Cold Case Inquiries Stall After Ancestry.com Revisits Policy For Users (nytimes.com) 48
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Since online genealogy services began operating, millions of people have sent them saliva samples in hopes of learning about their family roots and discovering far-flung relatives. These services also appeal to law enforcement authorities, who have used them to solve cold case murders and to investigate crimes like the 2022 killing of four University of Idaho students. Crime-scene DNA submitted to genealogy sites has helped investigators identify suspects and human remains by first identifying relatives.
The use of public records and family-tree building is crucial to this technique, and its main tool has been the genealogy site Ancestry, which has vast amounts of individual DNA profiles and public records. More than 1,400 cases have been solved with the help of so-called genetic genealogy investigations, most of them with help from Ancestry. But a recent step taken by the site is now deterring many police agencies from employing this crime-solving technique.
In August, Ancestry revised the terms and conditions on its site to make it clear that its services were off-limits "for law enforcement purposes" without a legal order or warrant, which can be hard to get, because of privacy concerns. This followed the addition last year to the terms and conditions that the services could not be used for "judicial proceedings." Investigators say the implications are dire and will result in crucial criminal cases slowing or stalling entirely, denying answers to grieving families. "Everyone who does this work has depended on the records database that Ancestry controls," said David Gurney, who runs Ramapo College's Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center in New Jersey. "Without it, casework is going to be a lot slower, and there will be some cases that can't be resolved at all."
The use of public records and family-tree building is crucial to this technique, and its main tool has been the genealogy site Ancestry, which has vast amounts of individual DNA profiles and public records. More than 1,400 cases have been solved with the help of so-called genetic genealogy investigations, most of them with help from Ancestry. But a recent step taken by the site is now deterring many police agencies from employing this crime-solving technique.
In August, Ancestry revised the terms and conditions on its site to make it clear that its services were off-limits "for law enforcement purposes" without a legal order or warrant, which can be hard to get, because of privacy concerns. This followed the addition last year to the terms and conditions that the services could not be used for "judicial proceedings." Investigators say the implications are dire and will result in crucial criminal cases slowing or stalling entirely, denying answers to grieving families. "Everyone who does this work has depended on the records database that Ancestry controls," said David Gurney, who runs Ramapo College's Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center in New Jersey. "Without it, casework is going to be a lot slower, and there will be some cases that can't be resolved at all."
This is a good thing (Score:1)
There's a reason I haven't submitted my DNA to a family-tree database.
I don't know what skeletons lurk in my relatives' closets and I don't want to know.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to, your 2nd cousin did and this will allow the police to identify you.
Get a warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everyone who does this work has depended on the records database that Ancestry controls," said David Gurney, who runs Ramapo College's Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center in New Jersey. "Without it, casework is going to be a lot slower, and there will be some cases that can't be resolved at all."
The information can still be obtained with a proper legal order or warrant. Get the warrant. If that's the requirement, then meet the requirement.
Re: Get a warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
Since these requests used to be basically fishing expeditions - see what matches against a large database - the rules will have to be changed to allow such expeditions or they will die off.
Re: Get a warrant (Score:5, Interesting)
Those types of fishing expeditions run counter to the basic principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty", at least in my mind. So I'm not crying over this news.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. I'm just pointing out that "go get a warrant" isn't possible in this use case precisely because fishing expeditions are prohibited under the current rules.
Re: (Score:1)
"I'm not crying over this news."
The relatives and victims of the killers/rapists/whatever who will now get away with their crimes will be the ones who do the crying.
They already are. Vengeance/restitution won't change that.
Re: (Score:1)
It might stop him from increasing the number of victims.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It might stop him from increasing the number of victims.
You make a valid point. But... so could illegal warrantless searches of property, unconstitutional stopping and frisking people based on mere suspicion or "wrong" ethnicity, blanket mass surveillance, and doing away with other constitutional rights such as the rights to silence and to not incriminate oneself.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.
In a "standard" investigation the police might get an eyewitness account of a crime where the suspect is described in detail.
At what point do they need a warrant?
According to your logic, a warrant would be required before they knock on the eyewitness's door and ask if he's seen anything suspicious.
Re: Get a warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
According to your logic, a warrant would be required before they knock on the eyewitness's door and ask if he's seen anything suspicious.
No one but you has said or implied anything of the sort.
You're free to knock on anyone's door and ask them questions, no warrant required. They are free to refuse to open the door, to not answer your questions, to slam the door in your face, or to order you to get off their property. Same for police.
If you want to compel someone to provide a DNA sample so you can match it against one from a crime scene, that definitely requires a warrant.
So you say, "That's too much trouble. I'll just go to a private company that has already collected DNA on millions of people. Those millions of people didn't agree to have their DNA used for criminal investigations, and all their relatives who share DNA with them didn't agree to have it used for anything at all. But who cares? I'll just pretend it doesn't need a warrant."
Re: Get a warrant (Score:3)
Unless a suspect themselves have tested, genetic genealogy can only produce leads for further investigation. You can't be convicted, probably not even accused on your cousins DNA alone... in a state which respects basic civil rights, at least. Which it's an open question how much the US is right now.
Then again, if they don't respect basic civil rights, it's bold to assume they care about evidence at all, genetic or otherwise.
Ancestry is a PE run lobster trap, in a screw of enshittification. They are the sor
Re: (Score:3)
Investigators say the implications are dire and will result in crucial criminal cases slowing or stalling entirely, denying answers to grieving families.
I assume these are the same people who complain that they're not allowed to put cameras in people's homes that feed everything that goes on there back to the local police station. You know, just in case a crime is committed somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Get the warrant.
Cases often go cold because there's not enough evidence pointing to a specific person to get a warrant. Warrants do not get issued generically for "I want to search a 3rd party private DNA database."
I'm sure the stall has nothing to do (Score:1, Troll)
Seriously look it up. If we had a functional media it would be much bigger news. Most of the Democrats sucks so hard in messaging...
Re: (Score:2)
Begone.
It takes a special kind of moron (Score:3)
To voluntarily send their DNA off to a corporation for cataloguing. Sure are a fuck ton of morons out there.
Re:It takes a special kind of moron (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't give the slightest fuck if a family member is convicted of a crime because of my DNA sample. In fact I'd be delighted.
DNA is pretty low error.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm exactly that kind of moron. I've been tested by 23andMe, Ancestry, and Family Tree DNA. I've even submitted my raw data to GEDMATCH and market it as OK for law enforcement to use.
Why would I do that? Because several reasons.
First, I love the science and the hunt for clues.
Second, you don't have to be personally tested, to be located through DNA. Neither Golden State Killer and Bryan Kohberger had personally been tested by a DNA service. Law enforcement instead relied on tests done by relatives, even dis
Good! (Score:1)
Get a warrant or shove off. The data was never meant for law enforcement and that it has been has stifled a lot of potential scientific discovery. Cops ruin *everything*.
Good. (Score:2)
Peoples privacy is far more inportant.
Re: (Score:1)
Easy to get around. GO GET A FUCKING WARRANT.
As others point out, cold cases are ones in which there is in no evidence pointing to a specific person, so, no, this is not possible.
The constitution is clear,
I would like to agree with that, but the constitution really is not clear. This is not a search of a specific person, about which the constitution is clear; it's a search of a database.
and if Ancestry wanted to just hand over the data, they would get sued out of business and probably have had to settle a few already, which is why they changed the TOS.
Wait, what? You think a serial rapist-murderer is going to sue Ancestry.com for being convicted of murder because the were identified because a cousin gave dna to Ancestry.com? That would be la
Why is Ancestry doing this? (Score:2)
Because it's highly unlikely that it's for the benefit of their customers. This has been going on for a while and they seemed to be fine with it. What prompted the change in policy? There's got to be a money angle here but I'm not sure what it is.
another repository (Score:2)
I met my wife (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, isn't that kind of backwards???
Oh shame (Score:2)
Let's be realistic (Score:2)
Police also knew using these services as a dragnet would cause a backlash... and they knew it because they've pulled it before themselves.
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Anyone listening to police whine should note that cops would love to force everyone in America to get photographed, fingerprinted, eye scan
Committing X crime lets us solve other crimes... (Score:2)
There is a reason why we put limits on cops - it's not to protect the guilty. It's to protect the innocent. Cops hate these limitations because it makes their job harder and they frankly do not give a crap that they are the ones breaking the law and hurting innocent people.
I personally would never give my DNA to Ancestry.com in part because they used to let cops examine it and even now because I do not trust them to maintain their current rules. I have however given my fingerprints when I worked in fina
Gedmatch already has an opt-in option (Score:1)
DNA can be replicated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't different from fingerprint evidence. If you have someone's fingerprint, you can replicate it too. That doesn't by itself invalidate fingerprint evidence, because it has to be combined with other corroborating evidence. If your fingerprints are discovered at a crime scene, but other evidence places you somewhere else, the fingerprints by themselves won't convict you.
Further, while fingerprints *can* be reproduced, it's not easy, and it takes skill and planning. Most crimes aren't that well thought
Justice Department (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They have that, it's called CODIS (Combined DNA Index System).
Also, DNA is collected for nearly all newborns in the US. https://www.aclu.org/documents... [aclu.org]
I am happy to read this (Score:2)