Author Topic: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies  (Read 1431 times)

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,517
    • View Profile
https://thednageek.com/ftdna-opens-the-door-to-the-cops/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/family-tree-dna-fbi-investigative-genealogy-privacy

This appears to be very different from the Gedmatch scenario where the Golden State Killer was captured after his DNA was (unwittingly, both to him and Gedmatch) uploaded to the site and close relatives found.

The terms and conditions have been altered without customers being notified, and there is active cooperation between ftDNA and police department.

I have mixed feelings about this - I have got nothing to hide, and if my relatives have something to hide, they should come to justice, perhaps by whatever means available. And they still have no added information that Joe public DNA tester doesn't have.  Also I wish them more luck in contacting matches than most of us have.

But how long might it be before the companies are forced to supply addresses of testers, or willingly divulge them?

Thoughts anybody?

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline Mtaggert

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #1 on: Friday 01 February 19 03:47 GMT (UK) »
Thus is kind of scary. The us has lots of holes i m its privacy laws

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #2 on: Friday 01 February 19 06:33 GMT (UK) »
I do not see what the fuss is about, there are still safeguards in place and anyone who thinks that any DNA company in the USA would prevent the FBI from checking their DNA is living in dreamland.

The only difference between the old and new terms is the removal of the FBI's need to ask before checking.
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,517
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #3 on: Friday 01 February 19 06:55 GMT (UK) »
A warm welcome to Rootschat, Mtaggert

There doesn't seem at present as if any privacy laws are being broken, that I can see, for the wider population, who willingly have their DNA tested and/or upload it to other sites.

Those of the offender, who has had his/her DNA tested without his/ her knowledge or consent, are definitely being violated, but they have left their DNA at a serious crime scene, so should their rights to privacy be respected or not?

As Guy has pointed out, the major difference here is active co-operation between ftDNA and law enforcement agency, even as far as helping them to prepare samples to an appropriate standard.

I have had no new matches at Gedmatch for some time now, testers may have been discouraged by the large disclaimer on their home page about the matter.  ftDNA seem to have gone about it by the back door, changing their terms and conditions without notification.

The fact that more serious criminals are potentially being brought to justice can only be good, in my view, but presumably not in theirs.

I wonder how successful a law suit brought by one of them would be - not very successful probably, but I would think someone would try it. They don't appear to have updated the conditions about who may submit DNA.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go


Offline jfremont

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 02 February 19 18:57 GMT (UK) »
Margaret - You mentioned you have not received new matches on Gedmatch for some time. I noticed the same thing but when I checked the Genesis site I found quite a few recent matches. I suspect the old site has stopped updating those accounts that have been migrated over to Genesis.
John

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,517
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 03 February 19 05:44 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for that, John.

I haven't looked at Genesis for a while, I didn't realise that was the main site now, it still says Genesis beta.

Interestingly they have migrated my A number over to Genesis as well, presumably everyone elses original number as well.

My top match is now myself, estimated number of generations to MRCA = 1
I wonder how they work that out, surely it should be 0. Also interestingly there are a few small areas where the validity of the segments are quoted as either insignificant, a large gap between adjacent SNPs or no match at all.

Thank you again, a few new matches there.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline Finley 1

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,538
  • a digital one for now real one espere
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 03 February 19 06:28 GMT (UK) »
???? not surprised at all by this.. was to be expected..

Query a book written some time ago.. that forewarned us...... now what was it called.

and how many times have we said to each other Big Brother is watching you.

It is Not a safe world anymore..... anywhere....

in my simple mind anyway.. :(  sadly I plod along and pray  for my offspring and their chances of a decent life.

We need some kind of check ?? as the planet is so full ----  I do not have volumes of words to express what I mean   just basic lanquage..

It aint safe anymore out there..  so get um chipped...

xin (not just cats and dogs :) :) )    Its Ok  going back behind closed doors.. now





Offline davidft

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,209
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 03 February 19 23:03 GMT (UK) »
I guess its only right to give ftDNA the right to reply to the journalism.


Dear Customers:

I am writing to address the news that our Gene-by-Gene laboratory, which processes genetic tests for several commercial clients in addition to all of the FamilyTreeDNA tests, has processed a handful of DNA samples for cold cases from the F.B.I. In many cases, the news reports contained false or misleading information.

Let me start with this categorical statement:

LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT HAVE OPEN ACCESS TO THE FTDNA DATABASE.

They cannot search or “dig through” FTDNA profiles any more than an ordinary user can.   As with all other genetic genealogy services, law enforcement must provide valid legal process, such as a subpoena or search warrant to receive any information beyond that which any other user can access.

I have been an avid genealogist since I was twelve years old. FamilyTreeDNA is not just a business, it is my passion.  I fully understand your privacy concerns on a personal level.

Law enforcement has the ability to test DNA samples from crime scenes and upload the results into databases, like any other customer can, and it appears they have been doing it at other companies for the past year. The distinction is that, according to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, we expect the FBI and law enforcement agencies to let us know when they submit something to our database. We moved to something transparent, rather than having them work in a stealthy way. Other than that, nothing changed that affects the privacy of our customers.

FamilyTreeDNA has always taken your privacy seriously and will continue to do so.  We’ve remained steadfast, always, refusing to sell your data to pharmaceutical companies and other third parties.

One of the key reasons law enforcement wanted to submit their samples to us is the same reason many of you have: out of all the major companies, FamilyTreeDNA is the only one that has its own lab, and our customers’ samples never leave our company.

As previously stated, law enforcement can only receive information beyond that which is accessible to the standard user by providing FamilyTreeDNA with valid legal process, such as a subpoena or a search warrant. Again, this is specified in FamilyTreeDNA’s Terms of Service, just as with all other companies.

ABOUT OUR TERMS OF SERVICE

The Terms of Service were changed in May of 2018 to reflect GDPR requirements, and we informed our customers about the update at that time. Those changes included a paragraph that required law enforcement to receive our permission to enter the database and since it was a part of the overall update, notice was sent to every FTDNA customer. Without infringing upon our customers’ privacy, the language in the paragraph referring to law enforcement was updated in December, although nothing changed in the actual handling of such requests.  It was an oversight that notice of the revision was not sent to you and that is our mistake. Therefore, we are reverting our TOS to our May 2018 version, and any future changes will be communicated to you in a timely manner.

This is the May 2018, GDPR-compliant version, communicated to you at that time: “You agree to not use the Services for any law enforcement purposes, forensic examinations, criminal investigations, and/or similar purposes without the required legal documentation and written permission from FamilyTreeDNA.”

WE WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF COMMUNICATING WITH YOU.

I am genuinely sorry for not having handled our communications with you as we should have.

We’ve received an incredible amount of support from those of you who believe this is an opportunity for honest, law-abiding citizens to help catch bad guys and bring closure to devastated families. We want you to understand, as many of you already do, that you have the same protections that you’ve always had and that you have nothing to fear.

We’ve also heard from supporters offering ideas and solutions to make the FamilyTreeDNA experience a more comfortable one in light of this new information. 

We are listening. Our plan is to create a panel of citizen genealogist advisors who will work with us as we focus on how to make your FamilyTreeDNA experience the best one available.   

Sincerely,

Bennett Greenspan
President
FamilyTreeDNA.com

“History Unearthed Daily"

Copyright © 2019 FamilyTreeDNA, All rights reserved.
James Stott c1775-1850. James was born in Yorkshire but where? He was a stonemason and married Elizabeth Archer (nee Nicholson) in 1794 at Ripon. They lived thereafter in Masham. If anyone has any suggestions or leads as to his birthplace I would be interested to know. I have searched for it for years without success. Thank you.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,517
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting developments concerning access to data by law enforcement agencies
« Reply #8 on: Monday 04 February 19 02:43 GMT (UK) »
David, Snap!

I've just read the email, sent to every ftDNA customer.

https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/letter-to-customers?e=0e91c9359f

So presumably they are no longer facilitating preparing samples for testing, unless they get a court order to do so.

A shame in some ways, it was the lack of transparency which was the problem, not what they were actually doing. At the time of the Golden State Killer case, where the suspects DNA details were uploaded to Gedmatch, all the other companies were quick to point out that they wouldn't allow such a thing to happen willingly.

As the letter points out, law enforcement agencies had been submitting samples to testing companies for the past year.

It appears that many other stories have circulated about this subject, presumably/possibly changing bit by bit with each telling.

As Guy said, 'anyone who thinks that any DNA company in the USA would prevent the FBI from checking their DNA is living in dreamland.'

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go