and have just filed a complaint with The Data Protection Commission (DPC).
From the front page of their website: The national independent authority responsible for upholding the fundamental right of individuals in the EU to have their personal data protected. The DPC is the Irish supervisory authority for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and also has functions and powers related to other important regulatory frameworks including the Irish ePrivacy Regulations (2011) and the EU Directive known as the Law Enforcement Directive.”
Thank you Mac! And thank you Judy for the further explanation of the evidence and privacy issues.
Mac, can you provide any evidence that you have submitted a complaint? This is for a news article.
The right to privacy and criminal behavior are two separate issues. The issue here is control. Who has the right to control our lives with impunity? The argument ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ is a psychological tool. The Jews during the time of Nazi Germany were forced to wear the Jewish insignia to clearly identify their ancestry. Tell them after the fact ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.’ We should cherish and guard our constitutional rights as they are the only legal deterents we have to protect us from government overreach.
I couldn’t agree more. It may well be that the time is coming when our reasonable expectations of privacy don’t extend to our own DNA results. But we’re not there yet. And as long as we have reasonable expectations of privacy, we shouldn’t be so quick to give them away.
As long as you brought up Jews, I have another concern here. Ashkenazi Jews (as well as any other endogamous population) share a lot of DNA with each other and I think it might be easy for LE to mistake one person for another based on a similarity in their autosomal DNA, kind of like a black person picked up by the police because he looks like the person who committed the crime, or a Hispanic named Juan Lopez picked up by ICE when there are 20 others in the community named Juan Lopez. Maybe I am blowing this concern out of proportion, but how good will LE be in sorting out the nuances in DNA matching?
We have no way of knowing.
The floodgates have been open all along. People who send in DNA to be matched with millions of other people cannot reasonably expect genetic privacy.
Kudos to FTDNA and GEDmatch for embracing reality and being honest about the inevitable use of their technology. The other companies need to step up and acknowledge the truth about what is going on. Terms of service that prohibit law enforcement from using a DNA matching database are unenforceable and give users a false sense of privacy. As someone from GEDmatch once told me, “A written policy has no value if there are easy ways to get around it… We make it as obvious as possible that the user should be aware.”
We have to understand that FTDNA, GEDmatch, AncestryDNA and the rest of the DNA matching companies have no power to prevent law enforcement from using their databases. Law enforcement agencies can send in DNA samples just like the rest of us. There’s no impenetrable legal or technical barrier. So we can be sure that law enforcement agencies are going to be exploiting the DNA databases at all of the major companies.
With respect to law enforcement, the DNA testing companies have two choices: (1) cooperate and stay aware of what law enforcement is doing or (2) stick their heads in the sand and try to leave the public in the dark about what is going on. Let’s not scapegoat the companies that have chosen to be more responsible and transparent.
That may indeed be true and I’ve been an idiot for the years I’ve been buying and taking DNA tests and encouraging others to do the same. I’m now seriously considering whether what I’ve gotten out of it is worth the risks of governmental abuse of my data, because “solving violent crimes” will not be the end of it. And if I want to delete my data completely, can I trust that the testing companies to actually do it or will it be in their best interest to retain it for their new customers?
I agree with all the Judy and several commenters have said and I in addition to those thoughts I think there is going to be a huge impact on the genetic genealogy field. I have traveled across the country more than once to take DNA courses , bought many books, invested in tools like DNA Painter, Genomate, etc. to further my knowledge. I will now feel compelled to remove my matches and trees and subsequently not invest in these products, educational forums and services as they will not be useful to me if I am not openly posting my matches. The domino effect will be that those educators, authors, and developers are going to suffer in their careers and I feel very, very sorry about that. FamilyTree DNA did not think this through at all and what a huge impact it would have on many people.
So the question I have is: what is in this for FTDNA? This is surely going to create a lot of bad press for them and lose them some customers. But what is their upside?
Dave, seems like the only upside (and this is just speculation) for FTDNA is financial, as other commenters said above (on 2/1).
Judy, Thank you for bringing this to our attention and for your usual excellent analysis. On this occasion it has lead to a very thought-provoking debate among your readers about the issues.
I can see both sides of the argument, but I have a strong gut reaction against FTDNA’s actions. My cynical side says it is for their financial gain rather than good civic reasons. I’m also very sad that those people who so far have refused to do a DNA test because they don’t trust the testing companies have been proven right in this case.
Regardless of which side of the debate people support, FTDNA’s actions won’t do anything to reassure those hesitating to test their DNA – and genealogy research and sharing will be the loser.
My only shock is that it has taken this long to discover that the police are consumers too. Every one of us can purchase a kit and submit samples to a public database, or not. Of course we can’t be forced to unless we are a criminal suspect, but why should we expect a public database not to be public? Surely it’s naive to think that anyone with access to a database will not use it for clues of all kinds, whether work-related or personal. Should we not expect a victim of a crime to not use DNA databases to search for the criminal? This is a country of laws, and laws should have been written long ago if DNA was to be excluded from the normal tools used by law enforcement. Just because DNA is a better mousetrap does not make it less lawful than fingerprints. I thought long and hard before putting my DNA into a public database and finally concluded that if I didn’t, someone in my family would, at least eventually. Why should I not benefit from all that I could learn by sharing? Progress happens!
Besides, with all the breaches of privacy we have seen in recent years, why would anyone still believe that privacy exists anywhere? I gave up that notion to pure fantasy years ago.
Is FTDNA a public database? I don’t accept this wording, I don’t think GEDmatch is a public database. Even if it could reffered as a public database, it doesn’t mean an unrestricted free access by anyone. FTDNA and GEDmatch is a kind of an association, you pay a membership fee (the cost of the test), you share something (the test results) with other members and you know that the condition is that other members do the same. The association/company promises to not share any info with a third part. Does it mean public?
If a song or tv show is aired, does it mean it is uncontrollably public? One has to pay for the access to it, one has to respect the copyright, not to change, copy or spread it. Is a teacher talk in the classroom public? Is it ok to just broadcast and upload the lesson to youtube?
The tester is the only lawful owner of the test data. FTDNA should not have any possibility to decide what to do with *my* data, just because it is mine. They must ask for the permission to use it in this or that way. They ask about opting in in the genealogical matching, levels of matching in FF, Y or mtDNA, participating in a project and sharing genealogical data with my matches, that are genealogists.
Why do they not do ask about permission to use my data in LE matchning?
The truely public database is NCBI and data there is anonymized. Any tester can submit his/her mtDNA or WGS sequence if he/she wants to make them public. It is really public – any scientist can access the data, analyze and publish an article with the reference to the results.
FTDNA is not a public datbase. Sharing your test results or family tree with *other genealogists* is not making your data public. And if some genealogist plans to publish something about his/her family and plans to use my information, information about my family, results of my research, I suppose that one kindly asks if it is ok to do.
Does anyone know how these le matches will look in a persons match list? With all the family tie surprises it would seem important for potential safety reseaons to know the match you are about to contact is tied to le. I found Your comment Judy, about duplicity in access requirements interesting. I have to give legal name etc but le might not need to comply and creat a fictitious person. Or will le have a we can see you you can’t see us cabability? This is truely a mess and after assuring family members FTDNA was the best for privacy quite a set back. Thoughts are running rampant, too fast to even formulate questions and scenarios.
Thank you for this awesome post.
The law enforcement kits will not be identified in any way that will let the average user know they’re law enforcement kits.
There must be some financial incentive for FTDNA, to my mind. The cavalier, after-the-fact announcement just has completely changed my attitude about FTNDA. Not that I have many matches there — far more at the other 3 major vendors. I don’t see an option to delete my profile. All I can do it seems is remove myself from matching.
According to FTDNA, opting out of matching or completely removing your account (for which you must contact FTDNA, see the Privacy Statement) are the only ways out of this.
Press Release: Connecting Families and Saving Lives (dated 31 Jan 2019, posted 1 Feb 2019)
There is a very short (42 second) video clip of Bennett Greenspan included in this press release. At about 32 seconds he says:
“…I felt it important to enable my customers to crowd source the catching of criminals.”
https://blog.familytreedna.com/press-release-connecting-families-and-saving-lives/
I don’t find that Bennett Greenspan enabled me, his customer since 2008, to have any say in whether I wanted to be part of the crowd catching criminals. My only recourse is to go through the 22 active kits (33 separate DNA tests) I manage and opt out of matching. I will also table the other 7 tests I’ve purchased and have yet to use.
I highly disagree with the way this whole matter has been handled by FTDNA. I should have been informed of FTDNA’s change to its Terms of Service that allows law enforcement to use the database as a tool to solve crime. I should have been allowed to make my own decision if I wanted to be part of that tool. And I should not be cast out of the database that I paid FTDNA to be part of because I choose not to be part of law enforcement’s tool. If FTDNA wants to use the database as a tool for law enforcement to solve crimes, then FTDNA should let its customers decide if they want to be part of it and allow its customers to opt in to be part of that tool.
I have purchased every kit from FTDNA as part of a hobby. I never purchased one to become a crime fighter. I own my DNA; I should own the decision of how it’s used. Does FTDNA not see the conflict in its belief that we own our DNA and its actions that contradict that belief? Why am I not allowed to say I don’t want to be part of a law enforcement tool, but I want the service that I paid for? And, by the way, “law enforcement” is NOT like any other customer who purchases a kit from FTDNA. Clearly, law enforcement’s motive is very different. (I’m not even going to address my thoughts of whether FTDNA should be inviting law enforcement into the database and working with the FBI.)
I’m obligated to be a good steward to the 21 other kits that I manage. I don’t feel I have the authority to speak for the DNA owners until we can have a conversion about what their wishes are on the matter. Why did FTDNA feel they had the authority to decide for them and opt them into this law enforcement tool? I think Bennett Greenspan needs to spend more “many, many nights and many, many weekends” thinking about what he has done and the repercussions of his actions.
You sum up the issue here well, in my view.
Wait, you were a FAN? This wasn’t OBVIOUS to you? Because as a non-genealogist, I can tell you, it was perfectly OBVIOUS to me a long time ago.
I searched all over the online world for your email address and your advance guidance that this company would cave on this issue and you know what? I didn’t find a thing. It’s sooooo easy to have 20-20 hindsight.
I see nothing wrong with this, other than FTDNA not emailing its customers that they made a change to their privacy policy. Law enforcement still needs a warrant to get any information that is not already seen by a regular user to the website. They caught the Golden State Killer this way as well as a few other evil doers in this world. It’s not a huge deal unless you have something to hide.
The police could catch all the bad guys if we would just let them search our houses and cellphones and banking records, too. If you’re fine with that, please head down to your local police department and file your consent now.
If the cops have a warrant for my cell phone and bank records, they can have them. All they’re going to find is that I order too much takeout. As I said before, law enforcement still needs a warrant to get any information that is not already seen by a regular user to the website. If someone has an issue with this, it seems they have something to hide.
That regular customer has to have agreed to make that data available, and our consent forms and terms of use said it wouldn’t accessed by anyone who wasn’t himself or herself a genetic match. Nowhere did it say “plus the police.” Writing that in now means it too needs a warrant.
Most of us who submitted samples for autosomal testing never considered that law enforcement agencies would use our results as they have relatively recently begun to do. U.S. lawmakers need to rein in the law enforcement use, perhaps in the same way as the FISA court process. Unfortunately, our political process seems so hopelessly broken and divided that legislation is unlikely. I would never have submitted a sample knowing that my result would become available to any law enforcement who asked without a very serious and well-targeted basis. I’m sure I’m not the only customer who feels that way.
“I would never have submitted a sample knowing that my result would become available to any law enforcement who asked without a very serious and well-targeted basis.” THEY DO. They have to obtain a warrant to get information that is not seen the standard way (meaning the way you or I would view our match info). The FBI is not just diving into random kits to get people’s contact info.
No, what they’re doing is conducting a search of a customer’s data, submitted under a promise of privacy giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Names, email addresses, DNA segment data, family trees and the like are all things in which customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So to access that data, the law says they need a warrant for that. You can if you wish consent to waiving your right to privacy. That’s your individual decision. What neither you nor FTDNA can do is waive that right for everyone else.
No. If a law enforcement agency has DNA from a crime scene, they can submit it to a DNA service (such as FTDNA or GEDMatch) to find matches, without a warrant. Our submissions of DNA were to find genealogy matches, not criminal ones. The law enforcement use is a violation of purpose and intent.
I am fairly new to genetic genealogy and as an Australian I am not protected by the Fourth Amendment. I agree with Judy that FTDNA has acted badly, but I don’t think that it is as bad as it sounds. I never believed that this data was going to be kept private. In fact, I uploaded it with the intent that people would match it and contact me. We would be naïve enough to believe that law enforcement, or indeed the nasty elements of our society, are not creating fake accounts and using this data for their own purposes. By opting in to matching, do we really believe that our data is still private? I am not siding with FTDNA on this, as they have violated the trust of their users. Some people DID have an expectation of privacy because they promised that this would be so. But, seriously, this was a promise that they could never keep, because the ability to circumvent their policies and controls is too simple to implement. By making this clear, they have at least allowed future customers to give their consent to matching in a more informed manner. But it will take a while for them to build up trust again. Just my humble opinion.
The problem isn’t really with future customers. It’s with existing customers. And the existing customer base was promised something different.
Thanks you so much for bringing this to our collective attention. I sent a note into FTDNA to cancel a kit which was recently submitted. Like many others, I feel bamboozled by the FTDNA president’s unilateral decision without consulting his customer base. The ends surely do NOT justify the means.
Can we be sure the same thing isn’t happening at MyHeritage and AncestryDNA?
Both MyHeritage and AncestryDNA are unlikely to follow suit (no guarantees, of course) because they are much bigger and more international in scope, as is 23andMe, and would almost certainly draw the wrath (and financial penalties) of the European Union.
Here is my two cents. The FBI is not the enemy, FTDNA is not the enemy. There needs to be good constructive discussion in the US. We need oversight here in the US too, but would we be upset if the exact same rules as GPDR were in effect her?
Personally, I am more concerned about big business and big Internet companies. How many have a Google Home speaker, or an Amazon Echo, listening to every word spoken in your home. How many have Google maps, tracking where you go. Or some free email service, that you give unencrypted messages to store. Gee, how to they make money giving all this stuff away>
Glad we live in a place where we can discuss things openly.
I’m both glad we can discuss them openly, and proud of readers here for doing so in a civil fashion even when we disagree.
Dear John — You point to the exact reasons why I do not have a Google Home Peaker, Amazon Echo, Alexa or Siri, and steadfastly refuse to join FaceBook or even look at any public-facing FaceBook pages. It is the same rreason I will not test with 23&me or join GEDMatch.
isn’t the Y and mtdna more public. I thought there was a Y tree.
Only if the individual opted into those public databases.
What about the DOE cases ? Will they be allowed to use FTDNA ?
The terms now say it can be used to “identify the remains of a deceased individual.”
FYI
The FAQ posted at DNA Doe Project website states:
“Q:
Will the GEDmatch kit numbers of the John and Jane Does be made public?
A:
No. For privacy reason, our kits are marked “Research”. Our Does are never visible to others. Our John and Jane Does are entitled to their privacy.”
and also,
“Q:
Why can’t DDP upload the DNA of Does to 23andMe, Ancestry, My Heritage and FTDNA to find more cousins?
A:
None of the DTC testing companies allow submission of forensic cases for testing or for upload to their customer databases. It is therefore necessary to work with an independent lab to generate DTC-like data to upload to Gedmatch. Furthermore, even though some of the companies do allow upload of third-party DTC data, it would not be possible to post that data anonymously on the company’s website, compromising the confidentiality of our Doe and ultimately his family.”
http://dnadoeproject.org/faq/
Sigh…
So it’s not OK to reveal information about the DOES in order to preserve THEIR privacy and that of THEIR family members, but IT.’s OK to strip everyone else of the very same right? I’m trying Very hard not to give offense to anyone, but doesn’t that attitude seem to be a wee bit hypocritical or selfish?
Seems to me this ought to be a two way street — if it’s good enough for one, it should be good enough for the other and the people whose dna and family tree information helped solve the case deserve at least the courtesy of a little “Thank you” note on behalf of the DOE family.
Well now, this blog certainly opened up the flood gates. What worries me is “mistakes”. Yes, the FBI and all other law enforcement make mistakes and if your on the receiving end or any of your family it can be quite costly plus damage to your reputation, loss of job, etc. This is why we are careful when dealing with law enforcement. “MISTAKES”
An interesting somewhat accidental experiment… After this story broke I disabled matching on my personal account at ftDNA. Following that, after clicking on any of the matching tools I am given the option to sign an electronic consent form to opt in to matching. The opt-in is a single checkbox which says “I agree to allow FTDNA to make my information available to a genetic match.”
Nowhere does it say you are also opting in to make your information available to a non genetic match in the form of law enforcement.
Seems to me, it should.
Judy, I share all your concerns and for the same reasons. I stayed with FTDNA because I believed they were the only company that would not sell our DNA since they do Genealogy only and nothealth research.i feel used. AndI worry about Jewish people in particular because we match sometimes over 20,000 people due to the endogamy of this population. The FBI and especially local LE are not likely to understand the genetics of this population and will conclude relationships are much closer that actual. Testers who expected privacy will be herassed for family information and testing due to ignorance on their part. I paid for genealogy and not to be in a study or database of criminals. I can’t decide whether to delete all of my cousin kits, privatize them (would that even work?) or what. I feel like I just lost a valuable Genealogical tool because I can’t ask my cousins to participate in this database.
Why not leave it up to those cousins of the kits you maintain? Let them decide if they want their kit to still be listed. And what study are you talking about? Law enforcement is not doing a study or creating a database. They are simply taking the DNA of someone who committed a crime to see if they can locate them. They are using the same information that you see when you search your matches to contact these people. If they need extra information, then they get a warrant. I seriously don’t understand why people see the wrong in getting rapists and serial killers put behind bars.
Actually that is exactly what I am doing. I am sending individual letters to them explaining the options and my recommendations for the tests they did and the privacy concerns they have previously stated to me. I am recommending privatizing all data for now while waiting to see If there is an updated policy based on responses of current customers.
funny how Greenspan could send out that arrogant, offensive, self-serving email to all of his customers today; but could not be bothered to inform us when he discovered law enforcement was using the site. The comment in the email about “honest and law-abiding” customers really galled me–his customers have nothing to prove to him or anyone else. I did not know I paid for Greenspan to make decisions for me and my close kin whose data I entrusted to his website. I have now opted-out of all matching for all of my family’s tests there and it is money down the drain. For all who claim we should have “seen this coming”; please let me in on your psychic powers, along with the last winning lottery numbers you picked…
The more actual felons caught the better, & if thru genealogical DNA that’s OK, but our lawmakers should make it legal. I am appalled that people incarcerated who claim DNA will clear them have been denied DNA tests by various justice departments for years. Again lawmakers should provide laws to prohibit the justice system from denying DNA test which can provide proof or possible proof of innocence,
I am in agreement with Judy, and with many here (though not all): 1) I want Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure applied to my DNA data and that of relatives whose kits I manage, and whom I personally requested to submit samples; 2) If Bennett Greenspan wants to waive Fourth Amendment protection, he only has the right to do that for himself – for his customers, he *must* offer an opt-in option to *all* customers; I am also in agreement with Wallace Fullerton (commenting above), who points out that Mr. Greenspan is being disingenuous to claim that law enforcement has already had this access.
Finally, I wish to point out something that is bothering me in the press release and in Mr. Greenspan’s email, that I haven’t seen mentioned yet. He claims that law enforcement, without a warrant, has the same abilities as an “ordinary user” or “any other customer.” I strongly disagree with this statement. Each of us has submitted our own DNA, and are looking at matches deemed to be our relatives. Law enforcement has or will submit an unknown person’s DNA, and are looking at that person’s matches. This is a fundamental difference. To claim that law enforcement is “like any other customer” is an outright lie.
I am so, so disappointed.
Take it to the Supremes.
Read the post again. It explains why it may not be possible to get this change in front of a court, particularly in any criminal case where the evidence was ever used.