GEDmatch can no longer be trusted
The Legal Genealogist‘s love for the third-party DNA tools site GEDmatch has always been clear.
Just in the last year, I’ve written about its cool tool to create superkits1 and the switchover from the old platform to the new Genesis platform.2
In 2012, I called it a “DNA geek’s dream site.”3
Now that dream has turned into more of a nightmare.
Because those who are running the site — lovely decent human beings — have decided that they can make decisions for the users of the site about the limits of police access to their data, without telling the users of the site, and without giving those users the opportunity to give informed consent to that access.
As a result, GEDmatch has broken its own word, its own contract with its users, set out in its own terms of service.
Just this morning, this announcement appeared on GEDmatch:
“On Nov 17, 2018, a 71 year old church organist was violently attacked while practicing alone in her church.
The Police contacted Parabon NanoLabs, seeking help, but Parabon declined to take the case because it did not meet the ‘rape or murder’ definition in GEDmatch Terms of Service. We were later contacted by the Police Detective working the case. After hearing the very violent details of this case, we offered Parabon permission to look for a match at GEDmatch. They accepted our offer and took the case.
As a result of leads generated from a DNA match on GEDmatch, in April, 2019, a suspect was arrested and charged. There are those who believe that we have betrayed the trust of those who have uploaded their DNA to GEDmatch. GEDmatch made an exception to policy in this case because police made a compelling argument that this offender could pose a serious public safety risk.”4
So… the two lovely decent human beings who are the moving forces behind GEDmatch made a decision, on their own, without consulting their users, to expose the data of those users to the police because the police made a compelling argument.
Now it may very well be that the vast majority of those users would have agreed with that decision — if they had been asked.
But they weren’t asked.
Somebody else made that decision for them.
Somebody who, despite the best of intentions, despite the compelling arguments made, didn’t have the right to make that decision for them.
And somebody who has made it clear that they very well may — in the future — make that same decision in a case where they believe the arguments are compelling… and the rest of us may strongly disagree.
Bottom line: nobody but nobody can give informed consent for someone else. Nobody but nobody has the right to make decisions for DNA testers other than the DNA testers.
Informed consent is the essential underpinning of ethical DNA testing and results-sharing. As set out in the new DNA standards and ethical rules adopted by the Board for Certification of Genealogists, ethical genealogists do not make decisions for others, but instead make full disclosure of the risks and benefits and then “request and comply with the signed consent, freely given by the person providing the DNA sample or that person’s guardian or legal representative.”5 And it is now a written standard that “Genealogists share living test-takers’ data only with written consent to share that data.”6
This isn’t a new concept. The Genetic Genealogy Standards, widely accepted by the genealogical community after they were formulated in 2015, provide much the same limitation, that “Genealogists only test with companies that respect and protect the privacy of testers” — and that caveat applies to third-party tools sites too.
When a company or tools site breaks its own word in its terms of service — its contract with its users — and makes decisions on allowing access without consulting those users, when it takes it on itself to share living test-takers’ data without our consent, it does not respect our privacy rights… and can no longer be trusted or recommended.
With regret, I withdraw my recommendation of GEDmatch and am amending every GEDmatch-related post to reference this post.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Withdrawing a recommendation,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 15 May 2019).
SOURCES
- Judy G. Russell, “Superkit Sunday,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 14 Apr 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 15 May 2019). ↩
- Ibid., “Genesis at GEDmatch,” posted 16 Dec 2018. ↩
- Ibid., “Gedmatch: a DNA geek’s dream site,” posted 12 Aug 2012. ↩
- Genesis landing page, GEDmatch.com (https://genesis.gedmatch.com/ : accessed 15 May 2019). ↩
- Genealogist’s Code of Ethics, Board for Certification of Genealogists (https://bcgcertification.org/ : accessed 15 May 2019). ↩
- Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards (Nashville, TN : Ancestry, 2019), 32, Standard 57, “Respect for privacy rights” (emphasis added). ↩
Thank you for your vigilance and clarity in explaining what is going on. GEDmatch has decided that helping police solve crimes is a higher priority than informed consent. Solving crimes is a good thing but I want to know in advance that you are going to use my DNA that way before I enter it. Which is why mine is no longer in GEDmatch and I no longer recommend it, either.
I have more concern about those that find it an issue more so than stopping criminals, it makes me think THEY that complain over such stupid stuff ARE the criminals trying to hide or hiding a relative they Know is a criminal, it’s not a legality issue when it helps protect the public and put away criminals, you dont Deserve to be asked for permission when it comes to murder, rape, harm of innocent
The people insisting on protecting rights — even yours, despite your willingness to sign them over — are not the problem here.
This is clearly an erosion of individuals rights. Hello 1984!!
Check today’s post: GEDmatch has reversed course.
I found GEDMatch extremely frustrating to navigate, anyway. I must alert Family History Fanatics about it.
To find a violent offender, consent granted.
The problem is you can’t give your consent because that TOS was never given to you so you can consent.
Exactly the issue, Karen. It really isn’t whether people would agree if asked — it’s the fact that people were not asked.
Ok… it doesn’t worry me.
You have the right to grant YOUR consent. I object to having my consent taken for granted. One persons good cause today turns into another persons precedent for wrong-doing tomorrow. GEDmatch employees were moved by sympathy and a story, who knows that other employees in the future would not be likewise moved to allow law enforcement into the site for a non-violent crime that was highly publicized or very political?
I hear you.
I’m confused. I’m new to GEDmatch, but I was given a choice to opt in or out of allowing law enforcement to use my dna to catch criminals (or words to that effect). I made my choice.
Nope, no such creature on GEDmatch. That specific law enforcement opt out provision is only on Family Tree DNA. On GEDmatch, you can make a kit a research kit, which is supposed to prevent anyone from accessing the data if they don’t have the kit number. Or you can make it so there’s no matching at all.
I, too, am concerned about DNA being used without proper consent. I have been hesitant about using GEDmatch. Now, I am no longer sure what to do about some of my genealogy research. I am currently trying to resolve the probable 120-year old adoption to link the correct set of parents to an ancestor. The recently revised Genealogy Standards will require DNA analysis as part of my evidence. I had presumed that GEDmatch would be the only resource available to correctly apply the GPS. I am not liking that option. Is the only way to solve my genealogy problem one that may open myself and others to unacceptable consequences?
Having all testers needed for the conclusion test in one place at a company that honors its privacy obligations is another choice.
There are other DNA companies on the web who offer what you might require. Professional genealogist are another option.
The slippery slope at work. I echo a previous commenter’s kudos on your vigilance regarding the ethical use of DNA data. I stayed away from GEDmatch because I was concerned about their approach to privacy. I’m glad I stayed away.
Worth reading: The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope (by Eugene Volokh, in Harvard Law Review)
It seems logical that it is time for GEDmatch to choose, sides with genealogists or LE. A special site needs to be created for LE within the genealogy world. Then all those willing DNA testers for genealogy can choose to post to the LE site just like we choose / chose to post to GEDmatch and the rest of us can have a nice tool for analysis for all tests without LE.
I like you suggestion to use a testing company you trust for all family members. However, I did years ago and now they too share with LE.
The cost and arm twisting of family members will limit how many times people can change companies.
Judy,
Thank you for a clear explanation of the issue. Informed consent is an abstract concept which is difficult to communicate. Having worked in health care research for a dozen years or so, I was alternately humbled at my responsibility of making sure a patient understood and flabbergasted at the ease with which some dismissed their right to full understanding as unimportant. The use of our DNA in ways we did not agree to is important and should not be dismissed.
Given the amount of information carried in our DNA results, the genealogical sites would do well to learn from the health folks in this context!!!
Your point is well taken. If GED match is going to allow police access to their DNA database to solve any crimes (violent or otherwise), they should just state that fact up front in their terms of service, so people can make their own decision as to whether they want their DNA uploaded there and to be used for that purpose. That would solve the problem in the future.
However, wasn’t November 2018 before GEDmatch updated their terms of service?
I personally do not have my DNA uploaded there, but would not object to police using it to solve any crimes, especially if those crimes were violent, and especially so if police thought using my DNA would somehow prevent it happening again.
I struggle to find the real difference between police using someone’s close DNA match to a criminal to accurately identify and then locate and prosecute that person (though I likely would have concerns for my safety and well being) and say an adoptee using someone else’s DNA match to try and then identify a birth parent who did not give their own consent to be found.
The change to limit law enforcement access strictly to cases of rape and murder was made in May 2018.
Thank you for this post, Judy. I agree with you. There are disturbing implications to this story – informed consent of the users of GEDMatch was not asked, nor was the information volunteered before LE had access.
It’s rather late to be announcing an act (allowing LE access) that was already done, without consent, in contradiction to the Terms of Service, regardless of the reasons. If I promised most faithfully to keep your secret and even drafted that promise in writing, then told you later that I broke that promise (but attempted to reassure you I had really, really good reasons for doing so), what reason would you have to trust my promise that next time, I’d keep your secrets?
None.
Having worked with two DNA testing companies that I can upload information from one to the other gives me plenty to work on. I too have shied away from using third party companies. A good friend became involved in a recent high profile case after LE found information on GedMatch that connected them. They were able to prove that the link was so far back that it did not verify a connection. Her father was tested and then they uploaded to GedMatch. Then LE went to the father who was in a care center and unable to give consent and took a DNA sample from him without informing anyone else. The family became aware of the situation when he became distraught because he did not really comprehend what had happened. Our rights to privacy are paramount! Thank you for bringing this latest development to our attention.
This just underscores how critically important it is to make an informed consent decision, and not have others make it for us.
Susan E LeBlanc, you didn’t mention if a Judge signed a Search Warrant for this invasion or not. If so, the father’s consent isn’t necessary. This sounds like a case where the father was proved innocent by this test. {When innocent the data is required to be destroyed). Nevertheless, legal or not, as a family member, I’d feel extremely violated and distraught by this without-consent invasion.
I just read your article and I totally understand your consternation, frustration and feeling of being deceived, but I was literally just preparing to upload my data to GEDMatch when I saw your post.
I will still however, continue the process, since it is my data, and I will still willingly share it with them. Even though I know now, this is their new rules and policy.
I didn’t take the time to read your privacy policy, but I also am still posting here for the 1st time regardless.
Sometimes you take some chances in life. I was a former federal employee, so the government already knows more about me than I know, as they have been reviewing my clearances and collecting my bodily fluids for years, until I retired.
That’s entirely your choice, Mike, and nobody else can even comment on your choice. That’s the whole nature of informed consent: you know the risks, you choose to take them, no problem! It’s allowing anyone else to make your decisions for you where I draw the line.
I’m mad I feel violated by the promise that was mad by GEDMatch. I don’t give consent. No matter how great the cause is. That is how the laws of the land are usurped by lazy police work. If I was asked I still would have said No. why, I am the manager of numerous family members DNA files. I made a promise that this site would not misuse the DNA and could be trusted. Now a few of my family members have since passed away but their offspring are still alive, 3 more generations after their passing would not be happy. I have a huge burden now. I don’t mind my DNA but when does the great cause to lie to me become we need to separate people cause of their DNA carries a gene that they’ve defined as a trouble gene. And GedMatch has already given consent to open up the vault! Genetics is moving rapidly.
Thank you Judy. I was waiting for your post on this. As I posted on Facebook, there was nothing to stop GedMatch from putting up a notice, or sending an email to users, stating they were going to make an exception to the TOS at a given time, thus allowing people to opt out of the program. It is such a blatant disrespect shown to their users.
I just say amen!
On this one, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps it was my 22 years as a paramedic that makes me feel differently because I’ve been at the scene where someone was beaten so badly that I couldn’t tell whether the person was male or female. Or treated a child whose internal injuries from a rape were so severe that I wasn’t sure we’d make it to the ER. And there are the times when law enforcement uses DNA to give back the names to the missing and the murdered. Frankly, if they can put the most dangerous, violent criminals away and get justice for the victims using my DNA, then I couldn’t care less if they ask me or not.
I understand your decision on this, and no-one can disagree with it. I simply draw the line at letting anyone make that decision for anyone else.
Dina – AMEN! I have chills…..
Thank you for the heads up. Just removed 22 kits I manage. It is too burdensome to keep informing each person when this happens at gedmatch or as it did at ftdna.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: with ANY website, imagine the worst case scenario – what would be the deal breaker. Then prepare yourself for WHEN it happens because every single one of these sites that we love and depend on can change their terms of service at ANY time.
Gedmatch made a very difficult choice that I fully support. My DNA will remain there. Ever read “The Blooding”? Sometimes community safety outweighs privacy technicalities.
No individual — except a detached and neutral magistrate, in the language of the law — has the right to decide what community safety requires. You can make a choice for yourself and your data. Nobody (except a judge, under constitutional constraints) has the right to make that choice for another person.
As usual, you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s an issue of trust. I’ve deleted my GedMatch kits. Now I have to explain to my mother and my mother-in-law what happened and–not for the first time–ask if they are still comfortable with having their DNA online with Ancestry, 23andMe, MyHeritage, and LivingDNA. I’m afraid they will ask me to delete from these sites as well, but it is their choice. I am so angry with GedMatch for sowing distrust.
We’re all getting weary with going back to our family members time and time and time again when someone else gets the notion that they can make decisions for others. Sigh…
Thanks for your views on this issue. This is upsetting on a number of fronts. Even if Gedmatch tries to fix this in some way it is probably too late. So many are deleting their kits and those of family members that the site will be less useful for genealogists. After the first set of problems, I marked all of the kits I administer with the exception of my kit and my husband’s kit as “research”. Now I am seriously considering deleting all of the tests and withdrawing my, financial support. How can we trust that kits marked as private or research won’t be used without consent?
As lax as probable cause has become is that now irrelevant as a standard? Police just need a sob “story”? Is the story verifiable or is storytelling just another tool allowed by law enforcement…
I want bad guys caught as much as anyone but what abt HIPA laws?
I don’t think HIPAA technically applies here… but maybe it should.
While I understand why police want to use DNA in difficult cases, I do feel customers of GedMatch and Family Tree SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to say whether or not the police can use their DNA. I would give my consent BUT I want to GIVE MY PERMISSION FIRST. I have rights too as a customer. What happened was a violation of trust. I hope the other DNA companies DO NOT go down this slippery slope also-at least not without asking permission of members.
I have a problem with A few things both good and bad I am a 40-year genealogist some as a hobbyist and some as paid. I started out from things found in my Grandmother’s apartment as a side note she and my Grandfather had been divorced in 1947 and in about 1979 I was 15 years old and had never heard of DNA but I did and do look at it like fishing. If you catch anything great!!! But,don’t you think if you can find the people who did these crimes shouldn’t you! But you should also let people know what you are doing also.
Nobody has any issue with anyone who chooses to allow his or her private data to be used for law enforcement purposes. It’s only when someone else (not a judge or in the words of the law detached neutral magistrate) claims the right to make that decision for us that we aren’t going to go along.
There is a bright side here. Those of you who feel your trust was abused and who subsequently removed your DNA from gedmatch can create or find a site with the kind of limits you want. I think the vast majority of gedmatch users will choose to stay there because, like me, they don’t believe they were harmed.
And yet, your website uses cookies…
Cookies on websites are hardly akin to allowing law enforcement to use a database without the consent of those involved. For one, you can configure your web browser to not allow cookies. It may decrease the functionality, but it is your choice.
The issue that Judy has brought up repeatedly in these cases is the consent of people was not obtained.
The use of cookies here is also fully disclosed…
And has a privacy policy fully disclosing the use of cookies. You can read it right here…
As I’m sitting here reading this, there’s a banner sitting at the bottom of my screen, informing me that this site uses cookies, and asking if I “agree” to this, with a button for me to click if I do agree. Sounds like informed consent to me.
Also, right under this box, is a box that informs me that by posting a comment, I’m agreeing that this website can store and handle my date under it’s privacy policy (which is linked). Again, informed consent. So, no, not the same thing.
I agree with your arguments, Judy, but I don’t think I will go so far as to not recommend GEDMatch. Since I cannot trust them to enforce the previously agreed-upon TOC, I will suggest that anyone who has concerns about how their data might be used should create a separate free email account with an alias and use that email and alias when uploading to GEDMatch. I presume LE would not be able to track down the owner of that email address without a court order.
Of course it goes without saying that this shouldn’t have been made necessary by GEDMatch violating their TOC and those who want to opt out shouldn’t have to been forced to do this!
Don, I actually asked Judy about this a couple days ago on a different post. She said “If LE wants to find you badly enough, they will do so and there’s no such thing really as a completely untraceable email address. But you’ll have the best chance of remaining as unfindable as possible if you use something like GMail (not a recommendation, just something to look at) and DO NOT link it to another email or phone account and DO NOT log in without going through an anonymizer to hide the IP address of the log-in.” While exploring the last recommendation, I have in the meantime created a disposable e-mail to use in the interim.
Well, I presume they would have to work with my ISP to figure out who I am from my IP address. I had thought that required a court order. Also, I’m no lawyer but if Parabon were to contact me I wouldn’t expect that I have to provide genealogical information unless I am legally compelled to do so. Of course, mine is plastered all over the internet anyway – so it’s kind of a moot point in my case! 🙂
unless the free email company decides to provide that info without the court order. Then they would be doing the same as gedmatch. That is the point to those of us who object.
Jo Anne, don’t get me wrong – I’m extremely angry about what GEDmatch has done. The disposable e-mail is a temporary measure until I can find out what my kit donors want to do (as is making them research on GEDmatch). It is, after all, their decisions, not mine.
Having already deleted my family member kits after the GSK suspect was named, all that remains for me is to cancel my Tier One membership. I’m still debating… Did you see the NYTimes article last month about how we are highly inclined to consent to searches (of our phone, car, house, etc.) if LE just asks us pint blank? DNA is far more personal than a phone, and I in no way am absolving the GedMatch guy of making decisions for all of us using the (“his”?) database, but if “the degree of pressure needed to get people to comply is shockingly minimal” then, in some sense, it’s not surprising this happens. (Link to article is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/police-phone-privacy.html )
It’s really easy to tip the scales if somebody is standing there in a uniform. With a weapon. And an implicit threat that it’ll happen anyway and you’ll be worse off if you annoy the officer by making him get a warrant.
Shame on YOU!!
I am never going to be ashamed of insisting that we act ethically as genealogists.
Amen, Judy! You may feel like a voice crying out in the wilderness, but in this case you represent the conscience of the genealogical community.
We all need to listen careful to that voice of conscience we should all be hearing…
And you never should be. Why people insist on forcing their “morals” about this on others is beyond me. It’s law and it’s ethics. That’s it, folks. It’s choice for the individual user, but professionals have to have standards.
I manage many kits on Gedmatch/Genesis. On Genesis, I can’t find where to change recently uploaded kits, say to a different alias or to make them a Research kit. Under the old Gedmatch, there is the ability to “edit or delete” a kit, but only my transferred kits are listed, not those uploaded in the last month or so. Am I missing something?
GEDmatch as an entry point has been replaced with GEDmatch Genesis (login: https://genesis.gedmatch.com/login1.php). You can edit or delete any kit in Genesis by clicking on the pencil icon to the right of the kit name. However, changing access there will not change access in the old GEDmatch, which stays around until June 1. So if you want to change them thoroughly, you have to change them in both places. In the old GEDmatch, at the bottom of your kit list is a link EDIT or DELETE your DNA resource profiles. On that page, hit the select button on the right hand side for any kit and then choose Edit if you want to change it to a research kit or Delete if you want to delete it.
One of the things that I’ve found terribly disheartening has been the utter lack of concern on the part of most genetic genealogists when it comes to this unethical abuse of our data. When I’ve raised the issue of the FTDNA debacle, even obliquely, on a couple of the more prominent FB groups, I was met with hostility and anger. (I’m not talking about the group leaders — just the general membership.) The suggestion was made over and over that the only people who have a problem with this are either idiots or they must be protecting criminals in the family. It got so bad in one case that comments had to be shut down. Why would these companies and websites feel compelled to clean up their act when most of their users are cheering them on? I had to delete two kits last February, at the request of family members. I had promised that the government would never be given access to their data, and my favorite DNA company made me a liar. It’s all very depressing, and has completely soured my interest in this area of research.
Karen Vincent Humiston, I agree about the utter lack of concern. At least this time with GEDmatch, I’m seeing some outrage on the part of some of the Facebook group leaders, which appeared to be completely lacking with FTDNA. It felt almost like they were deliberately shutting down conversations in those cases. I too am highly offended by people who insinuate I have something to hide if I don’t want the DNA I manage open to LE searches without court orders. One woman in the GEDmatch discussion, who admitted was not a lawyer and had no legal background, kept repeating her interpretation of the ToS over and over as if I (and others) are too stupid to understand. Thank goodness I don’t administer many kits, and GEDmatch is free, or I’d be as mad as I was with FTDNA where I had invested quite a bit of money. I’ll repeat your last sentence as I completely agree: It is all very depressing, and has completely soured my interest in genetic genealogy.
What are the ramifications of the privacy violation of the terms of service here for sensitive personal data covered by the GDPR?
I wouldn’t care to hazard a guess… nor to try to defend this.
There is one thing that wasn’t mentioned in the article. If there are any citizens of Great Brittan on GEDMatch, then this was a violation of GBPR. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-gdpr-uk-eu-legislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018
Not just Great Britain. It’s the entire European Union.
We put your DNA kits on Genesis for anyone who has an account to use for whatever nefarious purpose they may imagine — even if they don’t have a kit of their own, but we’re freaking out over Law Enforcement using the system the same way the rest of us do?
I don’t get it.
You don’t need to get it. You just have to accept that nobody, but nobody, has the right to make decisions for others.
Law Enforcement access to the matching database should be the least of anybody’s privacy concerns with an inherently open system like Gedmatch.
But I see your point. Gedmatch promised that they wouldn’t allow law enforcement t use the database except for certain specific types of cases, then they made an exception. They shouldn’t have made the original promise in the first place, but should have just informed us all when we signed up that the strength of the database is that it is completely open, but that the openness inherently presents some privacy concerns and be forwarned that not everybody might be using it for the purpose of finding their own relatives.
It’s almost certain that law enforcement are not the only ones using Gedmatch for purposes other than casual genealogy. And there’s really nothing that can be done about that without crippling Gedmatch to the point of being useless for our genealogical purposes.
Since somebody mentioned FTDNA– this is probably a meaningless factoid, but since FTDNA made the opt out/opt in option available, I’ve been going through all the kits I have any control over and finding out what the donor wants. So far nobody has chosen to opt in. Makes me wonder if the reason these site owners make these decisions in so stealthy a manner is a suspicion on their part that most people would opt out if given a choice and the capability to be useful to their friends at Parabon Nanolabs would disappear. But, who knows what lurks in the shadowy world of corporate governance in the USA?
I wasn’t there but reports out of the FTDNA administrators Conference quoted the FTDNA brass as saying just that — they knew the police wouldn’t get enough voluntary opt-ins to keep them happy with how much access they could have to our data.
When I look at the circumstances, I have to wonder why I didn’t see this coming. You have one person with access to all the data, one person with all the responsibility for safeguarding not just the data but the portal to the data and one person who makes all the decisions about how the site and it’s data can be accessed and used. You have a media hungry to write up stories about cold cases and to shower praise on GEDmatch and Mr. Rogers’, role in said cases. You have a private company that financially benefits from the use of the site. You have law enforcement whose only concern is to catch the criminal. And along comes a detective that, according to Buzzfeed, wouldn’t take no for an answer. Add it all up and you can see how it would be hard for one person to resist all those forces. Mr. Rogers had an obligation to resist the pressures, surely, but he chose not to. This is not to absolve Mr. Rogers in any way. If you’ve seen my FB posts, you know where I stand on this. I’m just pointing out all the circumstances around this bad decision in order to highlight what I see as the deficiencies in the model.
I am now living in a post GEDmatch world. I would never consider returning while all these variables are still in play. We need, as an industry, to self-regulate. We need to set the standard for acceptable use, storage and access of public dna data. Self-uploaded data is particularly challenging to manage because you have so many people who don’t really care how their data is used and their voices drown out those who would try to protect it. Any future site that allows self-upload will have to have oversight and accountability built-in. If we don’t self-regulate, we can be sure that Congress will step in and make those decisions. There will be no turning back from that.
What are the odds that the attorney for the defendant in the respective case makes a successful motion to suppress the evidence?
I don’t know how he even gets the issue into court. The problem is that the only person with the right to make any claim in a criminal case is the defendant, and he has NO right to raise an issue of the invasion of anyone’s privacy except his own. So I don’t know how the defendant asks the court to consider the invasion of the privacy rights of his DNA matches on GEDmatch.
A person doesn’t give up their 4th Amendment rights by living in a rented home … unless they consent to giving up such privacy upon an agreement within the terms of the lease. I would think that the same concept applies to agreements with agencies that house private DNA information. In this case, I don’t think that GEDmatch had authority to consent to allow this search upon the privacy of others.
I would think that those who felt violated could make a class action lawsuit against GEDmatch.
Now that LE has likely made an illegal search, I am pretty sure that there is already decided law that makes invalid the evidence obtained illegally from one party to be used prosecute another party. I also think that Judges have the ability to intervene to protect the rights of a party that is violated but not directly affected by the outcome of the case.
Judy, have you communicated with Curtis Rogers at GEDmatch about this case? He’s very accessible.
Check today’s post: GEDmatch has reversed course.
I am so disappointed by what has happened. All those involved in the decision to make an exception without informed consent should have known better.
I think you have done a great disservice to all of us. It most likely will never happen, but imagine how you would feel if somewhere down the road someone you loved was the victim of a violent crime that could have been solved using GEDMatch, but you ruined it for everyone. Along the same lines, how will you feel if at some point your loved one is violently attacked by someone that would have been stopped, but you interfered years earlier? There is no harm done to someone who isn’t a criminal, and the criminals deserve to be found and removed from society so the rest of us can be safe. Thanks to you, we are all less safe.
Regarding ‘Withdrawing a recommendation’ and the issue of trust, I believe we no longer have effective rights and only the illusion of freedom. The strong arm of the law and the unethical (lawless) within law enforcement believe their authority is unquestionable and we are to believe they are ALL above reproach. No one is above reproach especially when we do not have the same equity to question their intent, their character and integrity or request a review of THEIR background from birth through graduation from the police academy to their record as a police officer and later as detective or as a prosecutor or judge. They are human just as we are and are subject to the same frailities and indiscretions as anybody else. They are not above the law but use the badge as a shield to prevent scrutiny by us. As time progresses, and that time may have already arrived but we are ignorant of it, unscrupulous members within law enforcement can, may or will use DNA samples taken from individuals suspected of crimes to contaminate evidence in order to ‘prove’ their suspicion about a suspect that will hold up in a court of law. The Innocence Project has proven a number of individuals convicted of crimes were in fact innocent and were coerced into confessions by unethical members of law enforcement. Suspects are just that–suspects, but a number of law enforcement personnel have no problem sending an innocent to jail or prison. These types of law enforcement personnel have no empathy, ethics or concern about capturing the actual person or persons who commited a crime because their tunnel vision has already set their sights on a particular suspect and they look no further. With a lack of evidence against a suspect they can now contaminate evidence collected at a crime scene with DNA they collect from a suspect. There are cases of prosecutors, judges and others along the chain of law enforcement who have colluded to assure a guilty verdict of their suspect of choice. So, if the police suspect an individual of a crime but have no DNA evidence of involvement in the crime, they can collect the suspects DNA surreptitiously or if possible through a court order and create a tragic nightmare for a family. Bernie Madoff was not in law enforcement, but when individuals exercise power over other people whether through cunning or by law or both, anything and everything under the sun is possible and has in fact happened. Taking away our right to completely opt-out of intrusion by law enforcement and still be able to use a family DNA service is deplorable. In this day and age everything is up for grabs. When I opened my first bank account in the mid-1960s I didn’t have to show any I.D. I took my payroll check to the bank and they opened a checking account for me. I had to wait 24-48 hours until the check cleared and then I was free to write checks on my account. Over the next two months I got to know the tellers and they got to know me and if I wanted to withdraw cash (there were no ATMs) I wrote out a check for cash and they simply checked my account balance and gave me the money. I stayed at this bank many years and never once was required to show I.D. Nowadays if I go into a bank I have no relationship with any of the employees and I’m treated with suspicion. That demonstrates the completely unnecessary turnaround in our society that has eroded our rights and our freedom and that is only getting worse especially with the establishment of The Real ID Act that is doing away with standard driver’s licenses and state identity cards, and that without a Real ID Act sanctioned driver’s license or state identity card we may be prevented from traveling freely between states. This is completely unnecessary and is a blatant overreach by government of our rights and freedom because of 911 and the illegal Patriot Act and the creation of Homeland Security. As stated by the ACLU, “Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution’s 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states’ dual sovereignty and consolidates every American’s private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves.”As stated by U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, “”A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment.” The original Real ID Act, H. R. 418, was approved by the House on February 10, 2005, by a vote of 261–161. At the insistence of the Real ID Act sponsor and then House Judiciary Committee Chair F. James Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin), the Real ID Act was subsequently attached by the House Republican leadership as a rider to H.R. 1268, a bill dealing with emergency appropriations for the Iraq War and with the tsunami relief funding. H.R. 1268 was widely regarded as a “must-pass” legislation.The Senate never discussed or voted on the Real ID Act specifically and no Senate committee hearings were conducted on the Real ID Act prior to its passage. Critics charged that this procedure was undemocratic and that the bill’s proponents avoided a substantive debate on a far-reaching piece of legislation by attaching it to a “must-pass” bill. Because Congress held no hearings or meaningful debate on the legislation and amended it to a must-pass spending bill, the Real ID Act did not receive the scrutiny necessary for most measures, and most certainly not the level required for a measure of this importance and impact. Consistent with the lack of debate and discussion, conference negotiations also were held behind closed doors, with Democrats prevented from participating. Many advocacy groups and individual opponents of the Real ID Act believe that having a Real ID-compliant license may become a requirement for various basic tasks. Thus a January 2008 statement by ACLU of Maryland says: “The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs”. However, in order to perform some tasks, government-issued identification is already required (e.g., two forms of ID – usually a driver’s license, passport, or Social Security card – are required by the Patriot Act in order to open a bank account). I could go on, but look up The Real ID Act to learn about all its implications and abuses.