Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ancestry.com To Add DNA Test Results

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jun 19, 2007 06:58 AM
from the who's-yer-daddy dept.
Spamicles writes "For less than $200 and a cheek-swiped cotton swab, you will soon be able to add DNA results to family tree Web sites. Ancestry.com plans to launch the DNA testing product by the end of summer, offering customers the possibility of finding DNA matches in the site's 24,000 genealogical databases. By taking a simple cheek-swab test and comparing results against DNA profiles in a test-results database, virtually anyone can uncover genealogical associations unimaginable just a few years ago. Users can easily connect with and discover lost or unknown relatives within a few generations, as well as gain insight into where their families originated thousands of years ago."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by niceone (992278) * on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:00AM (#19563269) Journal
    This has been available for a while at www.fbi.gov. Users can easily connect with and discover lost or unknown crimes they have committed, as well as gain insight into the legal system and prison food.
    • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:20AM (#19563437) Homepage
      All kidding aside ... would the FBI (or some other government or law enforcement agency) ever be able to request (wink wink) your DNA from ancestry.com? I doubt there's a 'web site/client' privilege to contend with. Is there any real expectation of privacy if you voluntarily submit it to them?
      • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:36AM (#19563581) Journal

        would the FBI (or some other government or law enforcement agency) ever be able to request (wink wink) your DNA from ancestry.com?
        Absolutely. They'd technically need a warrant, though. /snicker

        If it would help make the streets safer for our children, why would anyone have a problem with that?

        Sorry, full of the snark this morning.
        • by Lord_Slepnir (585350) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @12:38PM (#19567313) Journal
          I hope they go to ancestory.com to get my DNA. Just grab a random bum of the street, pay him a fifth of scotch to give a small blood sample and say its yours, and submit. Next time you leave DNA at a crimescene, the FBI will get a warrant (secret or otherwise), compare your DNA to the bum's DNA, it won't hit and it will throw a wrench in thier investigation.

          If the bum were to leave their DNA at a scene, you can clear your own name by giving a blood sample and just claiming that ancestory.com screwed up the samples.

      • IANAL, but I'm guessing that they could request your DNA from ancestry.com, and if the site refused to turn over results, they could probably get a subpoena as long as they were able to show reasonable cause. But this would be no different than getting DNA directly from you, which is much cleaner in terms of the chain of evidence.

        OTOH, as long as a doctor is the one obtaining the DNA, there is a degree of doctor/patient confidentiality. On the gripping hand, the courts generally will still issue a subpoena to get DNA from medical records (again, with reasonable cause), and I suppose it's no different in this case.
        • IANAL, but I'm guessing that they could request your DNA from ancestry.com, and if the site refused to turn over results, they could probably get a subpoena as long as they were able to show reasonable cause. But this would be no different than getting DNA directly from you, which is much cleaner in terms of the chain of evidence.

          Or they could just ask RIAA to borrow their pretexting experts.
        • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Tuesday June 19 2007, @08:42AM (#19564227) Homepage Journal
          Here's the worry, I think: law enforcement agencies could take a crime scene sample, run it against the entire Ancestry.com database, and decide that whoever comes up with the closest match must have done it. And in the current climate, they might well make it stick, even if the crime involves ... [gasp] pedophilia ... or [shock] terrorism ... or [falls over dead from the horror of it] record piracy.
          • by Animaether (411575) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @09:18AM (#19564603) Journal
            I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit and say that just because somebody's DNA is found at a scene doesn't automatically make agencies go "he did it". It's -a- piece of evidence and one that can be discarded as easily as *snaps fingers* that if there's a good explanation.

            Now... if you have no alibi for the time they're placing the crime at, and no good explanation whatsoever of why your DNA would be there... yes, the police may investigate you a little closer. Still doesn't mean they'll just skip the whole investigation and trial thing and just lock you up 'because the DNA said he did it'. If they tried, then lawyers these days are quite savvy enough to come up with some reasonable explanation of why your DNA might be there (even if you can't), and the cops, too, know they'll need a little more than that to convince a judge/jury.

            I find automated bits and pieces just as scary as the next guy (probably a bit scarier because I've been detained at 3 separate events for carrying a camera with a suspicious looking lens (it's a fisheye) - one of which was a bomb scare - so yeah, I know how it feels to automatically be 'suspect'), but let's not blow things way out of proportion.
            • I don't think it's blowing things out of proportion to say "this could be a problem." Look, I'm not saying Ancestry.com should be prohibited from doing what they're doing; I'm not even saying you shouldn't send them a sample if you're interested in genealogical research and think you might get something out of it. But it is a situation which deserves careful monitoring. The fact of the matter is, innocent people do get investigated, charged, and even convicted on the flimsiest of evidence, particularly w
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  In Houston, they are reviewing (and turning over many of) over a hundred cases that were based on DNA evidence.

                  There was this problem of the lab using incorrect techniques and even worse apparently just saying the DNA evidence matched if the prosecution really wanted it too.

                  DNA evidence can be manipulated fairly easily apparently. It took close to a decade before they got caught.

      • by niceone (992278) * on Tuesday June 19 2007, @08:33AM (#19564147) Journal
        They don't even have to get the data! They just have to take the DNA from the crime scene and submit it to this site... then whoever is closest related probably did it.
        • by db32 (862117) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @08:56AM (#19564377) Journal
          Just gunna go out on a limb here, but I suspect that you are more likely to find the DNA match of a victim than a criminal. I may just be making broad generalizations here but I would suspect that most of the people who would submit their DNA to Ancestory.com are not the same type of people who go leaving their DNA at crime scenes, let alone are every around any crime scenes as anything other than a victim.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I would suspect that most of the people who would submit their DNA to Ancestory.com are not the same type of people who go leaving their DNA at crime scenes, let alone are every around any crime scenes as anything other than a victim.

            Sure, but if you get someone with enough similarities to suggest a familial connection, you can go interview them about their family.

            "Mrs. Scharffenberger, do you have any close relatives who live in the Mendocino area? Do you know where they were Saturday night?"

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  Is that to say you've never lied, even a little bit? You've never once said a not so nice thing to someone? And that said, all bad people have never done a good thing? They never once held a door open for someone? They hold no compassion for anyone or anything?

                  Then you have completely missed my point. There is a huge difference between what you say above, and things like rape, murder, arson, etc. Those who commit the latter are the bad people. Those who do the former are merely imperfect and human.

                  Sorry, but there is no black and white, good and evil. Only shades of grey. A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. most "bad" people are the product of their environment, they weren't born that way, just as the "good" people were.

                  And now you're insulting all of those who live in the same circumstances who do not choose to become criminals.

                  It's a matter of circumstance, and while I consider myself a relatively good person, I take offense to the line of thinking that someone who commits a crime is simply a "bad person".

                  Likewise, you pretending there isn't an ethical decision made to victimize others, that it's just circumstances, is offensive.

                  It's a way of thinking that I'm sure makes your life easier, being able to split the world into two camps. But that's just not reality.

                  It absolutely is. C

      • Depending on the number of markers on a person's DNA test, this will range from the fairly useless to the totally useless. These things can't even be used for paternity tests. Let's say someone has 37 Y-chromosome markers tested - a fairly common thing to do. You will match if you have a last common ancestor in the last 6 generations. Very useful for genealogy, but bugger all use for criminology, unless they want to press charges against your great great grandfather.

        The most extreme test available (67 Y-c

  • by east coast (590680) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:01AM (#19563273)
    Why would I want to find out that I have more?
  • Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)

    by MMC Monster (602931) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:03AM (#19563285)
    I had a genealogy site up a few years ago. I eventually took it down due to complaints from my (extended) family regarding privacy concerns. I had people emailing me asking to remove their mothers' maiden names from the database.

    God only knows how something like ancestry.com manages to keep afloat with all the privacy concerns.

    P.S. I would try to put my database back up and require registration for searching, but there is no way for me to validate any registration (to avoid identity theives), so the point is probably moot.
    • Simple, a vast majority of the information obtained is a matter of public record (Birth Certificates, Death Certificates, Marriage Licenses, etc...). All anyone has to do is go to the area they were born in and go through the hall of records or whatever it is and bam. You got all this info. And to be honest, shouldnt we be using something OTHER than Mother's maiden name to reset passwords and crap by now?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        All anyone has to do is go to the area they were born in and go through the hall of records or whatever it is and bam. You got all this info.

        Well, it's an onerous task to do all that research. Security through obscurity and pain-in-the-assity actually works most of the time in the real world. It's when it becomes EASY to find that information that the amount of identity theft becomes a problem worth spending a ton of resources to defeat.

        And to be honest, shouldnt we be using something OTHER than Mother's

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        'And to be honest, shouldnt we be using something OTHER than Mother's maiden name to reset passwords and crap by now?'

        Yes. However, the banks, etc., don't really care what answer you use for mother's maiden name; give them anything you want which you will remember if needed. This applies to any of these test questions; the answer need not have anything to do with reality.

      • Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)

        Although all this stuff is a matter of public record, most of it isn't readily accessible. The internet changes the whole meaning of public. We're talking about institutions which have existed for decades if not centuries, and for them the internet is still new.
         
        I worked at a data archive under the Department of Justice and the FBI in the late 90s/early 00s, and they were just making a switch to dowloads from distributing CDs full of data for the cost of the CD plus shipping. You see, the data was supposed to be a matter of public record. But if they wanted a copy, once upon a time it meant many, many days with a mimeograph. Or a punchcard machine. Or waiting for (and paying for) a CD to arrive in the mail. (All of these changes over the course of 20 years, after many decades of needing to visit!)
            People finally had the bandwith to download. The biggest issue people at the archive struggled with? If it's too easy to use, any schmuck who wants to can get a copy. In the past you had to go to great, or at least greater, lengths to get the information. There was more resistance than you can imagine to making the website user friendly as opposed to intentional obfuscation(!) simply because "a matter of public record" has a very, very different meaning now than it did twenty years ago.

        If the FBI wants your mother's maiden name (or diary) and have filled out all the appropriate paperwork, they can find out whether they have to go to the local archive (or your bedroom) or not. But if Joe Schmoe wants your mother's maiden name (or your diary), there's a difference between him making a special trip to an archive (or visiting your bedroom) and him typing your name into Google.

        Which is not to say I don't think that "matter of public record" information shouldn't be on the internet. It should be. Information wants to be free and all that... but lots of very stupid people are going to suffer because they didn't realize that their blog wasn't private, and lots and lots of smart people are going to suffer because some credit companies only allow people to use things that are a matter of public record as passwords. It's going to take a while for people-- and especially for institutions-- to get used to the idea that public has a whole new meaning; that accessible is the new last word in privacy.
    • The simple was is to create accounts and only let family into your site instead of having it public. Don't show private information of people still living or, if someone complains, one generation back from the living.

      Beyond that it is mostly public records.
    • Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JWSmythe (446288) * <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:35AM (#19563573) Homepage Journal
      My mother does genealogy. She has parts of our family back to the 1400's. I've discussed many options with her on bigger, better, faster (and more computer-centric) ways to gather the information. There are a lot of obstacles.

          The saddest is what you ran into. If I remember what she told me correctly, it's either legally required, or just good form, to only publish those who are deceased or records older than 80 years. I'm probably off on that number though. Why I consider it sad is that I wouldn't know cousin Vinnie. He (the mythical Vinnie) could be a blood relation from a fork of our tree in 1500 Europe.

          She wants, or needs, to show real documentation of the person and how they relate. She considers the accuracy of her work very important. Just because she finds (buys, borrows, whatever) someone else's tree doesn't mean that any of the information in it is accurate. Say our trees did cross. How is she to know without all the supporting documentation that the details are correct. Maybe that birth of Isaac on December 4 of 1606 was really April 12th of 1606. If she follows your tree without verification, she'll be following incorrect data to dead ends.

          I do like the idea of being able to find real-world relations. For my family, we're friendly enough so I don't suspect there would be problems. I know some families aren't quite so nice. Just because cousin Vinnie is a billionaire, every distant cousin would be bugging him for some of his cash.

          I'll probably be putting myself into the system. I'm curious to see who's out there. Maybe I have a distant cousin who's also a reader here, and we have a lot in common. :) Maybe it just doesn't matter if you're a cousin or not. :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Did you also remind them to stop using there mothers maiden names for crap?

      I mean, they're family so you had to pull it down, but still.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Unfortunately, the IGI (International Genealogical Index) that is hosted at Familysearch.org is one of the absolutely least accurate resources available, full of errors and information about living people. The IGI is treated very sceptically by genealogists, even though it occasionally contains the odd nugget of valuable info.
  • by laron (102608) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:04AM (#19563299)
    Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think.
    • Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think.
      I know my dad is my "biological father". He's a miserable asocial misanthrope just like I am. It's true what they say that the apple doesn't rot far from the tree.
        • I'd be happy to share it, but would probably be banned for life from here for the language I'd use.
          Dad!? You post on /. too?
    • by BlueTrin (683373) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:49AM (#19563697) Homepage Journal

      Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think.


      Can you provide a link to the study, I have often seen this quote, but never found a reliable source which shows the result of the study.
      • by TwoSevenOneEight (202981) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @09:24AM (#19564679)
        Studies have generated a range of rates of "non-paternity events". There's an article with more details in this month's The Atlantic (subscription required):

        http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/paternity [theatlantic.com]

        From the article:

        "When geneticists do large-scale studies of populations, they sometimes can't help but learn about the paternity of the research subjects. They rarely publish their findings, but the numbers are common knowledge within the genetics community. In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold."

        "Non-paternity rates appear to be substantially lower in some populations. The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, which is based in Salt Lake City, now has a genetic and genealogical database covering almost 100,000 volunteers, with an overrepresentation of people interested in genealogy. The non-paternity rate for a representative sample of its father-son pairs is less than 2 percent. But other reputed non-paternity rates are higher than the canonical numbers. One unpublished study of blood groups in a town in southeastern England indicated that 30 percent of the town's husbands could not have been the biological fathers of their children."
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's not a myth. It becomes apparent when people get their blood typed against their parents... for transplant and transfusion reasons. When the mother is AO-, the father is AB-, and the kid is O+, it's pretty easy to see what happened.
    • A married couple went to the hospital to have their baby delivered. Upon their arrival, the doctor said he had invented a new machine that would transfer a portion of the mother's labor pain to the father. He asked if
      they were willing to try it out. They were both very much in favor of it. The doctor set the pain transfer to 10% for starters, explaining that even 10% was probably more pain than the father had ever experienced before.
      But as the labor progressed, the husband felt fine and asked the doctor to go ahead and bump it up a notch. The doctor then adjusted the machine to 20% pain transfer. The husband was still feeling fine. The doctor checked
      the husband's blood pressure and was amazed at how well he was doing. At this point they decided to try for 50%. The husband continued to feel quite well. Since the pain transfer was obviously helping out the wife considerably, the husband encouraged the doctor to transfer ALL the pain to him. The wife deliverer a healthy baby with virtually no pain. She and her husband were ecstatic.

      When they got home, the mailman was dead on the porch.
  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    I was pretty interested in the service that would trace your genetic heritage- race, country of origin (or percentage, etc)- it would have been fascinating. My uncle has mapped his side of the family (1/2 mine) back to the 1400's... so this extra step would be incredible to combine with.

    Then... there's the privacy aspect. But just because I didn't do anything, yet, doesn't mean....

    It'll be interesting to see.
  • let the stream of paranoia utter forth at the idea of a website requesting your DNA..

    OMG..GATTICA..BIG BROTHER, ALIENS UP MY REAR END.. HARP.. CHENEYBUSHFIELDRICE..MOON LANDING..

    etc.. you get the idea..
    personally though, I would be interested in the results they can display on the web based no that.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:15AM (#19563393)
    Give the people some sugar and they will willingly hand over what they normally wouldn't give you at gunpoint...
  • Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:18AM (#19563409)
    I hope people realise that when they post DNA it's not just their own but also contains information about parents, children, siblings and cousins. Basically your family.

    Insurance company - "We've found that your family has a higher risk of kidney disease. In the interest of sharing the risk we won't offer insurance for dialysis or kidney transplant".

    I just hope they make the effort to educate people about the pro's and con's of making your dna public.
  • Worst idea ever (Score:4, Interesting)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:21AM (#19563447)
    For less than $200 and a cheek-swiped cotton swab, you will soon be able to add DNA results to family tree Web sites.

    Excellent, now the last thing left is for someone to invent a practical cloning machine.
    For less than $200 of course.

    Anyone got a bittorent to Pamela Anderson's DNA?

  • by boyfaceddog (788041) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:23AM (#19563461) Journal
    Genetic traits can be a better pointer to which region a family came from than simple DNA. After all, DNA takes all that combination stuff (I think it's called sex) and has many latent traits that may or may not show up depending on genetics of both parents.

    For example part of my family is Swiss, about six generations back. Part of my wife's family is also Swiss, about four generations back. Her family happens to be from the part of Switzerland that has a wierd abnormality in a small percentage of their population. Sometimes their adult teeth don't develop. Because of this trait and research my wife was able to trace her family to an exact village.

    Oh, and no ones privacy was ever in danger.

    DNA on the other hand is still latereal in time and not verticle. Unless you want to test a corpse you can't go back many generations. A good tool to see what uncle Joe REALLY did on those "sales" trips in Vegas, but not much good as a family history research tool.
  • by AmIAnAi (975049) * on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:33AM (#19563541)
    Is a website the best place to discover that your DNA doesn't match any of your close relatives, as you were expecting it to - that your parents are not your natural parents and you were adopted?

    Unfortunately, there are many cases of people not being told that they were adopted and a web site like this is not the ideal way to discover this. You really need an organization that has some form of immediate support for people who receive unexpected surprises.
  • by JoeD (12073) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:59AM (#19563807) Homepage
    If I had the spare cash, I'd take a swab from a slab of lunch meat and send that in. Or my cat.
  • Bradshaw Foundation (Score:5, Informative)

    by 12WTF$ (979066) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @08:32AM (#19564131)
    FFS! Rather than moderate the /dribble about DNA forensic testing as OT, I'll contribute.

    This is a valuable service (yes there are others available) that tests certain parts of the mitachondrial DNA to establish your maternal lineage and tests certain parts of the Y chromosome (I make the assumption that 98% of the readers are male) to establish your paternal lineage.
    If you want to educate yourself on one of the benefits, please take a few hours to learn how this technique has provided amazing details of the 165k yr journey of mankind to populate the planet http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey [bradshawfoundation.com]
  • Oh, I can only imagine the mischief this will potentially cause... as people discover, not just ancestors they didn't know they had, but ancestors they thought they had, but don't.

    "So the years went by and he wished he was dead. He had seventeen girls and still wasn't wed.
    When he'd ask his papa, papa would always say, 'No! That girl is your sister but your mama don't know!'

    "So he went to his mama and he bowed his head. Told his mama what his papa had said.
    His mama said, 'Son, go, man, go! Your papa ain't your papa but your papa don't know!'"

    --"Ah Woe, Ah Me," Nick Reynolds, Bob Shane, John Stewart, popularized by the Kingston Trio

    "She's the illegitimate daughter, of the illegitimate son, of the illegitimate nephew of Napoleon."

    --Ira Gershwin, _Of Thee I Sing+
    • >wouldn't it be nice to find out the DNA of your neighbours?
      Some of mine are pretty sweet, I'd like to give them some DNA if you know what I mean.
    • Because they offer something valuable in return? Most people like, and are willing to pay for this service. Amateur (and professional) genealogists have been scouring court records for decades trying to find this info. I know that it would be worth $200 to show this kind of info at my family reunion.

      Just because you don't find the service valuable doesn't mean the premise is creepy or silly, and having an organization maintain such a database is a requirement for such a service to function. Besides, may
    • Re:Why exactly (Score:5, Informative)

      by grylnsmn (460178) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @07:38AM (#19563599)
      The LDS Church doesn't run Ancestry.com. It runs FamilySearch.org.

      And no, that has nothing to do with "put[ting] more names in the Book of Mormon". In fact, while Baptism for the Dead is mentioned in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15:29), it isn't mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon.

    •     Fell out of a tree?

          Landed in a volcano in a spaceship that looked like a DC3?

          Descendants of the arc?

          There are so many stories. Pick one. No, pick two, keep it interesting. :)