Overreaction
It was probably inevitable the moment the very first headline appeared online, inaccurately accusing Ancestry of handing over DNA data without a court order.
That never happened, but the mere accusation that it did was enough.
And the entire genealogical community took the hit.
Because it really was probably inevitable that Ancestry would decide to cut its losses, limit its future exposure to that kind of false publicity, and shut down one of the most valuable genetic genealogical databases that’s ever been created.
This week, Ancestry shut down the Sorenson Molecular Genetics Foundation database that had been available at http://www.smgf.org/.
The announcement came without warning, appearing at the website without other notice:
We regret to inform you the site you have accessed is no longer available.
Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) was founded in 2000 with the philanthropic goal of helping connect mankind. It was the organization’s goal through the sharing of genetic data, to show how the similarities we possess are greater than our differences. The site was created in the spirit of openness and it is in that spirit AncestryDNA purchased the DNA assets from SMGF to further its mission and support the intentions on which it was founded. Unfortunately, it has come to our attention the site has been used for purposes other than that which it was intended, forcing us to cease operations of the site.
We understand the site has been a helpful resource for genealogists and plan to advance the original vision of Mr. Sorenson by continuing to develop tools like ethnicity estimates, matching, DNA Circles, and New Ancestor Discoveries, which are connecting mankind. There are no plans to destroy the DNA that was contributed, but have no plans to make the service available in the future.
Ancestry is committed to helping people understand their family’s unique story and through AncestryDNA, make new discoveries about their family’s past and cultural roots. Like the original founders of SMGF, Ancestry also believes one can have a better understanding of who we are and where we come from. Through our continued work on family history and DNA, we will encourage the same mission of SMGF in hopes of making the world a smaller, more relatable place.1
Now in case you missed it, here’s the reality of why we just lost access to this database: “it has come to our attention the site has been used for purposes other than that which it was intended.” A single documented case of access by police looking for a murderer. A single case where the end result was that a person suspected was cleared by DNA evidence.2 A single case — and we have all lost.
Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
This isn’t the first time Ancestry has reacted that way. Years ago, a spate of publicity falsely suggesting that identity theft was being aided by access to the Social Security Death Index at Ancestry and its free property Rootsweb caused Ancestry to take the SSDI off of Rootsweb completely and to redact some of the Social Security numbers from the records even behind the Ancestry pay wall.
In both cases, there were other options available that could have retained more — or at least some — access to the information without simply shutting things down. Those options wouldn’t have been as easy, but the fact that the kneejerk reaction (“just close it down”) is easy doesn’t make it right.
The Legal Genealogist knows better than to think we have any hope of reversing the Ancestry decision. There is no profit potential to this profit-making corporation in keeping the SMGF database available to the public and, thanks to fearmongering and bad reporting, a real downside to doing so.
But there is one aspect to this loss that Ancestry should address, can address, ethically and morally must address: the loss to families of data that cannot be replaced.
The fact is that there are samples in the Sorenson database that are irreplaceable: the people whose samples were reviewed are deceased; their DNA can no longer be obtained. The families who contributed those samples had no notice that the database would be shut down. They didn’t know they were about to lose their own results and the results of their searches of the database.
Had Ancestry given them notice — had it told the genetic genealogy community this was coming — the families could have saved the search data that is of vital interest to them.
We all understand that we’re not going to have unlimited access to this database in the future. But what we’ve lost is part of our past. And it’s a loss Ancestry can prevent by allowing limited access to the database by the families whose data was collected for it.
Just reopening the SMGF database for a brief time — 30 days, even two weeks — with notice to SMGF contributors and the genetic genealogy community would go a long way towards reducing the devastating impact of this loss.
We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Ancestry, are you listening?
Ancestry, show us that you can be a good steward of DNA data.
Ancestry, show us that you care.
SOURCES
- Sorenson Molecular Genetic Foundation (http://www.smgf.org/ : accessed 16 May 2015). ↩
- For more background, see Judy G. Russell, “Facts matter!,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 3 May 2015 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 16 May 2015). ↩
Wow. Just. Wow.
It’s called “risk management.” Don’t mess with the pinheads.
Wait. Do you mean to say there’s actually a CONSEQUENCE to casually hitting “Share” on Facebook, spreading misinformation without actually applying some critical thinking/research skills? Are you telling me that when dozens of people do that, and dozens more join in on the ragestorm without taking time to know what they’re talking about, there might be some sort of negative impact down the road?
Wow, shocker.
I feel terrible for the people affected, but I can’t say that I blame Ancestry. The community demanded action, and they got it. Perhaps the community should be more specific (and informed) next time.
I agree with this comment, Kerry. People are so concerned these days about privacy and surveillance that there was a complete and utter media freak-out. Even many of my non-genealogy friends reacted to it and (of course) all had to inform me that my DNA data “might not be safe.” (Which, to me, also misses the point that the DNA evidence ultimately *cleared* the person in question! Isn’t that a good thing?!) I don’t think Ancestry should stop here–I do think it is incumbent on them to find a way to return the data to the original testers–but I do fully understand that they were in a very sticky place there and needed to show that they could react quickly. Unfortunately, our populace no longer has the attention span for truth and facts, and businesses have to deal with that reality as best they can.
People who look at the link to the EFF article now may not appreciate the background to the furor. Some corrections have been made to the first version, and the prominent false statement in the title about Ancestry releasing information without a warrant has been removed. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the original, so I can’t do a line by line comparison. If someone has saved a copy, I’d be interested in looking at more details.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/how-private-dna-data-led-idaho-cops-wild-goose-chase-and-linked-innocent-man-20
The corrections have also been picked up by some others who reposted the headline. They make it clear that the original article had false information. To my mind, this should have been more explicit in the revised version.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/06/ancestrycom-hands-over-client-dna-test-r#.p3iibj:mTuh
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/correction-ancestry-com-share-customer-data-warrant/
Sadly, these corrections are too little, too late.
Ann – https://web.archive.org/web/20150507025141/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/how-private-dna-data-led-idaho-cops-wild-goose-chase-and-linked-innocent-man-20
Captured on May 7, 2015.
I am one of the earliest contributors to SMGF ( in year 2000 ). Turned out I had rare 11th marker no one else have came forwarded to match yet. I am only child of my parents. Then Ancestry has to shut it down!
I think you said it all.
“There is no profit potential to this profit-making corporation in keeping the SMGF database available to the public and, thanks to fearmongering and bad reporting, a real downside to doing so.”
I think Ancestry will briefly re-open the SMGF database. Right after they finish building an AncestryDNA chromosome browser. Because they’re good stewards of DNA — and they care about the opinions of tiny minorities of the genealogy community.
Feeling a bit sarcastic this morning, are we? 🙂
This only happens on days ending with “y”
Having seen how poorly they managed the MyFamily site, providing “backups” which lacked the information, I really don’t trust/expect Ancestry to respond. Begins to look like it is just about money, and NOT service to the subscribing community. Do it my way or the highway. Luckily I took their backups when they gave notice that MyFamily was going to be discontinued (now why couldn’t they have done that here?). Then I had the fortune to check one of the provided downloads-it was worthless. I spent the next several days pulling material off item by item to archive everything that had been accumulated over several years. They had the complaints. They never responded. They did not miss their shut-down deadline. I’ll keep using their data collections, but won’t trust them further.
It was bound to happen because of those few well known genealogists (I used to trust) who started spreading the bad news and didn’t bother to mention the great articles you had written about the subject to debunk it. Sad! Thank you for always being the voice of reason.
Thank you Judy for expressing the feelings of most everyone in the genealogical community! DNA is mankind’s human history! I hope all the companies dealing with our DNA take their responsibility serious. There is more that just profit at stake here, this is history!
Thank you Judy for this information. I was one of the first contributors to the SMGF site. Their tests kits were freely distributed at a national conference many years ago. I had concerns about SMGF information when it was taken over by Ancestry. I neglected to download my information because Ancestry assured users that the information would remain free and available.
Ancestry, I want my DNA information! I believe it’s the right of contributors to access and download their information. This is just one more power play handed to consumers.Shame on Ancestry for their short notice with no chance for contributors to get their DNA results! I do hope they are listening to you Judy.
Thanks Judy for your very articulate comments. I am one of Sorenson’s first contributors also in 2000. Now three of my family who were tested have passed away. Several months ago I phoned Ancestry to ask if they could use my Sorenson samples to test AncestryDNA (& of course I would be happy to pay for the testing). They said that my request was not possible, even though they have the samples in their possession. I’m really frustrated, as you so accurately expressed that DNA heritage is lost forever. Keep up the great information network for all of us.
I think it’s time that there be a class action law suit against Ancestry to reinstate these things that they have eliminated. I have a kit in my home at this time. I don’t know now whether to send it in or not? Does this mean that they are no longer doing the DNA testing? OR is this just one facet of it?
AncestryDNA is entirely separate from this Sorenson database and you shouldn’t base your testing decision on what happened with Sorenson. What AncestryDNA is focusing on is autosomal testing — to help find cousins. The Sorenson database was a different type of test altogether. AncestryDNA is very profitable and can be expected to continue without issue.
Service costs money. Profit is often the smallest part of the cost! Profit is not illegal or against the law! It is up to Ancestry.com how they run their business. If it becomes unviable they will shut it down or be forced to shutdown. I am sure they don’t make these decision’s without considering the consequences.
There’s more to running a business — we hope! — that just whether they make money. There is a stewardship involved in these decisions as well, and that’s what we’re asking of Ancestry: be good stewards.
Judy, I am the Editor of the Quarterly for the Will Grundy Counties IL Genealogical Society. May I please use your blog articles on this subject to publish in the next issue, due to be published at the end of July 2015? As I compose the article, I would probably use direct quotes from portions of your blog rather than a complete word-for-word. I’d be most happy to have you read the draft prior to publication, for your approval. Our website is http://www.wggs.org, if you’d like to have a look to be assured we are legitimate, in your “spare time”, of course, ;-).
It took me a whole year to convince my brother, the only surviving male in my line that could be tested, to submit a DNA sample to SMGF, doing business at the time as GeneTree. He’s pretty upset now about what he has read and heard and convincing him that there were serious errors in the reporting has been difficult, to say the least. I am pretty upset that Ancestry chose to respond in this way. I also submitted my DNA to SMGF for the MtDNA profile. I did download the entire database for both of us as soon as it was available. Since that submission, both my husband and myself have submitted DNA samples to AncestryDNA. I have downloaded the entire database for those as well.
Many of our society’s members are very much against DNA testing, with privacy concerns being foremost in their objections. This brouhaha over an article full of errors and repeated over and over again has only served to cement their opinions. I am doing what I can to correct and clarify but it can only go just so far. On the one hand, people understand that they can believe only half of what they read in the newspapers; on the other, some are convinced that the American people are being manipulated, their rights are being abused and the New Orleans story is just further proof of that.
Thank you for your wonderful writing. I refer to it often.
Thanks for the kind words, yes you have my permission to quote from the blog, and thanks so much for asking.
Thank you!