Bode Technology using FTDNA matching system
The news about police access to the DNA matching system at Family Tree DNA just keeps getting worse.
First, it was that, under an agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a few crime scene samples had been run through the matching system to see who in the DNA testing company’s database might match and produce leads to solve very serious crimes — all without the informed consent of customers.
Then it was that it wasn’t limited to just a few very serious crimes — the terms of use had been modified without notice to customers to allow police to submit samples for matching for a wide variety of crimes defined by a federal statute that even reached cases where there hadn’t been any actual injury at all.
Now it’s that a commercial company offering research services to any police department anywhere is running its samples through the matching system, greatly expanding the reach of law enforcement into private information of customers who tested solely for genealogical purposes.
The first hint of this came in a press release from Bode Technology on February 11:
Bode Technology (Bode), a leading provider of forensic DNA analysis products and services, announced a new forensic genealogy service offering to law enforcement investigators and crime laboratories. Bode’s Forensic Genealogy Service (FGS) combines advanced DNA testing and genealogy to develop ancestral relationships between samples and deliver leads to our clients.1
No problem there. That kind of service was already being offered by another company, Parabon, so this isn’t anything new.
But on the Bode Technology website itself came this statement:
Most genealogy service offerings utilize GEDMatch to identify individuals. Through Bode’s partnerships, Bode FGS also searches profiles in an additional DNA database that contains approximately 1 million profiles. This additional database greatly expands the pool of profiles that could support developing a family tree to identify suspects of crimes or the remains of deceased individuals.2
Uh oh.
Guess what DNA testing company has profiles of one million people in its database?
There simply isn’t any other database that Bode could be referencing other than Family Tree DNA, and a Bode spokesman said as much to Buzzfeed just days ago:
For its new forensic genealogy service, Bode is working with Family Tree DNA, which BuzzFeed News last month revealed had opened its genetic genealogy database to law enforcement. The company also said that its lab would generate DNA profiles for cops from crime-scene samples.3
So from a high-level agreement with the FBI, we’re now looking at any police department with some extra cash having the ability to submit a sample from any crime scene — not just rapes and murders but a wide variety of cases as long as the money is there — and pull information about all the persons who’ve tested who match those samples out to the distant cousin level. In any given case, we’re talking tens of thousands of people whose names, emails, profile information, matching segment data, family trees and more are being exposed to being sucked into a criminal investigation — again, all without their informed consent.
And, of course, Parabon, the other commercial company, is already asking for the same access,4 and…
Oh, boy.
Look, there’s no problem with making resources available to the police if people consent to it. But consent is something you secure, up front, after full disclosure, before exposing information. Consent isn’t obtained by opening the doors and then saying, “Oh, you don’t mind, do you? Anybody who minds must have something to hide or at least not care about catching criminals…”
This latest disclosure — that a commercial firm is getting access to this information without customer consent — makes it all the more imperative that Family Tree DNA act immediately and responsibly to change its access-by-police system to opt-in. Anybody who wants to assist in these investigations can do so with a simple tick box; everybody else can be left alone, as it is their absolute right to be left alone until and unless a court order requires their cooperation.
It’s time, and beyond time, for the company to take corrective action and keep its promises to its customers to protect their privacy.
SOURCES
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Commercial researchers gain FTDNA access,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 17 Feb 2019).
- “Bode Technology Announces Forensic Genealogy Service to Law Enforcement Agencies and Crime Laboratories,” issued 11 Feb 2019, PRWeb.com (https://www.prweb.com/releases/ : accessed 17 Feb 2019). ↩
- “Why use Bode FGS?,” Forensic Genealogy Services, Bode Technology (https://www.bode-labs.com/ : accessed 17 Feb 2019) (emphasis added). ↩
- Peter Aldhous, “The Golden State Killer Case Has Spawned A New Forensic Science Industry,” Buzzfeed, posted 15 Feb 2019 (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ : accessed 17 Feb 2019). ↩
- Ibid. ↩
It won’t be long until “Big Brother” will be knocking on the door!
This is beginning to be frightening. What is next? FTDNA needs to quickly rethink their policies. Perhaps they need to contact all of those they have tested, give them the information regarding their changes in privacy and how this applies to them. They need to make it very clear that the “privacy” that was promised when customers were tested may no longer be what the customers expected. There now needs to be a new and very clear statement regarding Privacy and those who have been tested in the past must be protected as they expected.
Uh-oh indeed! I’m not understanding what FTDNA management are tell themselves that allows them to blithely violate their privacy policies to their customers in this willy-nilly fashion. I’ve downloaded my several kits’ raw data and hovered over the delete option… I’m holding off for a week or so to hear more before that decision.
…and then there’s GEDmatch. -???
First, thank you so much for keeping tabs on these developments.
I’m very distressed by the continuing erosion of implicit promises to protect our privacy at these DNA sites. I hope that Ancestry and others do not follow FTDNA’s lead. Should that happen, it will be time to cancel my subscription.
I’ve already turned off matching, which seemingly protects my family’s data for uses other than intended — I hope. But, like another reader here, I’m edging closer to deleting the results entirely. Unfortunately, I wonder how confident I can be that those results are truly deleted.
If people are given the choice to opt-in or opt-out and many choose to opt out, this makes the database less useful and valuable to law enforcement. This could mean less money to FTDNA and Mr. Greenspan. It appears that money is more important than honoring the terms of service. FWIW, I am opposed to the sharing of any data with law enforcement without proper judicial oversight.
A “partnership” certainly implies an agreement between 2 parties. So the idea that Family Tree DNA just quietly changed their TOS in December to bring to light what was occurring, without their explicit consent, doesn’t seem to make sense. Thank you, Judy, for keeping this topic in the open. It’s important.
Thank you for updating us on this important privacy issue. I was afraid once the door was open, there would be more — selling access to our private information. I have privatized some of my kits. Maybe need to privatize the rest — asked each individual to decide but I will forward your blog to them. Also maybe no more testing with FTDNA even though I have purchased more kits. Jewish cousins have 30,000 matches. Will these people download all matches and create their own database?
FTDNA is seeking to monetize its holdings. It’s *your* DNA, of course, but it’s taking up space at FTDNA, and they want to make more money off it.
Personally, I think it is all about money–and all of the customers have been sold down the river.
I have been an enthusiastic, almost exclusive, customer of FamilyTreeDNA for years, but I just bought 12 kits from LivingDNA (where the strictest privacy laws apply, in England), at $69 apiece (when you buy 3 or more), for an autosomal and X test similar to a “family finder”, but with added medium-data mitochondrial an Y haplogroups. Their sale ends today. I have never bought anything from this English company before.
Can we sue them for changing the terms of service without notifying us? How would one go about it? (I imagine a class action would be the most effective).
The last change in the terms of service last May provided for no class actions and mandatory arbitration.
Usually, when new business ventures are announced, they are done jointly, in a forward worded statments. They are now 0 for 2. Are we taking bets on the next misstep?
I’m done. I turned off matching as soon as you told us about the FTDNA/FBI connection in the first place, with all the inherent violation of terms of service. I’m in the process of downloading as much information as I can, then I’ll be deleting my kits. I do not trust them and do not want to deal with them.
Although other companies have come out with strong statements against sharing data with law enforcement, I don’t really trust them either, since FTDNA set such a poor example.
I also turned off matching when the initial story broke. I also sent a service request to FTDNA explaining why and stating I would remove my test on Mar 1 if they did not fully reverse course. Based on this new news I just submitted a service request to have my kit deleted and explained why.
There are two inherent issues here. 1. Matching has always been “opt-in”: you had to opt-in to match in the first place, and as I’ve just found out, opt-out and you get nothing (nothing more than raw data that means nothing if it isn’t matched). 2. If FTDNA is so dishonest, does opting out mean anything? Does closing my account mean anything? No. They have my samples and data already and they will do as they please. There is no privacy on the internet, just greedy capitalism.
Parabon will continue to adhere to the Terms of Service of both GEDmatch and Family Tree DNA, that all cases we accept for genetic genealogy analysis will ONLY be for violent crimes, i.e. murders and sexual assaults. We at Parabon waited until FTDNA notified their customers that law enforcement is using their database and they had sufficient time to remove their data or opt out of matching before requesting permission to upload our case files. We are still waiting, but expect that FTDNA will provide permission to Parabon and/or the agencies with which we are working to utilize their database sometime in the near future, since this is in the best interests of the company’s stated desire to assist law enforcement in resolving these types of cases.
I have no quarrel with Parabon wanting what Bode is getting. I have a problem with FTDNA giving either company access without a strict opt-in system.
Understood. I just wanted to get our intentions and actions accurately on the record. Thank you.
Cece – is Parabon actively working with other testing companies to negotiate for access?
I, too, would be interested in hearing an answer on this.
Also, what is considered “sufficient” time. As most family historians/genealogists are involved in this kind of research as a past time – and likely not on a regular basis – there are many who probably have not even had time to consider their options.
Anne, Absolutely not.
Theresa, what do you think is sufficient time? We (Parabon) have not used FTDNA data for law enforcement purposes yet and it has been 19 days since the news was published by Buzzfeed. This has been pretty big news, not just in our community, but in MSM articles as well. Plus, Family Tree DNA sent out emails to their customers notifying them, so even if they haven’t returned to their research, they should have seen the email, and had a chance to consider their options.
There is no real option being offered. Take it or leave it is not acceptable when you’re talking paying customers. In addition, the email suggested that FTDNA was rethinking its stance on this. I certainly would hope that it is doing so and will switch to an opt-in system. So giving this more time is essential.
Agreed, Judy.
As to what is considered sufficient time… I understand that to those who are caught up in doing the law enforcement-related research, 19 days is an eternity. But this database is mostly used by hobbyists, many of whom dabble only sporadically. I would guess that there are many who didn’t notice the email or haven’t had time to address it (opting out of matching, or deleting results altogether). I would not presume to speak for fellow family historians to provide an estimate of “sufficient” time. Maybe others have better ideas. I do think, however, that just a few weeks is way too soon.
Particularly when you consider that many of us manage many kits and have to reach out to many relatives — and some of those relatives are now deceased and we have to evaluate what permissions we have and don’t have and who to contact if we don’t have them and… This is not a simple “oh well everyone’s had notice” situation by any means.
Thank you for all your efforts. I am very disappointed in how this is developing, and befuddled in how to proceed as thousands invested in trying to discover family.
I still have trouble feeling upset over all this. First, when you post your DNA you do it because you WANT matches. If some of those matches turn out to be thugs, that’s life, as some of us have found out. But more importantly, once you publicize your DNA (i.e. post it to FTDNA) it’s public. All your matches can find you, cop or civilian, and you can choose whether or not to respond to them. You can’t keep your DNA kinda private to just our kind of people. The cops should get no more nor less than anyone else. If they want more than your DNA – which you hung out in public, remember, then tell them to get a warrant. Does FTDNA give them access to your non-public profile, like home address, etc? That’s where I would be upset, without that warrant.
With your name, email, profile information, family tree data and more, they don’t NEED your home address.
But, that’s really the crux:
(1) Does FTDNA give the cops the same matching everyone gets?
(2) Do they also give them (without Warrant) any profile info you choose to keep private?
If (1) I’m fine with it, even though they’re cops
If (2) No good; I’m with you
That’s the crux for you. It’s a far different issue for others. It’s precisely because of that disagreement that we need an opt-in system — it lets you achieve what you want (you’re fine with it) while letting anyone who doesn’t want the police to have this access achieve what they want (they’re not fine with it).
“All your matches can find you, cop or civilian, and you can choose whether or not to respond to them…..”
That is trus if the match who co tacts you is a fellow genralogistorother individual consumer, but you can’t really decide not to respond to law enforcement. Unlike ordinary members of the general public, if you persist in not responding, they have the ability to come knocking on your door, perhaps armed with a warrant to haul you into the police station for an “interview.” It depends on how close the match is and what they think you might know. Look up the Usry case.
Here is just one of many articles on the Usry case. Back in December 2017, it was also covered on an episode of “48 Hours” (still available to those with CBS all access accounts.)
https://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/releases/view?id=49161
That’s not right. You Never have to respond to the cops.
You don’t have to respond to a mere inquiry, no. But if you don’t, and you have information they want, the next step is to subpoena you before a grand jury. If you get a subpoena to testify, you most certainly do have to respond. Under penalty of going to jail if you refuse.
Okay. We’ve now complained to each other. Some of us have written letters to FTDNA. If the May T’s & C’s say no legal action and only arbitration, then is opting out our only choice. By opting out I’m not receiving the service I signed up for. I also know we were told that the T’s and C’s could be modified on a whim. I saw that some in the U S Congress are considering GDPR rules for databases in the U.S.. What are our alternatives – do we have any? FTDNA is the only company offering Y-DNA services at this time. Obviously, this is not a life or death service we HAVE to have, but I wish we had an option to make our voices louder and/or an option to provide the Y-DNA services we wished to have. One would hope that FTDNA would just do the right thing and have a specific setting for ALLOWING our data to be accessible to the FBI and other companies, with the DEFAULT being to NOT ALLOW. My data is now set to opt-out and the DNA classes I teach will NOT recommend FTDNA for ANY testing.
Perhaps the time has come to contact our state and federal legislative representatives about this whole subject. Some of them are already expressing concern about how the “take it or leave it” terms of service and privacy policies of companies seeking to monetize the information they have collected about their customers appear to be taking unfair advantage of their customers in order to create new profit centers for the benefit of the companies at the expense of their customers personal privacy and security.
Maryland is considering outlawing the use of consumer DNA test dtatbases for familial searches by law enforcement. It sounds as if it is already illegal for law enforcement agencies to conduct familial searches of their own law enforcement databases.
https://www.wired.com/story/maryland-considers-banning-genetic-genealogy-forensics/
Yes indeed! Anyone who lives in Maryland and is troubled by recent developments should be sure to write their congressman in support of HB50.
When I first found out about GEDMatch being used for the Golden State Killer & learned that GEDMatch’s T&C’s saying that their database was open, I thought, “OK, if that’s what their T&C’s have always said, I’m OK with that use. Knowing the terms is on me.” But when I found out FTDNA was changing their terms without first notifying us, well…that’s just wrong. That’s on them. I imagine they’re going to get an earful at RootsTech
I have opted out of matching on 3 Family Finder and full mtDNA kit at FTDNA ; and am now so skeptical of that site that I will likely request deletion of data and will remove family trees, etc. I had matches there with names like “TBD” and “Unknown”– I believed such matches to be adoptees or foundlings; but now I wonder… An new match named “Unknown” just showed up in my MyHeritage match list and I was now not so comfortable with any site that allows uploads, period. I also wonder how many new customers will FTDNA convince to pay for the privilege of allowing law enforcement access to their DNA. I didn’t pay to be involuntarily include in some police dragnet; and deeply resents someone else believing they have the right to take the decision out of my hands.
This is just so discouraging. I was already a bit uncomfortable asking people to test, having received some harsh rejections in the past couple of years. Some of my family members have very strong feelings about privacy, and only agreed to test, reluctantly, after I assured them that their privacy would be carefully protected at FTDNA. Those individuals’ results came in the day before the first big Buzzfeed blow-up. I had to go back and tell each of them the new situation, and so far at least one wants his data REMOVED from FTDNA. Opting out is not sufficient. Then I posted on a prominent genetic genealogy Facebook group, asking if there are any other companies that do Y-DNA or mtDNA, since I prefer not to work with FTDNA anymore. The vast majority of responses implied that I must be either a paranoid idiot or soft on criminals. I have really been trying to learn about and get excited about genetic genealogy — I even took a DNA class at SLIG last month — but at this point I have lost any enthusiasm for this kind of research. It does seem to be the future of genealogy, which makes me wonder what my future is, after 40 years of genealogy research.
Karen Vincent Humiston, I know exactly what Facebook group you speak of, and I am appalled at the lack of concern about this issue there. I think many in that group earn money from their expertise in genetic genealogy, and don’t want to see people pull out of one of their tools – FTDNA.
I now think it is extremely unlikely FTDNA will offer an opt-in solution. Why should they? Even the premier genetic genealogists appear to support what they have done.
Like you, I have one family member who now wants his DNA removed from FTDNA thanks to this latest news. Thankfully, I only paid for an autosomal transfer in his case, back when it was pretty cheap, so I think I am only out $20. I too have to wonder if a company like FTDNA – which I now distrust and will never recommend – can be trusted to actually remove the data upon customer request. Why should they? They’ll just change their terms of service again to allow them to keep and use the samples.
I continue to be furious about my parents’ DNA tests. Currently I have turned off matching for both. My dad has passed away and I can’t ask him how he feels about leaving his autosomal and yDNA in their system. He’s had zero yDNA matches, but I’m angry about the money I’ve wasted with all matching turned off. He was pro- law enforcement, but I don’t think he’d approve of what FTDNA is doing.
It’s a similar situation with my 90-year-old mother, who can now no longer speak, so I can’t ask her what she wants to do. I spent money on mtDNA testing on her as well as transferring in the autosomal. She only has three mtDNA matches. She is part of a couple projects on the site, and I also hoped to find out more about some brick wall female ancestors, both on her side.
I too have been trying to learn more about advanced techniques in genetic genealogy, but this situation just disgusts me and has also killed my enthusiasm for this type of research.
Thank you, Judy Russell, for keeping us informed on this. I’m certainly not getting any information from the aforementioned genetic genealogy group. Commenting is turned off on any post mentioning law enforcement issues with the directive to dump it all in one buried thread.
You are so right Judy.
I went to a family funeral today and hoped to convince several aunts and uncles to test their DNA (at my expense). To a person they declined due to the bad press and lack of privacy concerns they have read about. And who can blame them?
Before Christmas a first cousin happily agreed to my request only to come back to me recently apologising because he had had a change of heart due to privacy concerns. He was also concerned that organisations are taking advantage of clients’ DNA testing and using it for purposes for which it was never intended. How can I reasonably disagree with him?
What has been a fabulous leap forward in family history research is being destroyed by commercial greed. Like you, I don’t have a problem with law enforcement access to DNA databases – provided they have either consent of the individuals or a court order. But Family Tree DNA does not appear to have either. They can’t go fishing for other types of records, do why is DNA different?
At this rate, unless we can stop the trend, it won’t be long before the goose that lays the golden egg for DNA test companies goes into permanent retirement and we family historians will be the worse for it.
Keep up the good fight Judy and thank you for keeping us informed.
Cheers
Therese
I have been growing more and more uncomfortable with genealogical DNA testing over the past few years and egregious examples like this from FTDNA only increase my discomfort. I spent a lot of time in the past few years traveling my state trying to persuade people to DNA test for our One-Name study, but I no longer believe that a responsible activity. And the increasing prevalence of persons with NPE events in their past raises, to my thinking, some serious existential questions about who we really are- our genes or our inheritance, as well as personal privacy conundrums- that I don’t think we as a group have really thought through. I’m not yet ready to pull the plug on our One-Name DNA project, but FTDNA is doing everything it can to push me there, apparently. The notion that when I sent in my samples I was making my data public is, to my thinking, absurd. By that reasoning, Amazon would be free to sell my charge card number to anyone in the market for it, since I divulged my private information to a public corporation in a transaction. I do no such thing when I buy from Amazon, nor did I do so when I sent my sample to FTDNA. I contracted with FTDNA to make a genealogy test, and they have permission to do that alone and nothing more.
Although I previously made my DNA tests private (after the first article broke), this second “breach” of my trust by DNA has convinced me to delete all my tests there. Note that for tests other than your own, the person who tested must contact FTDNA to have the test deleted. I’m not sure if anything can be done if that person is dead. For tests that might otherwise be ‘lost,’ FTDNA testers do have the option of uploading to MyHeritage, whose owner has stated he will not open his company’s database up to law enforcement.
You mentioned GEDMatch in your comments. Am I to assume law enforcement is digging around in that database? All I ever wanted to do was find out where my ancestors came from and make contact with cousins who might be able to help me trace those ancestors. Boy, was I wrong. Big brother has taken over everything. None of us in Family Tree’s database signed up for this! That company is ensuring that their sales will go down. And, I can’t say that I have had much success in finding relations via their site.
GEDmatch is a different story, to some degree, because it’s never been a closed, proprietary database with promises of privacy. In May 2018 — after it was announced that GEDmatch was the system used in the Golden State Killer case — it changed its terms of use to make it clear that law enforcement was using the database, was allowed to use it, and couldn’t be stopped from using it — and reminding users that GEDmatch couldn’t say what other uses might be made of the database in the future. Anyone who objected was advised to make their kits private (research kits, for example) or delete their data.
Since the terms of service do not permit class action and only allow mandatory arbitration, it appears the only way to deal with this is to hit FTDNA in their wallet. 1-Download all data to your computer for your own account and any that you manage (after all, you or someone paid for it; it is yours). 2-Send the appropriate notice that they are to destroy your sample and delete any information they hold about you. 3-Advise those whom you encouraged to test at FTDNA of the situation and provide them with the relevant articles so they can decide for themselves. 4-Actively refuse to recommend FTDNA to anyone. If enough people do this, it will negatively impact FTDNA. The lack of judicial oversight of law enforcement agencies is particularly disturbing and may well be setting the stage for law enforcement having access to banking records and medical records without any judicial oversight. Frankly, I fail to see the difference between accessing my DNA without my permission and my banking and medical records. Finally, I take exception to Mr. Greenspan’s characterization of me as wanting to hide the murderers and rapists in my family (Does he know something I don’t know?–sarcasm big time) because of my refusal to open my DNA information to any and all who go “fishing” in the FTDNA pond.
After much study of terms of service, I convinced my parents to test with FTDNA. They were not sure of the matching part so, until they were more comfortable with it, they did not allow matches. We had just discussed opening their matches but now are very happy not to have done so. My family is pro-law enforcement. We all would like to help solve crimes. This is not the way we expected to do so. We are not criminals and they have invaded our rights.
Does anyone know if this FTDNA change allows law enforcement to access matches even if a kit’s matches were never allowed? I do not trust FTDNA to keep it private.
We are told that opting out of matching (as you have done) will mean that police cannot see these kits.
Anne, I would like to stress “this is not the way we expected to do so”. Taking a DNA test is about giving up your privacy, but it is done for a purpose – your and others genealogical research.
I am a quite public person, I meet around 30-40 persons a week and I meet aboutadditionaly new 15 persons every month. Well, I am a teacher. I tell about my life, my family, my interests and a bit about my health with my pupils. It is some basics in the language learning and the pupils learn about me as a person. They tell me about themselves, their families, interests and health. But it is done for a purpose – they need to learn and I need to teach, talking about everyday life is the base. Do my pupils expect that I make a thorough notes and supply them to LE? Do I expect that thay take thorough notes in order to supply these to LE? No and no, but I still suspect that there are a lot of notes about my personal life. They are done for a purpose and the information is disclosed for a pupose.
Before GDPR I had been quite critical about usage of sensitive personal data. My class lists included personal security numbers of the pupils. Well, it was very convinient for the administration, but I had voiced on a meeting if it was really necessary for me as a teacher to see them on the paper lists. After our discussions social security numbers have benn removed and… it was no big change.
Taking a DNA test is waving one’s privacy but for a purpose, genealogical research, and for a limited group of amateur genealogists. We are researching our families’ histories, trying to find connections and giving up a serious piece of our privacy. But we know why we do it, how we do it and I hope there is a kind of common sense conduct code among us – to the data carefully, not misuse it and share it fairly to help others with the genealogical research.
I have been positive to GDPR, although it is really pain in the ass in EU. No, I can’t e-mail a name to someone outside my organisation, if I haven’t got the consent to do so. No, I can’t leave leave a post-it with a name just on my collegues desk – someone else can see it. No, I can’t take a picture on some one and load up on my facebook. And no, none, including me, needs a signture on a 30-page contract to do such things. A written permission is preferred, but it is enough just to ask in everyday life. Think just about “Should we take a groupie?” You are free to opt in or opt out and you know it will be in your friends’ Facebook flow.
I would apply the same to DNA tests. Why not just to ask – do you want or not? It has still to be our data, our tests, our results and our puposes. I think that EU’s GDPR was a kind of shock, painful change, but it was a timely and necessary change – it gives the control of the data to the person and it demands that the consent is clearly given for each usage purpose and that getting access to one part of the service can’t be under demand for a consent for another side purpose. USA and other countries need a similar regulation.
What do we agree to share? To whom? For what purpose? And what is the punishment if someone uses my personal date against my will?
I guess I’m in the minority here. I have NO expectation of privacy with ANYthing on the ‘net. So this is no surprise, and if I cared I would not have tested.
I’m with you Susan, the outcome of a simple risk assessment tells that privacy on the net is a relative term.
No problem, if that’s your informed choice. It’s not the informed choice of others, and both positions are valid. The solution: an opt-in system. It really is that simple. Opt-out is wrong, morally, ethically and legally.
You may not be in the minority, and either way it’s no problem, if that’s your informed choice. It’s not the informed choice of others, and both positions are valid. The solution: an opt-in system. It really is that simple. Opt-out is wrong, morally, ethically and legally.
I totally agree with you Susan. And don’t care if they mine thru my DNA if it helps to find the “bad guys”. That’s THEIR problem if they find them, not mine. Just very glad they can use these databases to get to the criminals (as long as that’s ALL they use them for).
Will FTDNA be allowed to continue selling its DNA testing kits in the European Union where privacy laws are stricter than they are in the United States?
Have the bosses of FTDNA even considered the implications for people outside the United States?
If the FTDNA folks haven’t considered the GDPR and other EU privacy implications it isn’t because we haven’t been telling ’em…
Like many others, I emailed FTDNA expressing my disappointment with their recent actions regarding privacy and ethics and told them of my total opposition to letting for-profit companies use the database.
My reply pointed out a fact that I don’t think has been discussed much or at all. If FTDNA is believed, less than 10 kits have been uploaded or submitted by LE.
Hello Alec,
Thanks for your email. There is a lot of misinformation out there on the internet, so thank you for giving us the chance to clear some things up.
The FBI does not have access to all records or data.
FTDNA allows law enforcement, including the FBI, the opportunity to upload a DNA data file to our database, like any other customer may do, for matching purposes. They then have access only to whatever any other customer would have access to for accounts they have uploaded only. To date, we have received fewer than 10 uploaded accounts from law enforcement.
You may read the email clarification from our CEO, Bennett Greenspan here:
https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/letter-to-customers?e=4082c86ab6
I hope this information is helpful.
We have no way to verify the number of cases — the kits are not identifiable in any way.
Hey Judy, Some people put signs on their property boundary giving notice that entry to their property without their specific consent constitutes trespass etc. While most if not all jurisdictions would have trespass laws on their statutes people who put out these signs claim they give greater protection from entry of government employees without specific consent.
Does it sound useful to have a notice with similar intent on our FTDNA profiles that indicate our own terms of service – ie that I explicitly do not give consent to Government officers or their agents to access my personal data resulting from my supplied DNA (ie DNA matching segment information including amount of shared cM) or any genealogical information that I have supplied via the FTDNA website for any purpose other than researching their own personal biological family tree.
I don’t see any way for individual action to override the site’s settings, frankly. That’s why this needs to be done (now!!!) as an opt-in feature by FTDNA itself. That way every single customer can have his or her desires and choices honored.