In response to FTDNA
The Legal Genealogist doesn’t usually write about DNA day after day.
But I surely will when the issue remains hot — and there are reasons to do so.
Today, there are two reasons to do so, both stemming from the disclosure late last week that Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) had changed its terms of use without notice to allow law enforcement to submit crime scene samples into its database and obtain matching data about all customers those samples match — data that can include names, email addresses, matching segment data, family trees and more about thousands of people out to the distant cousin level.1
First and foremost, it’s critical for FTDNA customers to understand that the letter sent yesterday by the president of Family Tree DNA attempting to explain the reasons behind the change makes it clear that the company is continuing to allow law enforcement to submit crime scene samples and review data about customers who match those samples.2
The letter takes the position that it can allow this under terms of use adopted in May 2018 that said that no-one could “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.”
It says this language complies with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) even though it did not then and does not now define “required legal documentation.” And the letter does not address the fact that the company’s privacy statement says that personal information (defined to include name, email, profile information and more) would be disclosed only “if we believe it is reasonably necessary to … comply with a valid legal process (e.g., subpoenas, warrants)…” and promises: “If compelled to disclose your Personal Information to law enforcement, we will do our best, unless prohibited by law, to provide you with notice.”3
So understand that nothing has changed about police use of FTDNA: the company is continuing to allow law enforcement to submit crime scene samples and review data about customers who match those samples.
The second reason to address this issue again today is this line from that letter to FTDNA customers yesterday: “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.”
Sigh… talk about a logical fallacy here — meaning, in this context, the kind of argument that says two things are much the same when in fact they are not.
Here, the logical fallacy is this: if you support handing over access to customer data to the police without advance notice and without judicial oversight, you’re an honest-law abiding citizen. The converse logical fallacy is that if you believe in personal privacy, support the rule of law and having a company keep its promise to its customers, you’re not an honest law-abiding citizen.
This sort of logical fallacy doesn’t ever go unnoticed — and it does not play well.
Here’s just a very small sampling of how some of FTDNA’s customers are reacting to its use:
• “So all of us are unprincipled lawbreakers if we do not take up Mr. Greenspan’s offer of ‘…an opportunity for honest, law-abiding citizens to help catch bad guys….’ A really poor strategy, and choice of words, trying to shame customers into compliance.”
• “The statement ‘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’ is a slap in the face of those who disagree. Mr. Greenspan insinuates that those of us who disagree with the actions taken by FTDNA are not honest and law-abiding citizens.”
• “What also bothers me is that he framed those who objected as those who don’t want to help catch criminals. Very manipulative.”
So let’s set the record straight here and try to keep the argument focused on the issues:
• Taking a position on personal privacy has nothing whatsoever to do with being (or not being) an honest, law-abiding citizen.
• Taking a position on personal privacy has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting (or not wanting) to catch bad guys.
Honest, law-abiding citizens who want bad guys to be caught can come down on either side of the police-access-to-genealogical-DNA-databases debates — and nobody, but nobody, should try to shame them into going along with something they truly don’t believe in by manipulative name calling.
It’s a logical fallacy.
And arguments had best be a whole lot better than that if people truly are to be “more comfortable” with this notion.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “The logical fallacy,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 4 Feb 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed (date)).
SOURCES
- See Judy G. Russell, “Opening the DNA floodgates,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 1 Feb 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 4 Feb 2019). Also “One little change,” posted 3 Feb 2019, and “A letter from Bennett Greenspan,” posted 3 Feb 2019. ↩
- See ibid., “A letter from Bennett Greenspan,” posted 3 Feb 2019. ↩
- For the definition of personal information, see Paragraph 3A(i), “The types of Information FamilyTreeDNA collects,” in “FamilyTreeDNA Privacy Statement,” FamilyTreeDNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/legal/privacy-statement). For the promise about disclosure, see ibid., Paragraph 5D, “How FamilyTreeDNA shares your information: For Legal or Regulatory Process.” ↩
Thank you, Judy! When you wrote the blog the first day on this topic, I went in and turned off all sharing on my kits. I’m sad to do so, but I strongly echo your sentiments–though you are more eloquent in your lay out of the spirit and letter of the law. If someone has venture capital, now would be the time to launch a new DNA company that allows no external transfers into the system. That might be a start, but I’m sure law enforcement would eventually figure out how to get their samples tested by the new company eventually as well. My Appalachian mountain, Scots-Irish cousins were right about “big brother” and I stand corrected. I won’t be asking for more samples until this is resolved.
The letter from FTDNA makes it clear these kits are not exactly transfers — that’s what the emphasis was in the letter about FTDNA having its own lab: it’s doing the processing to turn the crime scene samples into database-usable kits.
Aaargh….even worse! Now, I have to go back and read again!
I am so very glad the genealogy community has a lawyer analyzing this. Thank you, Judy. Keep on informing us about how the law, judicial oversight, and due process intersect with the finer points of terms of service.
Is there any point where the intent of family historians uploading their DNA looking for relatives has any legal priority over other possible uses of a DNA data base?
Genealogist with a law degree please. Remember that I do not have an active law license so I am not giving legal advice to anybody for any reason at any time. As for the way that intent will be analyzed, my suspicion is we won’t know until and unless it’s tested in the courts.
Sorry, Judy.
Please substitute “legal Knowledge” for “lawyer”.
I won’t apologize for rejoicing in your analytical skills, however.
There are a lot of people just in my little circle counting on your using those skills to explain (not give legal advice) this situation as it plays out over the next few weeks. Most of all, we are just plain confused – which is where you help.
🙂
One more note. I’m also experiencing the beginning of an ethical dilemma with regards to my portfolio. On the one hand, the portfolio has clear standards for handling of DNA and will have further guidance regarding standards coming out in March. As the community moves toward incorporating DNA into genealogy projects and may even require it in some instances, I feel myself wanting to withdraw from recommending it to anyone until this is resolved. I hope the BCG will consider what this may do with regards to those of us who don’t want to recommend testing for projects that might warrant DNA usage in light of the quandary our community is facing with regards to privacy.
Signed, On Becoming a DNA Conscientious Objector
I too am appalled by this development and hope the policy will be changed. I am responsible for 5 different people being tested and this was not on the radar at the time they agreed to the tests. I wonder if it would be a good idea to suggest that there could be TWO different opt-in choices: one to opt in to allow a victim to be identified but not a potential criminal; and a second to opt in to help with both victim and criminal identification. Seems to me that some people might be willing to opt in to help identify the remains of a John/Jane Doe but not be willing to opt in to potentially find a criminal in their family tree. Do you think this makes sense?
It does to me, but then I’m not the one who’d have to do the computer programming to allow it… 🙂
I’d certainly be willing to opt in to help police find John and Jane Doe, or catch a serious criminal in my tree; as long as a warrant is issued to me.
Creating opt in checkboxes is a rather trivial requirement. Two bit fields in the database (making the DB a mere 8MB larger for every 4,000,000 kits). The programming involved is fairly easy as well ( a few lines of code in one screen of the user account information pages.
I’m conflicted by the whole thing. First off I’m fairly certain LE hasn’t dealt with, prepared for, trained for, and has established clear rules and procedures for dealing with this new age. It was the potential for exactly this sort of situation that kept me from doing any DNA testing for the first 8 years of DTC DNA testing. I was here in the beginning, watching from the outside, and noting/warning this would happen. It is/was inevitable. World-wide DNA databases established by governments is inevitable. Although some people would claim it is not. Some claim it depends on ones perspective. Nothing in human history supports that optimistic outlook, but I understand it. I used to be an Optimist. I fully understand, that police have and will continue to use DTC DNA testing to solve cases. It’s naive to think they weren’t, or won’t. It’s a whole other issue to just surrender to the inevitable, without a struggle to try to create the best possible compromise. That requires both sides treat the other with the respect everyone deserve.
As far as communicating, I think it was a good move that FTDNA CEO Bennett Greenspan FINALLY wrote a direct email to users – rather rely on the PR Newswire press release last Thursday. That said, I agree that the wording of certain parts of the email was unfortunate.
It seems like any words that I try express either do not adequately portray what I’m feeling, or are useless in comparison to what you say, Judy, and what others comment.
However, I may be able to express this: I feel betrayed, angered, and paralyzed.
I don’t think a single one of us who rejects Greenspan’s decision and his “explanation” of his decision is overreacting.
I hope that those who think that “it’s okay if law enforcement has free access to our DNA results as long as monsters are removed from the streets” can see what a dangerous and misguided perspective this is. Judy, I think you have explained this well.
Certainly, a bunch of genealogists who study history and people, for crying out loud, can understand why this is so serious, can’t we?
Certainly, those of us who follow your blog to learn how genealogy and THE LAW intersect would question why THE LAW overreaching The Constitution is more than a bit of a problem.
And, oh my goodness, as it’s already been said, our DNA represents not only us, but those related to us, including minors.
It has no Miranda right to silence — no ability to BE silent.
I am stuck right now. My mind is back to where it was in 2013 when I thought that “the whole DNA thing” in genealogy was either bunk or dangerous. It’s not bunk, and it should not be dangerous.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like it is not okay for Mr. Greenspan to let the FBI or anybody else access my DNA matches, tree, etc., and even more, for any other reason than genealogical research without their having to go through the full legal process that they would have to do for anything else, and without their notifying me with a warrant. If my DNA is in their possession but it is truly my DNA, then what they are doing sure does sound to me like it’s illegal.
I trusted FTDNA to be the keeper of my most private genetic data. Was that truly a mistake?
I already asked Bennett Greenspan two days ago if he was off his rocker. Something’s wrong here. The fish in Houston are smelling ripe.
Just think how damaging this decision by Greenspan is going to be to genealogical dna Research … try getting a distant, possible relative to send in a dna test sample now that they know it will be run through a police database upon submission !
Good thinking there Greenspan !
For accuracy, a new test sample will not be run through a police database. It’s the crime scene samples that will be run through the FTDNA database.
My brother the lawyer has asked me to remove our family’s DNA from all testing companies. I asked to keep access to Ancestry for now, pending how things fall out. I don’t trust any of the companies at this point. Have already set FTDNA to “no matching” but I will go back into ALL of them and print off reports as of today of ethnicity and whatever matches I can generate before I remove them.
He has been cynical from the beginning about possible government misuse and abuse of submitted information. At this point, I’m getting very few matches of interest and/or who reply to my emails. I almost never hear from someone else who found me. I think I’m going to consider it a privilege to play in the DNA sandbox for 10 years and just let it go. Not easily, not without regret. But I need to honor his request. The more I hear, the more unhappy I am.
Regarding the use of FTDNA by law enforcement, now that the “cat is out of the bag”, it is going to take exceptional effort to “put the cat back in the bag”. This requires much more clarity on what has happened and how things will be handled in the future.
First, provide information on what has transpired to date.
(1) How many times has FTDNA provided “written permission” for law enforcement to use “the Services”? (Reference 6. B. xii. of Terms of Service)
(2) What type of “required legal documentation” was presented to FTDNA for all of these – were they all court orders? (Note that “required legal documentation” is not defined.)
(3) How many of these were (a) DNA from a deceased person, (b) DNA from a rape or murder case, or (c) other crime cases?
(4) How did law enforcement show FTDNA that they had legal authorization to submit the sample – was this authorization provided by a court? (Reference 6. B. viii. of Terms of Service)
(5) Are you aware of any use by law enforcement of “the Services” without written permission from FTDNA, and if so, did you immediately terminate their use?
(6) Have you received any requests from law enforcement for information beyond that available in the normal course of having a match (i.e., in accordance with the “Law Enforcement Guide”) and did they all include an order from a court?
Next, provide explicit explanations of how these cases will be handled in the future. FTDNA needs to state unequivocally the following:
(1) Any use of the Services by law enforcement without FTDNA’s written permission will be immediately terminated upon discovery.
(2) FTDNA will not provide written permission without an order from a court.
(3) FTDNA will require written legal authorization, by a court, for each DNA sample submitted from law enforcement.
I sincerely hope you’ve sent this to Family Tree DNA…
I may be an administrator, but I don’t know how / where to send this to a person at FTDNA.
There’s a contact form online here: https://www.familytreedna.com/contact#
And, according to Google, the snail mail location is 1445 N Loop W #820, Houston, TX 77008.
Can you help me send a message to Mr Greenspan and Familytreedna. I would like to notify them that I’ve opted out myself and family members that I’m an administrator for. I’ve also contacted all those I referred tto the Familytreedna site. The email you supplied to contact https://www.familytreedna.com/contact# doesn’t work for me, it won’t fly.
The contact form should work. If it doesn’t, there’s a phone number to call, or if you’re on Facebook, you can post on the company’s page.
Per their latest (only?) transparency report: “FamilyTreeDNA has received 2 valid subpoenas for user information as of May 1, 2018. We provided information in response to both requests.”
https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/ftdna/transparency-report/
What I don’t understand is how the Greenspan frames law enforcement’s access to our results (in the absence of any legal process) as standard practice on par with what we the customers receive. However, the TOS explicitly states that to be eligible for the service you need to provide your own DNA or have permission from the third party to do so, neither of which law enforcement would have when submitting a sample then searching the results.
That report is from 9 months ago (May 1, 2018), and it doesn’t say when the period they are reporting on began, so it is impossible to determine how often the company has been receiving requests. in any event it doesn’t cover anything that has happened as a result of the new policy which supposedly did not go into effect until sometime lsst fall.
I saw a post in a thread that said “The FBI does not have to follow a companies TOS when they are operating undercover in a criminal case. I have it from a good source they are doing it at all the companies. FTDNA found out about it, tried to stop it, and opted to be transparent when they couldn’t” (meaning that FTDNA tried to be transparent when they found that they could not stop the FBI was not following their TOS)
Unless the source has a pipeline into the inner workings of the FBI, the source is blowing smoke. And you’re not being transparent when you hide the fact that you’ve allowed law enforcement access to even some of your customer data for as much eight months without telling them that’s what you’re doing.
I signed up with FTDNA in October 2018 and read every word of the terms and conditions, privacy policy, etc., before feeling comfortable enough to sign-up. I noted the company’s position on law enforcement. I noted that the forums were under the protective privacy umbrella of FTDNA, as were 3rd-party sub-contractors with the exception of some categories which were clarified. I didn’t mind that cleaning companies were in that category, although any company should have procedures in process to monitor those companies.
After I joined, I wondered how so many forum leaders gained the advanced expertise to analyze our data in such detail. Before I signed up in one forum, the forum administrator asked me to send my results to GENmatch. It was my choice. None of the other administrators made mention of it which made me wonder if they just automatically forwarded my information.
I then went back and re-read all those horrid sign-up documents again to make sure I had not made a mistake about the company’s statements regarding forums. There was the reassurance.
Now I have opted out of all forums except for the one where the forum administrator gave me a choice. I have been angry for a number of months and had even composed a draft to the legal department prior to reading Mr. Greenspan’s letter. I received a forwarded e-mail to this site and noted how many of you are as angry as I am.
How many consumers have not scrutinized each word of the required documents before signing up? I would assume there are many because of the legalize and the number of different documents we are required to read. I have very limited and low-level legal experience and am programmed to read everything.
One more comment. I was required to sign a statement that came with the test kit. It stated that I was not to use the results for medical testing. I thought that was strange, since the DNA did not belong to them, but now I see that FTDNA provides a new “nutrition” product based upon our personal DNA results.
If you read this, and find that I am mistaken, please let me know via this forum.
By the way, I should disclose that the name I have given is not my real name. I don’t have a lot of trust these days. Ever since I signed up with FTDNA and had my results posted on forums, which includes my e-mail address, I have started receiving trash mail. I am in the process of changing my FTDNA e-mail address to a protected account because I believe there is a link between the arrival of the trash mail and the posting of my account. Time will tell.
When I first read Bennett Greenspan’s letter, I had quite a few immediate thoughts. There is one I want to address:
Bennett Greenspan is not backing down from allowing law enforcement access to FTDNA’s database.
He wants us to understand that
“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.”
OK. I got it. Law enforcement can search and dig through FTDNA profiles of matches to the sample they submit just like any “ordinary user” can.
Law enforcement submits a sample to access the FTDNA database as part of an investigation with the goal of apprehending and convicting a criminal. Law enforcement is hardly an “ordinary user,” yet they can see and do everything an ordinary user can see and do.
Some things an ordinary user can see and do in Family Finder:
• the name you chose for your profile: initials, first, middle last, and maiden names
• your sex
• your email address
• how much DNA, how many DNA segments, the size of DNA segments and location of those segments you share
• a suggested relationship range
• matches you share in common
• your ancestors’ surnames and locations if you’ve added them
• your family tree if you added one
• your Y-DNA and MtDNA haplogroups if you tested for those
• X chromosome matches
• your Shared Origins if you’ve opted to share
• a photo if you’ve added one
• your earliest known paternal and maternal ancestors if you added them
• everything you’ve added in your “about me” section of your profile-link to your Ancestry.com tree, Gedmatch ID, that you’re an adoptee, etc.
• download a list of matches and download shared DNA segments with matches
How many matches does the ordinary user have? It varies, and I don’t know the range. (Please take a look at the number of matches your kit has to get an idea.) The one kit I have access to that has not opted out of matching has 5652 matches. I can imagine that a sample submitted by law enforcement might have a similar number of matches. Think about will happen. For one submitted sample, all the above personal information and data for thousands of people can be seen by law enforcement without “valid legal process, such as a subpoena or a search warrant” that FTDNA asks to be provided with before it turns over data above and beyond what an ordinary user can see. Now think about this…
None, absolutely none, of those thousands of people gave informed consent to have their personal information and data accessed by law enforcement because FTDNA never asked for their consent.
If FTDNA wants to use its database as a law enforcement tool, we need to be asked for our consent to use our data as part of that tool on an opt in basis. We should not be forced to opt out of matching to object that we were not asked for our consent.
There are many things that are disturbing me in this bad situation. Sure, the fact the FTDNA customers have not been informed BY FTDNA of the ACTIVE collaboration with the FBI, BEFORE the bomb burst. As an honest and law-abiding EU citizen, that has no relatives in the US and that has never been in the US, this “collaboration”, even if touch me deeply on my privacy rights, has no practical implication. Nonetheless, there is something that hurts me in the deep. I, as you, live in a Country where everyone is innocent unless a court proves the contrary. In this case, I believe this basic principle has been turned upside down. The fact that checks have not been made on actual suspects, but that FBI has been allowed to make MASSIVE AND INDISCRIMINATE checks on everyone, means that the underlying logics is that everyone can considered guilty (to have made a crime or to be relative of a criminal), unless he could prove (in this case by a genetic profile that doesn’t matches the searched profile) to be innocent. I would like to ask how many people are comfortable to be potentially subject to investigations not because they are actual suspects, but only because they exists.
That’s a very good point, that your information was potentially laid bare to a foreign country’s law enforcement.
As long as you don’t live in Sweden then.
https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/polis-soker-hjalp-fran-slaktforskare/
You can use Google translate, but I put it briefly here.
This spring Swedish police will start utilize genealogy DNA. They will start trying to identify a murdered man (which they don’t know who he is). There cold case group will then continue with suspects. If it goes well they will continue, and most likely ramp up the process.
If I understand correctly they will use Gedmatch (fine with me, since that’s Gedmatch policy). But maybe Bennet Greenspan can get a good deal with the Swedish police.
BTW Swedish police as FTDNA see no ethical dilemma with this at all.
As an EU citizen you are not immune from this. I live in the UK but about 80% of my matches are with Americans. It’s highly likely that many EU citizens will appear on the match lists of LE kits.
Those labs and the folks testing in the labs of the FBI and police labs across the nation and the mixed up samples, etc. Just take a moment and read this article. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/
The first time the wrong person is scarfed up in one of these cases… hoo boy…
Paul Holes already got the wrong person once using Y-Search. Imagine how scary it would be for any normal person to have law enforcement show up at his residence with a search warrant to collect DNA in a serial murder/rape case. I was working on the same marker, looking for the same person, also using Y-Search, and I easily eliminated that family with just a bit of work. They truly believe that the ends justify the means, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a “bad citizen” or has something to hide. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-genealogy-site-serial-killer-20180427-story.html
If the law can search for criminals in genealogy databases, what else can “big brother” search for? I’m glad I haven’t submitted a sample for DNA analysis.
Hello Judy,
I was rereading the blogs and noticed that FTDNA has said it will generate a report that can be uploaded to databases. Has anyone checked to see if LivingDNA or MyHeritage is also being used?
Their terms of use will cover this.
This is so wrong on many levels. What about us who do not live in the United States? I have no protection from judicial abuse, so I hope the FBI isn’t expecting me to help if they find a match in my DNA.
I truly appreciate you explaining this to people and keeping on it, Judy. I agree with you completely and now am just trying to decide how to handle it on a personal level. When asked, I always recommended FTDNA specifically because of their far more robust privacy policies. To find out that is all a fallacy truly disturbs me. I can no longer recommend them regardless of the outcome of this particular issue because I can no loner trust them. The trust is completely gone.
Will FTDNA treat other nations equally? If I have a distant cousin in Iran or China, and they do something to anger the government, will they be able to access my identity even though I’ve never set foot in their country? What about a country like North Korea, with extensive genetic ties to people in South Korea – it would be easy enough for Kim Jong-un to force his people to provide a saliva sample, your track down who you’re related to on the other side of the border, follow their social media postings, extrapolate who in the DPRK has the more liberal or anti-authoritarian relatives in the next country, then watch those citizens more closely. We already know North Korea keeps tabs on people for precisely this reason.
FTDNA’s totally inadequate response to my query.
Thank you for contacting FTDNA. There is a lot of misinformation out there on the internet, so thank you for giving us the chance to clear some things up.
The FBI does not have access to all records or data.
FTDNA allows law enforcement, including the FBI, the opportunity to upload a DNA data file to our database, like any other customer may do, for matching purposes. They then have access only to whatever any other customer would have access to for accounts they have uploaded only. To date, we have received fewer than 10 uploaded accounts from law enforcement.
You may read the email clarification from our CEO, Bennett Greenspan here:
https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/letter-to-customers?e=4082c86ab6
—
my take – Treating Law Enforcement as “any other customer” is a complete farce. There is nothing normal about this.
That is their canned response to every complaint. Their response to me was exactly the same wording. Further, I don’t think that Mr. Greenspan has any intention of changing his stance. So I will locate other options.
I may get flamed for this, but the decision really doesn’t bother me. Think about your own DNA research for a moment. As someone above said, most of us have thousands of matches. Most of those are not very close matches. I can’t imagine that law enforcement will bother with trying to track down a criminal based on your remote cousin match to them. They will need relatively close matches to be able to make progress. I’ve spent over 20 years assembling a family tree and still have trouble figuring out where most matches connect.
I do understand people being upset that privacy policies have changed and that law enforcement was creative enough to use this resource already before we were notified (personally, I say good for them). I get that everyone will have different opinions here. But again, I think the practical implications are miniscule. What are the chances of a victim or criminal out of the few they upload being a close enough match to you for there to be any impact to you?
Also, I might worry more about Big Brother if I thought the government wanted to spend the considerable time and resources to analyze all of our DNA. Think for a moment about how much data there would be to analyze! I might also worry more if there weren’t already so much information available about us in public databases already (never mind what can be subpoenaed).
Finally, I honestly don’t think Greenspan meant to make the implication of which you are accusing him. He was probably just trying to be persuasive by giving the example that many people, myself included, are ok with this decision. The logical fallacy you are speaking of would indeed be a logical fallacy, but he did not write that. Perhaps he meant it, but then perhaps he didn’t. I find it much easier not to assume ill intentions; it lowers my stress level considerably.
Nobody should flame anybody for taking a position on either side of this issue. If you’re comfortable with this use of your information, then surely you wouldn’t mind the two nanoseconds it would take to tick a tickbox and consent. You’d have your choice honored, while those who weren’t comfortable with it would still be able to use all the features of the service they’d paid for. As for the intent of the statement, I would generally agree … except for the original statement authorized at the highest levels of FTDNA that police use of services “does not effect (sic) us genealogists unless we are protecting killers or rapists in our families.”