this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
49 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
44119 readers
915 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All companies are still subject to the jurisdiction of their country. Perhaps you meant they are not voluntarily sending an unsolicited copy of every DNA profile to the nearest law enforcement office, but they still obey court warrants and extrajudicial subpoenas like National Security Letters.
Moreover, law enforcement doesn't even need to submit an official request. The Golden State Killer was caught after police detectives uploaded his DNA to a personal genomics website in 2017 pretending it was theirs. The website returned a list of relatives, which police used to find the killer. This was all perfectly legal.
For sure, don't go around killing people, but don't rely on these companies to protect your genetic privacy either.
That's untrue. They uploaded it to Gedmatch which is the one website that allows these things. They didn't 'pretend it was theirs', they legitimately uploaded it from a police account. They do this a lot but you need to opt in now due to the legal challenges. They've solved quite a few crimes and identified many unidentified bodies, including a number of murdered children.
Ok, maybe I'm misremembering. There was some case where detectives simply submitted the DNA as their own, but maybe it was not GSK. Found this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/science/dna-police-laws.html
Ah. So at least in 2021 only two states had any laws against trolling genealogy databases at all. Before 2021 none did. How many of remaining 48 have passes any laws about it since?
As I said, a website cannot "allow" something if the police have a court order. They can only obey. Before 2021 police in Maryland could get genealogy info without court order. Now they can get it with one.
Ok, so in Montana only:
What does waving entail?
Ok, so GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA were used, without court order...
Apparently that "need to opt in" you mentioned does exist, but it's more like an opt out really.
Aha! So GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA did and are giving police DNA info upon request without court order, and 23andMe and Ancestry are giving police DNA info with court order only. We can now construct this matrix:
Can police get your DNA data from genealogy database?
You see it gets rather complicated... Rather than telling users to play 3SAT with the latest legal rules of their state, it's easier to simply say "If you submit your DNA for sequencing, police might get it."
Oh wow, what a case! Again, all this deception legal at the time, and still legal in 49 states without court order, and legal in Maryland with court order.
You're getting a bit confused here. Gedmatch cooperates with law enforcement but it's only if you've chosen to, so it's a program you need to opt in to. This is legal.
Some of what you've found is about how the police use DNA in general, for example going into bins to get you or your relatives DNA, this is unrelated to genetic genealogy and has been done for decades.
Now one thing that could happen is police requesting your DNA by court order, this is already done, not through genetic genealogy though, they can just get it from you. If the police get a court order to obtain your DNA then they're swabbing you themselves, or as previously mentioned, just getting it from your bin.
Police can not request everyones DNA by court order. That's not how laws work, and if they wanted to use genetic genealogy privately then they'd need access to the entire database, millions of people in dozens of countries, and each one would need to be requested individually with a full case to obtain. That's impossible.
Police do have their own database of DNA they've legitimately obtained, it's called CODIS. This can be used to find close relatives, so if your brother was arrested for a robbery and had his DNA collected, then your DNA was found in a murder scene they could link it to your brother using CODIS.
Am I still misunderstanding something?
To me that reads that the court order allows the police to use the genealogy database. For example:
Is that not a plausible scenario? What in the language of the law used by the NYT article makes you think this is disallowed? And remember, this is for Maryland only. The other 49 states can obtain a court order for any reason, be it murder or subway fare dodging.
Again, not what privacy advocates from the NYT article say:
I.e. more like opt-out than opt-in, and again, irrelevant in case of a court order.
So the first one, what you're missing is
The law dictates it must have an opt in policy, so DNA being accessed is from volunteers basically.
It's also worth noting that if they had your DNA there's no need to steal your pizza because that will just provide the same DNA.
It's also discussing a Maryland law where prosecuters there have to apply to use those volunteers and have a certain level of crime to do so. In other states they can access the volunteers with less hoops to jump through. Nobody can access non volunteers.
On the 'turned on by default' statement, that's just untrue. It was never an opt out policy, it started as an open access arrangement then after legal challenges it became an opt in policy. You can look that up.
Now another misconception that I've noticed is what Gedmatch is, you can't submit spit to Gedmatch, it's a site for people who have tested at other sites to upload their DNA file to compare against other users of the site.
ETA - There's also no addresses on Gedmatch, the police would email you and ask for your details. You can submit addresses to Ancestry for example if you want, but there's no requirement to, or for that matter your name, email, etc etc. In cases currently being worked on they have had leads closed because people won't reply to a message.
You are splitting hairs. Unless you took precautions to use a fake name and an untraceable email address, the police are showing up at your door. It's what they do.
Here's the gedmatch page describing their policy, and here's the screenshot they use to illustrate it:
"Public" is selected by default. Yeah yeah, they added "public opt-in" and "public opt-out" options in 2019 and forgot to update their screenshot, but I bet "public opt-in" is still selected by default. The NYT article says exactly that too. It is just untrue to call that "just untrue"! And can you guess what happened to all the people who uploaded their DNA data before 2019? Were all they automatically upgraded to "public opt-in"? I don't understand why you are so adamant to protect gedmatch saying "go ahead, upload your DNA freely!" when we know for sure that it was a free-for-all at least until 2019.
And you are still splitting hairs because you haven't refuted my main claim that police can get your data with a warrant. All that "opt-in/opt-out" is for the gedmatch's voluntary police information warrantless sharing program. I have seen no indication that gedmatch will not search the entire database for a match upon police request with a warrant. I have reason to believe that they will, because I know the state is sovereign. You cannot shield your information stored at third parties from government search just because you signed a privacy agreement with them.
The law of the state of Maryland, not the other 49 states. And I looked up the actual law, it doesn't actually say "opt-in" contrary to the news article description of it:
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0240?ys=2021RS https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2021RS/Chapters_noln/CH_681_hb0240e.pdf
To me that sounds more like "providing a warning" than providing an "opt-in/opt-out" system. The "acknowledgment and consent" could be as simple as clicking "I agree to terms of service". Here's what gedmatch privacy policy says:
I am not a lawyer but to me that sounds like an explicit notice that law enforcement may get my data and satisfies the Maryland law requirement for a warrant. Specifically, gedmatch policy does not say they will ignore a warrant if you opt out. Again, my assertion is that the opt-in/opt-out system is for the voluntary warrantless information sharing system, and the warrants described in Maryland law are separate from that.
You also imply that 23andMe and ancestry.com do NOT share any information with law enforcement because they do not have an opt-in system. This is also false. Here's ancestry.com policy:
They WILL give up your DNA data to a valid warrant. The only question in my mind is whether they will also search the entire database for a given police sample. There is this article that says ancestry.com refused a police warrant in 2019 as improper, and police did not push the matter further. But it is unclear if ancestry.com was refusing to search its database on principle, or whether that one warrant in particular was faulty. Like if the police request "all 15 million DNA records" because they are idiots and don't know how databases work there is grounds to argue that is too broad of a request. But we don't have the text of the actual warrant. There are other articles that say police have been using specifically ancestry.com successfully to investigate crimes.
Someone would need to search the actual court cases where police used genealogy data to find suspects to confirm whether every single instance has used GEDMatch voluntary opt-in service, or whether police warrants have successfully retrieved match data from GEDMatch full database and from ancestry.com and 23andMe. I do not have such access.
EVEN IF ancestry.com and GEDmatch refuse warrants to search non-opt-in DNA in databases, such refusals have not yet been tested in court.
EVEN IF the Maryland law is amended/interpreted to mean that police cannot search non-opt-in DNA in databases even with a warrant (a voluntary restriction of the state on its own sovereign power, quite possible!), and EVEN IF the opt-in is made an explicit choice made in consultation with a "trained bioethicist" instead of an "I agree" checkbox below Terms of Service, and EVEN IF all other 49 states pass the same law as Maryland, it would STILL not be perfectly safe to upload your DNA to these services. Just as Maryland law changed in 2019, so it can change again. As we've seen with Roe v. Wade even long-established laws are not safe when there is a political interest to change them.
That is a very long email filled with a lot of waffle which is based on things you seem to be worried about due to not understanding the situation. I'm not helping you with everything but read what you're typing, you've put a post about needing explicit consent to use DNA and then made up a story that people can be tricked. Not how it works.
The screenshot you've found of Gedmatch isn't anything to do with police at all.
Finally, you've claimed I haven't answered the court case suggestion, which I did a message or two ago. If they have a case strong enough to get your DNA then they can get it from you. No need to go faffing about with websites.
To use genetic genealogy you need access to a database of users, each of those peoples data is protected and in order to use them each time you would need to make a valid case for each persons DNA. That means hundreds of thousands individual cases and you wouldn't get permission as theres no cause.