Reporting DNA issues accurately
In genealogy, we get this point: facts matter.
In genealogy, the point shouldn’t have to be repeated: facts matter.
And in genetic genealogy, the point really shouldn’t have to be repeated: facts matter.
Particularly when the “fact” being bandied about is one that might cause some of our cousins to stop dead in their tracks and perhaps even refuse to consider being DNA-tested for genetic genealogy.
The case in point this week is a report from the Electronic Freedom Foundation about a “shocking story” that — the EFF report said — “details the very real threats to privacy and civil liberties posed by law enforcement access to private genetic databases and familial DNA searching.”1
Now The Legal Genealogist wants to make two things clear up front:
(1) I am a big fan of the Electronic Freedom Foundation most of the time. It does very good work to protect privacy at a time when privacy interests are under attack from all sides. But I understand that the EFF has a bias, in favor of individual privacy, and as a result sometimes doesn’t see the forest for the trees.
(2) I am also a big fan of DNA testing and understand how valuable it is for genealogy. Because of that, I understand that I have a bias, in favor of DNA testing, and may not always see the forest for the trees either.
So I struggle, as our entire community is struggling, to balance privacy against the desire to have more people do DNA testing since it’s a simple truism: the more people who test, the more information we have that could prove to be genealogically useful.
It’s a debate that needs to take place, and is taking place, both inside and outside the genealogical community. There are new standards being developed for genetic genealogy that consider privacy rights2 and existing general standards for genealogists that emphasize the privacy rights of living individuals.3
What isn’t helpful is when something like this EFF story comes along and shades the truth to an extent that people are misled about how their DNA data can — and can’t — be disclosed to the police.
This “shocking story” from EFF is one out of Louisiana that I wrote about here weeks ago: “Big Easy DNA: not so easy.” It’s the case of police in Idaho trying to solve a cold murder case using DNA.4
To me, it was a classic case showing why the kind of DNA testing we do for genealogy isn’t useful to the police and won’t be the first thing the police think of even in these horrible, difficult, cold-case situations. The reality is that the testing we do is so different from the testing for police purposes that it’ll be a very rare case where it’s even tried.
To the EFF, this is an astounding invasion of privacy, with a genealogical testing company simply handing over its confidential patron data to the police. According to the EFF:
Without a warrant or court order, investigators asked the lab to run the crime scene DNA against Sorenson’s private genealogical DNA database. Sorenson found 41 potential familial matches, one of which matched on 34 out of 35 alleles—a very close match that would generally indicate a close familial relationship. The cops then asked, not only for the “protected” name associated with that profile, but also for all “all information including full names, date of births, date and other information pertaining to the original donor to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy project.” … Sorenson linked the crime scene DNA to DNA from a man born in 1952.5
If you read that to say that Sorenson handed over its protected data about the person who matched the crime scene sample just because it was asked to do so, you read that the same way I did. The same way, I suspect, the writer intended us to take it.
Because — if that’s what happened — it would be an invasion of privacy, a breach of the agreement Sorenson made with its patrons to hold their data confidential. One of the most essential protections available to Americans is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of our information and data — and to have a neutral and objective judge review any search in advance, issuing a warrant authorizing a search and seizure only when the evidence supports it.6 A warrantless hand-over of confidential data would be a grave problem indeed.
The problem, of course, is that’s not what happened.
It is true that the police submitted the crime scene sample to the Sorenson lab — now owned by Ancestry. It’s true that the lab disclosed there were matches, including one close match.
It is not true that the police simply asked Ancestry to hand over the identifying information about the close match and that Ancestry simply gave it to the police when they asked.
What really happened is that the police went to a judge, presented the information that they had, and got a court order directing Ancestry to hand over the identifying information about the match. That’s clear in the New Orleans newspaper story the EFF story is supposed to be based on.7
All that the lab simply gave the police was the fact that there was a match. No names. No addresses. No identifying information. The identifying information was not given to police until a court ordered that it be given.
Score one in this round for the Constitution: the police did exactly what they should do, and went to a judge; Ancestry did exactly what it should do, and refused to hand over the information without a court order from the judge.
When they got the information about the close match, the police didn’t run right out and arrest the person whose DNA was sampled. He didn’t fit the profile of the likely killer. Instead, they began an investigation into the closest male relatives of the match.
And they found one who was definitely a person of interest. It wasn’t just, as the EFF report says, that he had Facebook friends from the area where the killing had occurred or that he was a movie maker whose films depicted violent killings.
The police also confirmed that the person of interest — Michael Usry — had two sisters who had attended school in the area of the killing not long after the killing. They confirmed that he was of an age to have been in the area at the time. Others involved in the case had identified a “Mike” as involved and had given a physical description. Michael Usry is known as “Mike” and he generally matched the physical description.
Armed with this information, the police did not run right out and arrest Usry. Instead, they took their information to another judge and asked for another court order: one that would compel this person of interest to provide a DNA sample to compare specifically to the crime scene sample.
You see, the police knew darned good and well that you can’t make a positive one-to-one identification based on genetic genealogy testing. We, in genetic genealogy DNA tests, look for markers that make us like other people. The police, in forensic DNA tests, look for markers that make us unique — that set us apart from everyone else.
The judge gave the police the warrant they asked for, they got the DNA sample from the person of interest, they did the one-to-one comparison the law would require as proof of identity — and it cleared the filmmaker.
Score one for the Constitution — and for science — here too.
Usry was never arrested.
He was never charged.
He was never jailed for a single moment.
The science cleared him of involvement in the crime.
And every step of this case was reviewed by and passed on by a neutral and objective judge. None of his private data, or his father’s private data as the person who took the genetic genealogy test, was simply handed over to police. A judge ordered everything that was done. All of that is also clear in the news article the EFF piece is supposed to be based on.
So let me repeat, again, what I said back when this story first broke:
If the police have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that you committed it, they can walk into any judge’s office in this country and get a search warrant that will let them pick you up, trot you down to the nearest medical facility, and take whatever blood or saliva they want for a DNA sample and they’ll use their own lab, not that from a genetic genealogy company, to do the tests they want.
So when that cousin asks you, once again, whether his genetic genealogy test can be used by the police, remind him, once again, that except in really extraordinary cases where the crime is very serious and the police have no clues at all, the chances that the police are going to turn to genealogy DNA databanks are pretty slim.
This Big Easy case shows that using genetic genealogy tests isn’t easy for the police. Our tests are so different from what the police need for a criminal case that, quite frankly, the police don’t particularly want our results — and when they have probable cause to think we’ve committed a crime, they don’t need them.
And what none of us need — and none of us want — is reporting that ignores what really happened.
Facts matter.
And the facts here don’t show me that we in the genetic community have cause for alarm at all.
SOURCES
- Jennifer Lynch, “How Private DNA Data Led Idaho Cops on a Wild Goose Chase and Linked an Innocent Man to a 20-year-old Murder Case,” Electronic Freedom Foundation, Deeplinks blog, posted 1 May 2015 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/ : accessed 2 May 2015). ↩
- See Genetic Genealogy Standards, PDF (http://www.geneticgenealogystandards.com/ : accessed 2 May 2015). ↩
- National Genealogical Society, Standards for Sharing Information with Others (http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/standards_for_sharing_information : accessed 2 May 2015). ↩
- Judy G. Russell, “Big Easy DNA: not so easy,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 15 Mar 2015 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed date). ↩
- Lynch, “How Private DNA Data Led Idaho Cops on a Wild Goose Chase and Linked an Innocent Man to a 20-year-old Murder Case.” ↩
- United States Constitution, Fourth Amendent. ↩
- See Jim Mustian, “New Orleans filmmaker cleared in cold-case murder; false positive highlights limitations of familial DNA searching,” New Orleans Advocate, posted 9 Mar 2015 (http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/ : accessed 14 Mar 2015). ↩
Thanks for making that clear Judy. We can point people to this when the question comes up.
Facts matter is a great update to the people who are worried about their DNA being used for law enforcement purposes. In this age of privacy invasion its hard to know what the facts really are!
Thank you for the update, Judy. I found it interesting that a judge was convinced that the DNA match was close enough to grant a warrant. In my family, a match this “close” would yield a common ancestor too old to have fought in the French and Indian War. Lots of potential ancestors/suspects in the intervening 250 years. The additional evidence including his passion for making murder movies must have been compelling. I see a bigger problem in the lack of a “science court” to weed out junk science like bite mark analysis and some recently identified hair analysis. Or the problem of setting minimum standards on training & interpretation of results. And never mind who the CSIs work for. Expect to see genetic DNA testing abused in the name of science.
This! Thank you Jan. I’m increasingly worried that Judges are being swayed by junk science, and if a learned person can be swayed; what of well of well meaning jurors?
I must disagree. Ancestry never should have agreed to match against their database in the first place, and they definitely never should have let the police know that there was a possible match. Ancestry violated their clients privacy and dishonored their promises of privacy before the judge ever issued the first warrant. Knowing that this happened causes me to lose total trust and respect for Ancestry, and to regret ever having sent them my DNA.
And when you sent YOUR sample to a lab, how was the lab supposed to know YOU were not the police? Getting the fact that there is a match is — frankly — no big deal. It’s getting the details that matters, and for that the police got a warrant. That’s all the law requires.
I really don’t think that is what happened. According to my understanding, the sample was not run through Ancestry’s database. It was processed by Sorenson Forensics (which is not owned by or affiliated with Ancestry.com). Then, a “forensic genealogy consultant” ran the Y-STR values through the Sorenson Molecular genealogy Foundation database that is public and available to all (and IS owned by Ancestry.com). The consultant is the one who informed law enforcement of the match, not Ancestry. Then, based on that match and associated testimony about what it meant (that was incorrect btw), the judge granted a subpoena for identifying information of the tester from the Sorenson database now owned by Ancestry.com.
The Louisiana search warrant application does not mention a consultant. Instead, the affidavit by Sgt. James Hoffman of the Idaho Falls Police Department says: “I received the results of the … testing … I placed the results into the Sorenson … database and completed a search.” Unless Sgt. Hoffman lied to the judge, he was the one who did the actual search of the database. He then obtained assistance in understanding the 34 or 35 marker match from a professor at Boise State University and from another person at the Sorenson Forensics lab. There is nothing in the Louisiana search warrant application that mentions a consultant who searched any part of the records.
I agree, Facts Matter. Misleading articles and scare tactics are not helpful.
Side note, both articles reminded me of a potential huge database. The backlog of rape kits and unsolved criminal cases with DNA evidence. Gen vrs Legal DNA is different, but I wonder if any of the Genealogy DNA companies ever considered helping/buying those? Especially old cold cases. Good question for the Legal Genealogist.
Not a snowball’s chance in a very very warm place that the genealogy companies would touch those kits with a 10-foot pole. IMO the legal risks involved and the screams about tainting the genealogical database would be way way beyond any potential benefits.
Thanks for getting the facts straight. Other well-known bloggers have instead perpetuated the sensationalistic headline “Ancestry.com Is Sharing Customer DNA Data With Police With No Warrant.”
Sigh… I know… I know… The reporter who wrote the first story for the New Orleans Advocate did a good job. Everybody else… not so good.
“And every step of this case was reviewed by and passed on by a neutral and objective judge.”
Perfect example of ivory tower thinking. Judges sign anything a cop puts in front of them. Oversight? Not a prayer.
It’s certainly not a perfect system… but it’s still better than anything else anyone else has ever come up with.
judy – could you comment on this from the perspective of the Conditions for Use for Sorenson Molecular genealogy Foundation database?
It only mentions family history research as acceptable. Not sure if the Sergeant that ran the sample was related or not…
Thanks!!
The term “family history research” isn’t restricted in the terms of use in any way, so there’s a lot of wiggle room in the way the terms are phrased. Look at it this way — there’s no doubt that the police officer was interested in family history: the family history of the suspect! Was that intended by the terms of use? Probably not. Is it barred by the terms of use? Nope, not explicitly. The only restriction is that a user “may not use the information … for any … breach of privacy or otherwise illegal activity (for example, to re-identify any anonymous donor…).” The police would contend that they didn’t use the data to re-identify the anonymous donor; they only did that by way of the information obtained through the search warrant.
Facts do matter. The fact that the lab gave information out without a court order, without name or not, I find disturbing. Even this article makes that clear. Then the info handed to the police from the lab without a warrant was used to get a warrant? How is that not a violation of privacy?
The information received was in a database that anyone can access. People who test agree to share that degree of non-identifying information.
Judy, thank you for investigating and laying outfor us what really happened. The sensationalism in the story being circulated is unpleasant and unwarranted. I’m extremely disappointed in the eogn.com blog that circulated this story to many who will never hear the facts.
There are enough real problems to be solved. We don’t have time or energy to waste on those that are false. Whether it’s your genealogy or a DNA story, a little skepticism can be healthy.
Not everyone has the time or the interest to check into the backstory every time something is posted, Julia. This just happens to be a story I’m familiar with, since I spoke to the original reporter for the New Orleans Advocate before he broke the story.
Thanks for providing the extra information. I still have a problem however. That the police got a warrant was facilitated by Ancestry cooperating with the police by doing a search to determine if they had a potential suspect on their books. Without that initial information the police could NOT have got the warrant. It was a case of OK we found someone NOW let’s make sure we follow the rules.
I don’t believe their cooperation was acceptable or warranted and had they not done this, Mr Usry would never have been accused to get “cleared”! Your bias is not toward genealogy but toward legal processes that blind you to the crime Ancestry engaged in by even entertaining the police request in the first place.
I am informed that the search, such as it was, was of a public database. The officer states in his warrant application in Louisiana that he entered the data himself into the database which displayed the matches to him. That means the data was publicly available. Only the identities of the matches were not, and for the one match the police officer wanted, he got a warrant.
Hi Judy, thanks. If that is correct it does focus attention on the issue of public access rather than on Ancestry’s behaviour and the need for users to understand how or if they can keep their data private. Ancestry default settings are for “public” access, and I understand that most people are not aware of this. I have not yet used Ancestry’s DNA products and admit that is because I already have reservations about their modus operandi. I don’t use Facebook either. But happily use LinkedIn – which is how I came to this blog :). Companies that are – what I would describe as careless, but at best can be considered – indifferent, to user privacy, I avoid like the plague. This case has left a nasty taste in my mouth. I will not be becoming an Ancestry customer anytime soon!
To be accurate, this database was acquired by Ancestry and was not theirs originally. The rules and public nature of it were in existence before it was acquired. In any case, the current Genetic Genealogy Standards as proposed within the genetic genealogy community require genealogists to be aware that there is no guarantee of anonymity for this data.
PS I suspect that Mr Usry will have a good case for suing Ancestry and the resulting financial penalty will do far more to reign in Ancetry’s willingness to transgress user privacy than any arguments we might put to dissuade them. Concern for their customer base clearly did not motivate them. Perhaps financial penalties will give them pause to consider whether their actions breach their own promises to their client base?
It’s unlikely that a court would find a cause of action when the only actual disclosure of truly private information was after a court order.
I disagree Judy. Ancestry is REQUIRED by its own policies to do due diligence in protecting the rights and privacy of anyone affected by disclosure. Yes, while Ancestry corporate policy is basically cookie cutter style legalese which states basic protections and liabilities, it does NOT include any wording which would lead anyone to believe that it would NOT make basic attempts to stop questionable, unethical, or similarly dirty tactics by anyone attempting to subvert the legally binding protections they “supposedly” espouse in their written policies. **Those policies we trust and believe in when we interact with Ancestry and it’s associate companies and businesses who provide, share, interpret, or otherwise process data; be it DNA, or any derivative reports or data gleaned from DNA submissions and analyses.
I am of the greatest concern that Ancestry released ANY information.
Court orders CAN and SHOULD be contested when they are for GENERALIZED FISHING EXPEDITIONS by law enforcement or courts.
A “court order” can be stopped, blocked, postponed, and nullified by higher authorities, if and when the proper legal contention is raised. The fact that Ancestry raised NO LEGAL CHALLENGE offends me and SHOULD offend anyone who has interest herein of the legalalities affecting our rights and privacy.
If you are concerned about Ancestry’s acquiescence in a lawful court order, your real option is not to test. Not with Ancestry and not with anybody. Because when there is a lawful court order, your data will be handed over. If you don’t like that, don’t test.
I have a quick and probably easy question. I thought ancestry eliminated the YDNA and I had read a number of comments from people complaining they could no longer access this? I gather this was not Y DNA collected from ancestry members but through the acquisition of the Sorenson database which remains in existence and publicly accessible? I gather from the above comments that the Sorenson lab is not owned by ancestry but the Sorenson YDNA database is? Also, are there any sort of business affiliations ongoing between the Sorenson lab and ancestry at this time? Is this Sorenson database accessible through ancestry now that ancestry owns this database?
The tests that Ancestry itself did as part of YDNA testing are what were discontinued. When Ancestry brought the Sorenson database, it agreed to keep it open. You can find the Sorenson data here: http://www.smgf.org/pages/ydatabase.jspx. Anyone with a free log-in registration can access the data.
Thanks so much Judy for clearing this up in such a way that is easy to understand.
The original New Orleans Advocate article did a good job… later coverage, not so much.
Thank you for looking into this.
My understanding from reading your article is that you contacted the reporter that did the original article to get the “facts.” So this information at best is second hand. I’m not saying that it is wrong but it is not primary source information. So we will probably never know the full story on how this played out.
Does ancestry allow someone to submit someone else’s DNA for testing without their permission? Is it not in their agreement that you can only submit your own DNA?
Further, there are probably few if any who submit their DNA to a genealogical testing company with the intention that it will be used for any other purpose. I don’t think we want every government agency and private business dipping into our data as they see fit whether they “follow” the law or not.
Thank you again for covering this.
The reporter who contacted me gave me a copy of the search warrant submitted to the Louisiana court, so I did have some direct information. The DNA that was tested by the police was sent to a forensic lab, meaning a lab that specializes in doing investigations. The YSTR data was then manually entered into a public database where anyone who registers can participate and discover whether there is or isn’t a match. Identification of the match is what required a search warrant in Idaho.
I am coming from a different angle. I would not,ever, volunteer to have a DNA test, nor would I ask anyone to get one so that I can fill in the blank spot on my family tree. I think it is ghulish and a very deep invasion of a person’s privacy.
There are two things that I believe should be considered too personal to become a tool for anyone:
1 – any DNA test that could possibly involve another. Just saying “confidential” does not mean to everyone or agency. These “blind” studies may be identified by a number, but somewhere there is a record of who was assigned that number.
2 – My thoughts, and they are working on being able to read them – if not already perfected.
What can be more personal than those two things? If we give them up so easily, every person alive will be a shell holding nothing of themselves because all the things have been taken away – we would be nobodies.
If my sibling asked for a DNA test from me, that puts me in a front line of something I may not want to be part of. Also, lest we forget what many of us are still alive to remember, and that is Nazi Germany. What would Hitler have done if he had access to everyone’s DNA? Every time I hear DNA, I think – what if another dictator should get hold of the DNA and cleanse the world of that family, or race, or religion, or eye color, or attending a certain school …
You can’t say that it would never happen – think again.! It could.
If I were an unfortunate who was confronted with jail time or worse because a greedy relative put me in the firing line – I think I might be rather angry and likely sue. I am no lawyer, but law is supposed to be common sense and that person put me in a position I didn’t ask for.
Barbara
DNA can also clear someone — and has done so, repeatedly. It’s been one of the single biggest factors in getting people released who have been wrongfully convicted. As long as proper safeguards are employed and as long as the limits of the science are respected, DNA is far more likely to keep you out of jail time or worse than to put you in it.
I was taking a few steps into the future hoping something will take hold to prevent what I fear will be the result if we continue on this road.
Laws always seem to get more lenient and it is very hard to pull in the reins after the horse is running full tilt.
Just a reminder: the focus of this blog is primarily on genealogy.
Interesting and not surprising when we look at the details. The comments were even more interesting. All of this is in the USA and laws in other country may vary.
Science is changing. A few things I believe that are happening with DNA have a larger impact in law enforcement than genealogyDNA.
– Those convicted of some crimes are required to provide a DNA sample.
– Military, police and firefighters now provide a sample of DNA is many regions. I wonder if a police investigation can look into these results.
– A police investigation can be very complex. DNA is only one aspect of the investigation. If they do have DNA evidence and the investigation identifies some one of interest the police may go to a judge and request a warrant for a DNA sample from the person of interest. The police must satisfy the judge there is enough evidence to justify the warrant for a DNA sample. What none of us aware of is how many time the police ask a judge for such a warrant and are turned down, I suspect there are more of these then we know.
– The article ‘Facts matter’ still leaves a lot of general questions unanswered but has attempted to clarify much that has been written about the recent news item. The comments by some are the same as other news article regarding DNA that has appeared in the media over the years. The fact the news items are being talked about is just what the media hopes for but sometimes the facts are not complete and we get into grey journalism. History has shown many will believe what they want to believe about science and history shows how much of science was criticized in the beginning only to be proven correct in time. (Is the world flat or round?)
– If I can’t find out who my 4th great grandfather may have been using genealogy and DNA than I just cannot envision the police being able to use similar information to find a suspect.
I always enjoy your blog when I find time to read it.
>> If I can’t find out who my 4th great grandfather may have been using genealogy and DNA than I just cannot envision the police being able to use similar information to find a suspect. << Worth repeating! It's just NOT the same kind of DNA testing!
How can the Fifth Ammendment be used to prevent the collection of your dna against your will?
It can’t. It’s the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not the Fifth.
But the fifth amendment protects against self incrimination. How, exactly, does forced extraction of DNA not qualify as self incrimination? We also have the right to remain silent. That right is meaningless when they can forcibly take the information from us.
An earlier commentator mentioned the current work into reading of thoughts. It’s a lot farther along than most people probably understand. Within a decade or two, it may well be possible to download memories into a computer. When, not if, that technology matures, should a court be allowed to issue a warrant for forced collection of memories? If you don’t think so, why not? What’s the difference?
Self-incrimination, in the Fifth Amendment context, is interpreted as testimonial — words spoken or thoughts expressed (so your memories example clearly does fall within the Fifth Amendment). When the issue is access to something else, such as blood (for alcohol testing) or saliva (same or DNA) or letters written or bank records created, then the focus shifts from self-incrimination to whether the search and seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. There are protections in either case, but the analysis differs.
In what sense is a thought any more “me” than my DNA? I could make a strong argument that my DNA is actually more fundamental to my being than are my thoughts. I doubt the average person has 10 genuinely unique thoughts in an entire lifetime. But my DNA, statistically, is unlikely to ever be repeated.
Can a judge mandate exploratory surgery, to clear someone of an allegation that he’s smuggling drugs in his intestines? In what way, other than degree, is that different from a mandate to draw blood? Does your body belong to you, or to the state?
While I agree that your reasoning accurately describes the current legal interpretations, it’s still patently absurd. The boundaries are simply redefined any time the government sees them as a threat to it’s ever expanding authority. I could list thousands of examples, but here’s one that’s particularly pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak
They simply redefined the fifth amendment so that it only applies to people intelligent and informed enough to explicitly invoke it. Again, it may be a legal precedent, but it’s absurd, and unconscionable. The judges ARE the government. It’s supposed to be juries who decide what the constitution means. I defy you to show me the section in the constitution that grants any such power to the judiciary.
Your argument appears to be that due process is whatever a judge says it is. When, not if, judges start issuing warrants for forced downloads of thoughts, will you once again insist that it’s completely legal? A warrant was issued, right? At what point do we stop differing to judges to decide the scope of their own authority?
I’m not debating anything here. You asked a question about the legal basis; I answered; you agreed that I’m accurately stating what the law is. The rest of this is a disagreement between you and the law as it is.
Your answer was, a judge said so. That’s not law, that’s the dictate of an unelected bureaucrat.
Read the constitution yourself. It’s not some mystical tome, who’s meaning can only be divined by a few high priests. There can be no rule of law, when a chosen few have the power to redefine laws at will. Your argument rests on blind authoritarianism, not the constitution.
You’re the only one arguing here, and you’re arguing with the law as it has been since Marbury v. Madison. Good luck taking on John Marshall.
I have to ask a couple of questions here. We are told “the Constitution worked” because Mr. Usry wasn’t arrested. Would any of us like to be in his shoes? Being contacted by the police is no minor thing even if one isn’t arrested. Read the headlines – contact with the police at any time carries the risk of injuries up to and including death. I wouldn’t have wanted to be him. Who would? Why would I risk it for a $99 DNA test?
Judy and others seemed to be saying that it was a lousy technique for the police to even try. Did the lab contest the subpoena on those grounds? If it is unlikely to make a suspect, then the subpoena should have been resisted. If you lose, so be it, but it seems like an argument that should have been made.
All human activity involves some risk. You leave your house in the morning, you could get hit by lightning. Is it worth it? Your choice. This test is the same sort of question. Is there a serious risk that you will find yourself in the police hot seat because of a test like this? Is it worth it? Your choice.
Of course it is my choice and everything has risk. The question I really wanted an answer is whether anyone would want to trade places with Mr. Ursy. I don’t think you can minimize his experience just because he didn’t go to jail in this case.
Of course nobody would want to trade places with Mr. Usry. Nor would we want to trade places with the person who gets hit by lightning. But we may, as individuals, choose to run the small risk of getting hit by lightning depending on the benefit we hope to get from leaving the house. DNA testing requires that same risk-benefit analysis, and the Genetic Genealogy Standards require us all to be aware that it is not risk-free.
Thank you for providing such a clear explanation of what actually happened. I’ve shared your post with during several online discussions of the matter and have included it in my NoteWorthy Reads post for this week: http://jahcmft.blogspot.com/2015/05/noteworthy-reads-13.html
Thanks for the kind words.
Sadly, the SMGF website has been taken down. The splash page does not address the cause explicitly, but it is undoubtedly connected to the recent (and erroneous) publicity about Ancestry.
http://smgf.org
This post and the discussion are an invaluable read. I appreciate that for the most part the comments are rational and thoughtful. The EFF is an important organization, but they have to raise funds to keep doing what they do. Their rhetoric can get a little over the top. Welcome to the 21st century.
The Genetic Genealogy Standards are referenced here, and there is a link to the page with a short description and a list of the committee members.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to know who the committee members really are since there is no biography, no list of publications, no listed affiliation with an institution, no email address, no university or professional credentials. It is basically a list of anonymous people. Some of the names are familiar to me, but most not. It’s not possible to know why they should be on the committee, what they know about genetic genealogy or DNA, whether they might have a conflict of interest because they work for X company, and so on. It’s even possible that some of them don’t even know their name is on there; that does happen.
I’ll pass your concerns on to the ad hoc group.
My dna is available online and I have tried unsuccessfully to get others to test.
This issue was brought to my attention a few days ago and I’ve spent every spare minute since, reading up on it.
At first I was shocked and stunned, but now I realise that the world is now a better place, with one more murderer behind bars.
Now that I’ve had time to think about it. Am I sorry I tested? No.
If I thought that there was a murderer in my family, would I retest to provide incriminating evidence? Certainly I would.
Through genealogy searching, we risk finding a few skeletons in the closet. Some things our ancestors would prefer to stay hidden. Imagine if a living family member was a murderer, would you prefer that they be caught before they killed again.
The fact is, there was no arrest here. The investigation did not produce an identification.
Facts do matter; it’s in the details. It is amazing what one can learn about family genealogy by using details as a hint. I learned mother’s father died in prison only because I saw an envelope from a lawyer that was sent to her before I was born, and read ithe letter it contained.
I found an ancestor in a bank brochure, and with a little help, I was able to trace his ancestor to Boston, and add a missing brach to the English Hubbard family tree. One three word comment about an ancestor “of Dutch parentage” was the gateway to a world of Emperor and King in the Low Countries. The family birth records, and some court records from the late 1500s are still intact and available from the Cheif Archivist at Hasselt Belgium. The biggest error to date is the persistent notion that the ancestor born in the early 1600s, and emigrated to New Amsterdam, was born in Belgium. NOT possible. Belgium was not created until after Napoleon was defeated; it did not gain an independent status until about mid 1800s. The ancestor died in 1687.
Facts matter, but the story is in the details. In my opinion, sensationalism is not about facts or truth. It is about readership, advertising, dollars, and new subscribers: money.
Thank you, Judy, for your unemotional and factual writing. Facts comfort me; I may not like them, but I can deal with facts rather than ranting.
Sadly this article made my son decide not to take the DNA test. This is ok because I would never want someone to take it and then be worried their rights or privacy would be violated, especially my son. Luckily I have 3 others that think it’s ok, 2 have tested, one to go! At first when he told me about this article I thought great, someone’s created a story to really mess things up but just now when I finally got to look at it and saw it was from you Judy I felt better all the way around. Maybe one day he’ll change his mind but it’s ok if he doesn’t!
It’s always unfortunate when someone decides not to test for reasons we don’t accept or agree with. But I’d rather that person didn’t do anything he or she was uncomfortable with, even if it means I don’t get all the data I’d like to have.
If this DNA data were protected by HIPAA would it have protected Michael Usry from becoming a suspect? You pointed out that Familial DNA is not specific, but it is inclusive. Can law enforcement organizations subpoena HIPAA protected data?
Sure. Almost anything can be obtained with a subpoena and the few things that can’t can be obtained with a search warrant.