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.
Status:
"Hello Darlin, Nice to see you - Conway Twitty"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: 9764 Jeopardy Lane
791 posts, read 372,092 times
Reputation: 830
Advertisements
I just read an article regarding the alleged Idaho killer and the FBI found him via genealogic information available in a database that actually had a DNA match to his father. Most of us, , I would hope, are not killers but I can imagine insurance, etc. getting onboard and I think you lose your rights when you offer up your DNA. Clearly the collector is selling the data to government agencies.
I was gifted a 23 and me subscription but refused to use it for this very reason. Is this a concern for anyone that you are giving up your genetic profile to businesses that aren't constrained legally?
I just read an article regarding the alleged Idaho killer and the FBI found him via genealogic information available in a database that actually had a DNA match to his father. Most of us, , I would hope, are not killers but I can imagine insurance, etc. getting onboard and I think you lose your rights when you offer up your DNA. Clearly the collector is selling the data to government agencies.
I was gifted a 23 and me subscription but refused to use it for this very reason. Is this a concern for anyone that you are giving up your genetic profile to businesses that aren't constrained legally?
Not really, Ancestry, 23andMe, My Heritage, Family Tree DNA, etc. have no idea where the sample they receive came from.
Was it from a police department, maybe, was it from your grandma, maybe, was it from Joe Schmoe down the road, maybe, they are just testing what they receive in the tube.
Not sure how it went down with the Idaho suspect's DNA, but most law-enforcement agencies tend to use GEDmatch, which is how they caught the Golden State Killer in California, back in 2018.
I don't have a problem with insurance companies knowing. If a rare disease runs in your family and most die by 53 wouldn't the insurance company knowing the right thing way to go? If you owned a business, would you want a couple employees bleeding the benefit plan dry?
I have no problem with law enforcement knowing. So many more crimes would be solved.
I would have no problem with a nationwide database.
You seem to be concerned with your rights, but what about the rights of others?
I opted out of GedMatch when a business that works with law enforcement bought the platform. I am seriously considering resubmitting my DNA and opting IN. I want these murderers, regardless of age, off the streets. I want the victims' families to learn the identity of the murderers and/or rapists that harmed their loved ones and, hopefully, find some closure. Furthermore, I want the perpetrators brought to justice.
My (deceased) father has 9283 matches on FTDNA
I have 9128 matches on FTDNA
I also have 56,275 Ancestry matches, etc.
*My father's DNA should prove to be the most useful, given his, ahem, lineage.
The only DNA test I have done was for the DPAA to help identify an unaccounted for great-uncle (who died as a POW at a Japanese internment camp in the Philippines). The DPAA stated that they would not share my DNA results with any other entities including not law enforcement. This is obviously a different situation than commercial DNA companies who want to make money off of their clients.
It's illegal for health insurance companies to use genetic data to deny coverage. Also, all the main DNA companies have policies against selling or sharing your genetic data without your permission or court order and there's never been any evidence these policies have been violated.
Quote:
and I think you lose your rights when you offer up your DNA.
Not true, the TOS states you retain your ownership of your own data.
Quote:
Clearly the collector is selling the data to government agencies.
Also not true - FTDNA and Gedmatch allow law enforcement to upload DNA data to their database, but they are not selling the data to law enforcement and the data is never transferred to a law enforcrment database. Also, law enforcement don't have access to any other data or tools that any other user does not have access to. They are simply using the database and tools the way anyone else would. Also, users can opt out of matching with law enforcement tests, they do not have to participate to use these DNA companies.
23andMe, AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, and LivingDNA all have policies against law enforcement access. 23andMe and AncestryDNA in particular don't even allow DNA uploads from outside sources which means law enforcement have no means of accessing their databases without a court order, or hacking it (which is illegal).
Quote:
I was gifted a 23 and me subscription but refused to use it for this very reason.
Well, that's your right, but it was a poorly informed decision. I don't care if people choose not to test, but it should be an informed decision and yours was clearly not.
Quote:
Is this a concern for anyone that you are giving up your genetic profile to businesses that aren't constrained legally?
They are constrained legally in many cases, and they have policies (which legally constrains them further) in other cases. I'm not saying it's impossible for a company to break the law, but for me personally, I feel the likelihood of that is low enough to be worth the benefits of taking the DNA test. I've made an informed decision, which people are free to disagree with if they are equally well enough informed.
You don’t have any control over which of your relatives decide to use a DNA testing service and develop an online tree. Law enforcement use DNA relatives listed for their suspect to narrow the field of their investigation. That investigation may involve further developing the family tree. When investigators find a probable suspect, they usually attempt to get a DNA sample from an item the suspect has discarded e.g. garbage.
Law enforcement doesn’t obtain a DNA profile for any of the DNA relatives listed by the online testing service. It’s irrelevant to their investigation anyway as none of those relatives are the culprit - just related.
Law enforcement doesn’t (begin at using the) DNA profile for any of the DNA relatives listed
by the online testing service. It’s (premature to) their investigation (of Ernie the serial rapist) ...
But when the nephew of Ernie spits in a tube and throws it into the mix...
I just read an article regarding the alleged Idaho killer and the FBI found him via genealogic information available in a database that actually had a DNA match to his father. Most of us, , I would hope, are not killers but I can imagine insurance, etc. getting onboard and I think you lose your rights when you offer up your DNA. Clearly the collector is selling the data to government agencies.
The data is not sold to government agencies.
A search warrant is obtained along with a subpoena duces tecum for legal purposes and to comply with chain-of-custody requirements for evidence, in addition to the fact that all relevant evidence must be disclosed to the defense under Brady.
If you're wondering why, suffice to say a screenshot of an Ancestry tree is not evidence.
Insurance is not gonna be "getting onboard" in spite of your whimsies since they have no power or authority to obtain a search warrant.
Even if one of the companies changed their TOS to permit release of data to an insurance company, then in addition to the fact that there'd be a mutiny by customers and the company would go out of business, someone like me would immediately file a complaint in federal court and seek an injunction.
We use templates so it's not like I'd have spend 8 hours agonizing over what to write, and I'd drive to the courthouse with two different proposed orders for the injunction. One being a standard order and the other a standard order with the additional order barring the company from processing any DNA samples on-hand and any future DNA samples and enjoins them from getting new customers. The latter would mess with their revenues with the point being to settle the matter without a trial since they would be losing money for a year or more before the trial.
I already know Judges Marbley, Dlott, Black, Cole, and Rice would sign it. Anyway, you can stop freaking out already.
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.
