Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colleen posted this last night in her forensic FB group saying she did Y-DNA work for them in 2016 that gave her the name Ewing. There's a video interview with her. I asked her since she's not able to upload Y-DNA to FTDNA, is there a public database she uses? Hopefully she'll explain.
Court orders or warrants are only necessary for law enforcement to obtain information not available to the public on those site, like personal details like one's phone number or address (because those are private at FTDNA).
It's the same with any database that is open and available to the public - Gedmatch, MyHeritageDNA, FTDNA, etc. If the public can use it/upload to it, so can law enforcement (AncestryDNA and 23andMe are different, they are not public, because no one can upload DNA files from other sources, you must take their test, with their sample kit to be in their database). That's why I don't understand the outrage and fear surrounding this whole thing - law enforcement did not break the law by uploading suspect DNA to public databases. People don't get outraged or fearful when police use the phone book to find someone's contact information... because it's a public database that people have opted into. Same goes for these public DNA databases. It's not law enforcement's fault if some people didn't realize this.
I think the fundamental problem isn't that people uploading DNA to those databases basically agree to their DNA matches/relationships being shared with any and all actors - including law enforcement - it's that they also sign up all of their family without those people ever consenting to it. I don't think any of the folks caught by this technique uploaded their data to a public database.
Given the prevalence of those tests and the popularity of public databases, you may soon have a situation where the entire population of the United States is traceable via DNA by the government even though only maybe 3% of the population ever did a DNA test and agreed to those databases' T&Cs.
While nobody is going to lose sleep over some pedo killer getting caught, the reality is that whatever the government can do to catch guys they can also use for other purposes, which in another context might be less benign and beneficial to the people of the country. I don't think it would be uncontroversial if the government was going to introduce a compulsory DNA database for all residents, but in practice that's what you're gonna end up with eventually if this sort of thing isn't regulated.
I think the fundamental problem isn't that people uploading DNA to those databases basically agree to their DNA matches/relationships being shared with any and all actors - including law enforcement - it's that they also sign up all of their family without those people ever consenting to it. I don't think any of the folks caught by this technique uploaded their data to a public database.
They're not signing up "all of their family" though - they are uploading DNA they share with family members, but if you include no info about who those people are then that means nothing. Without gedcoms/trees, the DNA means nothing. However, Gedmatch are working on, if they haven't finished already, correcting how gedcoms are displayed. Previously, if you didn't privatize living people yourself, they weren't private. That is changing (if it hasn't already) so that living people are automatically privatized when you upload a gedcom to Gedmatch. Equally, I believe that has always been the case at FTDNA too and I know it's true at MyHeritage (and at Ancestry, even though they don't allow uploads). So as long as living people are privatized in your tree, then you are not sharing info about your living family members. Once those are privatized, that is the kind of thing police would need to get a court order/warrant for to be able to access.
Quote:
Given the prevalence of those tests and the popularity of public databases, you may soon have a situation where the entire population of the United States is traceable via DNA by the government even though only maybe 3% of the population ever did a DNA test and agreed to those databases' T&Cs.
That's just not true and it's really not how it works.
That's just not true and it's really not how it works.
Once you have a couple of matches for DNA they found at a crime scene you can typically tell the degree of their relationship within a certain range. If that relationship is 3rd cousin or closer you can almost certainly find out who the person whose DNA was at the crime scene is based on simple detective skills.
Heck, I found a 4th cousin on AncestryDNA, who used a nickname, and yet I managed to figure out their real name and then much of their family tree.
So this person's DNA matching mine made it possible for me to identify a range of people in their (and I guess my very extended) family and by finding out about their life stories from databases (white pages and so forth) in rough terms I'm able to narrow it down to the point where it'd be fairly easy to figure out the exact person I'm looking for if I had some parameters. And that's of course exactly how these crimes get solved.
If your cousin uploaded their data to a public database and is identifiable from the result in any way - then you can be identified if they have your DNA. Everyone uploading their data thus makes people beyond themselves identifiable, people who don't know about it and never consented.
If 5 million people uploaded their DNA to this database, it'd compromise vastly more people than just them.
Again, this is no concern if we're hunting serial killers, but imagine a secret police in an authoritarian nation using this to identify dissidents whose DNA was left at a rally that was broken up by police.
I think the fundamental problem isn't that people uploading DNA to those databases basically agree to their DNA matches/relationships being shared with any and all actors - including law enforcement - it's that they also sign up all of their family without those people ever consenting to it. I don't think any of the folks caught by this technique uploaded their data to a public database.
Given the prevalence of those tests and the popularity of public databases, you may soon have a situation where the entire population of the United States is traceable via DNA by the government even though only maybe 3% of the population ever did a DNA test and agreed to those databases' T&Cs.
While nobody is going to lose sleep over some pedo killer getting caught, the reality is that whatever the government can do to catch guys they can also use for other purposes, which in another context might be less benign and beneficial to the people of the country. I don't think it would be uncontroversial if the government was going to introduce a compulsory DNA database for all residents, but in practice that's what you're gonna end up with eventually if this sort of thing isn't regulated.
I agree. See the article below. People have been tracked by DNA since 1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK
They're not signing up "all of their family" though - they are uploading DNA they share with family members, but if you include no info about who those people are then that means nothing. Without gedcoms/trees, the DNA means nothing. However, Gedmatch are working on, if they haven't finished already, correcting how gedcoms are displayed. Previously, if you didn't privatize living people yourself, they weren't private. That is changing (if it hasn't already) so that living people are automatically privatized when you upload a gedcom to Gedmatch. Equally, I believe that has always been the case at FTDNA too and I know it's true at MyHeritage (and at Ancestry, even though they don't allow uploads). So as long as living people are privatized in your tree, then you are not sharing info about your living family members. Once those are privatized, that is the kind of thing police would need to get a court order/warrant for to be able to access.
That's just not true and it's really not how it works.
Do you remember I posted a few months ago that some states (California in particular) had their own DNA database from baby heel sticks, some use tissue samples from surgeries. So yes, it's happening. They sell the DNA info too. I thought I made a new post, I posted it in the other thread DNA for sale . The question is, how many states are doing the same and is it a public database that LE can use? I have to reread the article; been months since I read it plus I'm not fully awake.
Some states are collecting newborn DNA. I've been trying to find out if NJ is doing it too
I've been trying to put together a thread about newborn heel sticks. You really have to read the article. It's very hard to pick 10% to copy
The Newborn Genetic Screening test is required in all 50 states, and is widely believed to be a miracle of modern medicine. What people don't know is that some states keep the blood samples on file and let outside researchers buy them.
Nearly every baby born in the United States gets a heel prick shortly after birth. Their newborn blood fills six spots on a special filter paper card. It is used to test baby for dozens of congenital disorders that, if treated early enough, could prevent severe disabilities and even death.
In California, they not only store them since 1983; they also sell them (minus patient information) to outside researchers for $20 to $40 per spot..
It's estimated that newborn screening leads to a potentially life-saving early diagnosis each year for 5,000 to 6,000 children nationwide.
The California Department of Public Health reports that from 2015-2017 alone, the Newborn Screening test diagnosed 2,498 babies with a "serious congenital disorder that, if left untreated could have caused irreparable harm or death."
But, unless you or your child is diagnosed with one of these disorders, the test is often lost in the fog of childbirth.
Your rights after the test
The lab generally only needs a few of the blood spots for the baby's own potentially lifesaving genetic test. They use to collect five blood spots total from each child in California, they've now increased that to six.
Some states destroy the blood spots after a year, 12 states store them for at least 21 years.
California, however, is one of a handful of states that stores the remaining blood spots for research indefinitely in a state-run biobank.
According to the Department of Public Health, more than 9.5 million blood spot samples have been collected since 2000 alone. The state of California has stored blood spots since 1983.
In the case of the Genetic Screening Pamphlet, the moms agreed they wouldn't have thought it was relevant to read after the fact unless their child was actually diagnosed.
And they're not alone. We conducted an exclusive Survey USA news poll of parents with kids born in California over the past five years.
While a majority of parents reported that they did know about the life-saving test, three-quarters said they didn't know the state would store the leftover blood spots indefinitely for research, and two-thirds weren't sure they ever got the newborn screening information.
While a majority of parents reported that they did know about the life-saving test, three-quarters said they didn't know the state would store the leftover blood spots indefinitely for research, and two-thirds weren't sure they ever got the newborn screening information.
When we read the six moms that portion of page 13 that disclosed the blood spots could be used for outside research, they noted that it's not clear the blood spots are stored indefinitely, available to law enforcement, nor that using blood spots for "department approved studies" means giving them to outside researchers." P.13 states:
"Are the stored blood spots used for anything else? Yes. California law requires the NBS program to use or provide newborn screening specimens for department approved studies of diseases in women and children, such as research related to identify-ing and preventing disease."
While the state says it "distributes more than 700,000 copies of the booklets to health providers each year," it admits that it doesn't track whether doctors are giving them out. It also does not confirm parents are informed of their rights to opt out of storage before storing or selling the child's DNA.
Once you have a couple of matches for DNA they found at a crime scene you can typically tell the degree of their relationship within a certain range. If that relationship is 3rd cousin or closer you can almost certainly find out who the person whose DNA was at the crime scene is based on simple detective skills.
IF that relationship is 3rd cousin or closer, but most/many people don't have matches that close. Additionally, people can use aliases or non-identifying email addresses, and if they didn't upload a gedcom, it's would be impossible to figure out who they are, let alone their family members.
Quote:
Heck, I found a 4th cousin on AncestryDNA, who used a nickname, and yet I managed to figure out their real name and then much of their family tree.
That's not typical.
Quote:
So this person's DNA matching mine made it possible for me to identify a range of people in their (and I guess my very extended) family and by finding out about their life stories from databases (white pages and so forth) in rough terms I'm able to narrow it down to the point where it'd be fairly easy to figure out the exact person I'm looking for if I had some parameters. And that's of course exactly how these crimes get solved.
I'm not saying it's not possible for law enforcement to be doing this, of course it is - I'm saying I don't agree that the entire population of the nation can be traced from 3%.
Quote:
If your cousin uploaded their data to a public database and is identifiable from the result in any way
That's my very point - most of my matches are not identifiable in any way. On AncestryDNA, 23andMe, FTDNA, MyHeritageDNA, Gedmatch, etc. - I have thousands of matches and only a handful are identifiable.
Once you have a couple of matches for DNA they found at a crime scene you can typically tell the degree of their relationship within a certain range. If that relationship is 3rd cousin or closer you can almost certainly find out who the person whose DNA was at the crime scene is based on simple detective skills.
Heck, I found a 4th cousin on AncestryDNA, who used a nickname, and yet I managed to figure out their real name and then much of their family tree.
So this person's DNA matching mine made it possible for me to identify a range of people in their (and I guess my very extended) family and by finding out about their life stories from databases (white pages and so forth) in rough terms I'm able to narrow it down to the point where it'd be fairly easy to figure out the exact person I'm looking for if I had some parameters. And that's of course exactly how these crimes get solved.
If your cousin uploaded their data to a public database and is identifiable from the result in any way - then you can be identified if they have your DNA. Everyone uploading their data thus makes people beyond themselves identifiable, people who don't know about it and never consented.
If 5 million people uploaded their DNA to this database, it'd compromise vastly more people than just them.
Again, this is no concern if we're hunting serial killers, but imagine a secret police in an authoritarian nation using this to identify dissidents whose DNA was left at a rally that was broken up by police.
The details of living persons on Ancestry family trees is automatically privatized, I have no idea how you could accomplish what you are claiming. I've used Ancestry for 20 years, I first submitted my DNA to Ancestry in 2011. At least 70% of my DNA matches have no associated family tree, of those that do have a tree, living persons reveal nothing- not even a name.
Once you have a couple of matches for DNA they found at a crime scene you can typically tell the degree of their relationship within a certain range. If that relationship is 3rd cousin or closer you can almost certainly find out who the person whose DNA was at the crime scene is based on simple detective skills.
Heck, I found a 4th cousin on AncestryDNA, who used a nickname, and yet I managed to figure out their real name and then much of their family tree.
So this person's DNA matching mine made it possible for me to identify a range of people in their (and I guess my very extended) family and by finding out about their life stories from databases (white pages and so forth) in rough terms I'm able to narrow it down to the point where it'd be fairly easy to figure out the exact person I'm looking for if I had some parameters. And that's of course exactly how these crimes get solved.
If your cousin uploaded their data to a public database and is identifiable from the result in any way - then you can be identified if they have your DNA. Everyone uploading their data thus makes people beyond themselves identifiable, people who don't know about it and never consented.
If 5 million people uploaded their DNA to this database, it'd compromise vastly more people than just them.
Again, this is no concern if we're hunting serial killers, but imagine a secret police in an authoritarian nation using this to identify dissidents whose DNA was left at a rally that was broken up by police.
It's not hard to do if you know what line they're from and find obituaries that list names
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
