One of the Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working With the FBI (buzzfeednews.com) 106
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed News: Family Tree DNA, one of the largest private genetic testing companies whose home-testing kits enable people to trace their ancestry and locate relatives, is working with the FBI and allowing agents to search its vast genealogy database in an effort to solve violent crime cases, BuzzFeed News has learned. Federal and local law enforcement have used public genealogy databases for more than two years to solve cold cases, including the landmark capture of the suspected Golden State Killer, but the cooperation with Family Tree DNA and the FBI marks the first time a private firm has agreed to voluntarily allow law enforcement access to its database. While the FBI does not have the ability to freely browse genetic profiles in the library, the move is sure to raise privacy concerns about law enforcement gaining the ability to look for DNA matches, or more likely, relatives linked by uploaded user data.
The Houston-based company, which touts itself as a pioneer in the genetic testing industry and the first to offer a direct-to-consumer test kit, disclosed its relationship with the FBI to BuzzFeed News on Thursday, saying in a statement that allowing access "would help law enforcement agencies solve violent crimes faster than ever." While Family Tree does not have a contract with the FBI, the firm has agreed to test DNA samples and upload the profiles to its database on a case-by-case basis since last fall, a company spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. Its work with the FBI is "a very new development, which started with one case last year and morphed," she said. To date, the company has cooperated with the FBI on fewer than 10 cases. The Family Tree database is free to access and can be used by anyone with a DNA profile to upload, not just paying customers.
The Houston-based company, which touts itself as a pioneer in the genetic testing industry and the first to offer a direct-to-consumer test kit, disclosed its relationship with the FBI to BuzzFeed News on Thursday, saying in a statement that allowing access "would help law enforcement agencies solve violent crimes faster than ever." While Family Tree does not have a contract with the FBI, the firm has agreed to test DNA samples and upload the profiles to its database on a case-by-case basis since last fall, a company spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. Its work with the FBI is "a very new development, which started with one case last year and morphed," she said. To date, the company has cooperated with the FBI on fewer than 10 cases. The Family Tree database is free to access and can be used by anyone with a DNA profile to upload, not just paying customers.
FBI hoarding DNA data (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't need your DNA, just someone close to you in the family tree, and they'll basically have your DNA as well.
Re:FBI hoarding DNA data (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't need your DNA, just someone close to you in the family tree, and they'll basically have your DNA as well.
What you mean is they don't need the perpetrator of the crime to have been tested by Family Tree DNA, they just need your sample collected at the crime scene to match for distant relatives.
Articles about the discovery of the Golden State killer suggested that third to fifth cousins would be about the sweet spot for getting a match. Any further back and there are too many possible suspects and any earlier then you may not get a match at all.
Once you've found a distant relative then the information is given to a genealogist who works forward to narrow the field down to one or two suspects. After that they follow the suspects around and pick up discarded drink cans, straws, condoms etc. to get test for a definitive match.
Re: (Score:3)
Third or fourth cousin match means the FBI has ballpark 100 living possible suspects at the outset. Probably 90 can be eliminated as too unlikely by a cursory investigation while sitting behind a desk. Then they can look carefully at the records of the 10, to see which are the most promising and worth a real investigation.
DNA records of ~1 million random Americans, and I bet the FBI can track down 99% of the people whose families have lived in this country for a few generations, based on a single strand o
Re: (Score:1)
Then they can look carefully at the records of the 10, to see which are the most promising and worth a real investigation.
Usually it is even easier than that. 8 of 10 live in another state. The 9th lives in a different city. The 10th is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a restraining order.
Re: (Score:3)
The 10th is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a restraining order.
If that is the case, then that information should have been discovered in a ... what's the term... hmmm... traditional investigation?
DNA is not required to discover that information and identify a possible suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but murder victim's sketchy ex-boyfriend who did DV once to someone else is not enough to get a search warrant or require him to provide DNA. And there might be 10 people in the victim's past and relations that have some kind of reason for minor suspicion. Too many dead ends to investigate in depth, and not enough cause to forcibly collect DNA samples from them.
Then you have a familial DNA match-- you find the person who is closest related to the actual criminal, and then there's 1000 people in the wo
Re: (Score:2)
No, but murder victim's sketchy ex-boyfriend who did DV once to someone else is not enough to get a search warrant or require him to provide DNA.
I would still say that it is not necessary to jump straight to a search warrant or try to do DNA comparison.
How about.. talking to him / her? If a suspect is willing to provide information about their location, let them. There is also the possibility they may have information they don't already know about the victim that would be useful.
The investigators should be looking for evidence that excludes a suspect as well as evidence that connects a suspect.
If the suspect was out of town on a work trip or vacat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be better off figuring out how to sell DNA obfuscation kits to criminals - a bunch of dandruff flakes, skin cells, and hair from multiple different people that can be spread around the crime scene. I haven't figured out a good delivery mechanism yet, but just shaking out a ziploc bag would probably work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FBI hoarding DNA data (Score:5, Informative)
They don't need your DNA, just someone close to you in the family tree, and they'll basically have your DNA as well.
What you mean is they don't need the perpetrator of the crime to have been tested by Family Tree DNA, they just need your sample collected at the crime scene to match for distant relatives.
What you mean is they don't need your DNA at all, they let Family Tree DNA pick a random name out of a hat and then focus the investigation you, ala Salem Witch Trial style.
It was only two weeks ago Slashdot posted this article: https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/01/18/2253228/identical-twins-test-5-dna-ancestry-kits-get-different-results-on-eac [slashdot.org]
Two identical twins "bought home kits from AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, and mailed samples of their DNA to each company for analysis"
The tests all showed them as non-matches and some showed them as unrelated, even though they are identical twins from the same parents.
So it isn't even possible for the FBI *using this DNA data* to narrow down anything, they are literally getting random peoples names and any successful detective work was in spite of the contradicting DNA data, not because of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What you mean is they don't need your DNA at all, they let Family Tree DNA pick a random name out of a hat and then focus the investigation you, ala Salem Witch Trial style.
It was only two weeks ago Slashdot posted this article: https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/01/18/2253228/identical-twins-test-5-dna-ancestry-kits-get-different-results-on-eac [slashdot.org]
Two identical twins "bought home kits from AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, and mailed samples of their DNA to each company for analysis"
The tests all showed them as non-matches and some showed them as unrelated, even though they are identical twins from the same parents.
Did you read the bleeping article?
The article was about ethnic ancestries.
And only some of the companies had wildly different results.
Some did not. Ancestry and MyHeritageDNA were pretty close.
Identical twins do not have identical DNA. Without knowing how the companies calculate these percentages, a one or two percentage point difference in ethnic ancestries is not a surprise.
And nowhere does the article say the twins were unrelated. Even the sampled data from 23andme was 99.6% identical. They just messed u
Re: (Score:2)
Then find the person to test.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like a random chimp or a pig?
Hm, do you want me to feel insulted?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a crazy conspiracy theory because it is at all reasonable that authorities would do their best to have access to such data.
Other conspiracy theories are crazy because they are based on unreasonable hypothesis and only deluded people would believe them (all of them, probably).
Of course, it you're one of those you will not be able to see the difference. That's part of the problem.
BuzzFeed? (Score:2)
Re:BuzzFeed? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they learned to code.
This is nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait till they start monetizing their databases by selling them to random companies and quasi-law enforcement types.
Why wait? (Score:2)
The problem is that they're doing something with the data that wasn't part of the original deal. That means the company utterly cannot be trusted with any data pertaining to persons, whatsoever, ever.
This sort of thing is why the medical confidentiality exists, and these guys are violating it wholesale. I really don't care that it's "for a good cause", that it's because this is the FBI, or whatever. Medical confidentiality ought to apply to all things DNA and these guys need to be sued into the ground.
When will people ever learn? (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember all the way back to when MySpace first appeared. Being of the 'older' generation, I asked some people why they would put all this personal information out on the internet for everyone to see. None of them seemed to have any qualms about it at the time. Eventually, after Facebook took over, I noticed more and more people setting their profiles to private and I figured the 'younger' generation was getting a clue about privacy.
Fast forward to today; how long have these DNA testing companies existed.
Re:When will people ever learn? (Score:4, Interesting)
That I will be prosecuted for a crime where my DNA shows up at a crime scene, based on fourth cousins spitting into a 23andme family pact for Christmas fun seems not all that important to most people.
However, that the insurance companies will profile my family and decide I am a high risk based on my cousins, that seems like a scary and very real possibility. At least to me. What can I do about that?
Re:When will people ever learn? (Score:4)
However, that the insurance companies will profile my family and decide I am a high risk based on my cousins, that seems like a scary and very real possibility. At least to me. What can I do about that?
Vote for candidates that support universal single-payer healthcare.
Canadian version of Breaking Bad [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Vote for candidates that support universal single-payer healthcare.
Note: that's different from "something terrific"?
Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know this is voluntary on the part Family Tree DNA or that it is only Family Tree DNA?
This could be the genetics version of Prism [wikipedia.org].
False positives (Score:5, Informative)
Fun story.. crime labs were seeing the same DNA strand all over various crime sites and authorities thought they had a massive serial killer case brewing before they tracked the traces back to a person who worked the machinery that makes the swabs the police use to collect evidence.
The problem with these sorts of drag nets isn't just the privacy implications, which are huge in their own right, but the inevitable false positives that will land people in prison facing DA's who will fight tooth and nail to prevent that conviction from being overturned. Police today aren't trained to have the skills to investigate past the first reasonable suspect and just keep banging on them until they cave and "confess" or are irrefutably ruled out.
We need police and prosecutorial reform as much as we need a tightening of privacy laws.
Re: (Score:3)
False positives is 100% correct. Two completely unrelated people can have the same DNA signature (not complete genome, just a set of markers they test for) and so searching for matching DNA is like searching for someone with matching hair color, eye color, skin tone, height, weight and so on. The best these DNA databases can do is generate leads. If you're ever on a jury for a trial with DNA evidence, don't let the prosecutor tell you otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually those markers always have strong overlaps with one out of random 30 people on the planet.
If you find a match, there are literally something like 240,000,000 potential matches. Of course you can filter them out by match of race, blood type etc and narrow it to perhaps 300, but thats it.
Keep in mind humans and chimps are 96% identically: https://www.genome.gov/1551509... [genome.gov]
Basing evidence or proof on "high variable" random DNA is possible, if you have 3 possible culprits, and one of the three has a matc
Re: (Score:2)
I actually do genetic matching, and have worked for Family Tree DNA. I can tell you that it is not at all possible for two unrelated people to be considered a "match," unless you are talking about very old tests that match only 12 data points.
Modern tests, including FTDNA's autosomal test, compares more than 700,000 markers. Thousands of these markers (SNPs) in a row must match, in order to be called a "match."
It is true that this method is still based on statistical probabilities, but the difference betwee
Well, I'm screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem? Dad had 14 siblings, mom 8. What are the odds one of my relatives is an asshole? I'm guessing pretty much 100%. So now I have the FBI looking at me. Never mind the worst thing I've done is 80 MPH on the freeway.
The real problem? Suppose one of my relatives is a major asshat, my DNA matches enough that I get arrested. Now I have to spend hundreds of thousands for a lawyer, only to hopefully get the case tossed out of court. Can I sue the FBI for my legal fees? Yeah, you haven't been paying attention. I'm fucked, if lucky I have the money for the lawyer. Otherwise I could be on trial for shit I never did against a government agency with no budget.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem? Suppose one of my relatives is a major asshat, my DNA matches enough that I get arrested.
Realistically, you may get investigated because of your criminal cousin, but when it actually comes to time to indict, you can spit into a cup and it will show your DNA definitely does not match the strand of hair at the crime scene.
They are guessing about you based on family background. They are not really guessing about the DNA of the sample they found at the crime scene. If you provide a DNA sample, that should clear things up.
But, yes, this may well cost you four figures. But probably not the five or
Re: Well, I'm screwed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, no competent genealogical DNA analysis...
Hmmm, according to the Houston Chronicle that's going to be a problem:
Scores of pending criminal cases and past convictions could be in jeopardy in the wake of revelations that a former Houston Police crime lab technician resigned after an internal investigation found evidence of lying, improper procedure and tampering with an official record.
https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What are the odds one of my relatives is an asshole? I'm guessing pretty much 100%. So now I have the FBI looking at me.
Sounds like you're receiving all the benefits - paranoia, etc - without them even giving two shits about you.
Too much caffeine? Switch from sativa to indica??
Re: Well, I'm screwed (Score:2)
That's an awful lot of panic for something that hasn't actually happened yet.
More fun tech for the hammer. (Score:2)
So is there a little room in the basement with a little man coming up with neat new ideas for law enforcement to try out? It seems every couple of weeks there is a new headline about some shiny new tech the fuzz has leveraged, and then you hear nothing else about it.
They stop talking about it because it's an embarrassing failure?
They stop talking about it because it works too good?
They stop talking about it because they forgot about it?
They stop talking about it because they all know it's illegal and wont s
Re: (Score:2)
They stop talking about it because it's an embarrassing failure?
The news stops talking about it because the hoopla and hysteria die down after everyone realizes the story was only written to get clickthroughs to the advertisers on the news website, and they've posted the next sensational story of hypothetical outrageous dangers intended to grab everyone's attention.
The job of "news" is to provide people to the advertisers. That's why nobody ever sees the page 7 retraction of a front page story about the latest outrage -- nobody buys papers or goes to websites to read r
Re: (Score:2)
The job of "news" is to provide people to the advertisers. That's why nobody ever sees the page 7 retraction of a front page story about the latest outrage -- nobody buys papers or goes to websites to read retractions.
How's about a law requiring retractions to be on the same page, and in the same section, that the head of the original article was on? That would go a long way towards encouraging stricter fact-checking. Sure, the media needs protection from the government, but the people also need protection from the media.
Re: (Score:2)
why would you send your saliva into the internet?? (Score:1)
False Positives and False Negatives (Score:5, Interesting)
I developed algorithms and code for a genetic testing company, mostly aimed at infectious diseases. But one day the FBI came calling to see if our system could be used for identifying people, seeing as it was 30-120minutes and fully automated. Spit on one side, get an answer on the other.
Sure, so I was briefly sent to the new alphabet-outreach department to look at that. And their test was based on matching 5 phenotypes out of 6. Worked well when it was first developed on 100 volunteers. In our test database of bit less than 200k subject samples, we'd get 0-10 positive matches for anyone in the lab, usually more than one. We'd also get false negatives, where we'd put someone's dna in the database and a new test would miss it. This is due to things like sample error, corruption, and genetic drift. Turns out the body is constantly evolving, and over 20 years blood genes are unlikely to match hair samples. In that 20 year span a hair sample may not match the previous one, due to drift.
I suggested they look at more than 6 phenotypes to improve accuracy, was told that's the standard and its not changing, and dropped from the team a few days later.
Re: (Score:2)
Family Tree DNA's algorithm does not use phenotype matching, it uses SNP matching. For a match to be considered positive, thousands of SNPs in a row must match. This type of matching is much more reliable than what you seem to have experienced.
https://www.familytreedna.com/... [familytreedna.com]
Which part of this allows them do it? I don't see (Score:1)
For Legal or Regulatory Process: We may share your Personal Information if we believe it is reasonably necessary to:
Enforce or apply the FamilyTreeDNA Terms and Conditions;
https://www.familytreedna.com/legal/privacy-statement
Comply with a valid legal process (e.g., subpoenas, warrants);
Protect the security or integrity of the Services; or
Protect the rights, safety, or property, of FamilyTreeDNA, our employees or users.
If compelled to disclose your Personal Information to law enforcement, we will do our best
Non-existent privacy (Score:2)
You may be two people (Score:1)
Reeeally?!? (Score:2)
Contra tact (Score:2)
I don't think they can do this without your permission or a warrant. While it is true 3rd parties are under no 4th Amendment obligation, they cannot just be a crypto wrapper for government access.
Let's check page 2711 of the company's contract with you...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's check page 2711 of the company's contract with you...
Yep. You have certainly agreed to give that data to others in there somewhere, in bullshit legalese. I'm not giving up my genetic material for one of these tests until/unless actual laws are formed protecting my data from being shared with third parties without a warrant.
Is sharing w/FBI in the testing agreement? (Score:3)
My question: Are customers aware that Family Tree is potentially sharing their DNA with the FBI? Is it in the agreement for testing?
Access is not really free (Score:2)
The article says that access to the database is "free." That's not entirely true. The "free transfer" feature is more of a demo than a real product. To get the "full" results, you have to pay $19.
https://www.familytreedna.com/... [familytreedna.com]
Two problems... (Score:2)
I'm all for solving crimes, but there are (at least) two problems here...
First is privacy: Did anyone who sent their DNA to these companies agree to have it rooted through by law enforcement without a warrant? Privacy is a concept, but apparently not in the US. If privacy rights make life more difficult for law enforcement, that's a small price to pay for a free society.
Second, DNA tests are not nearly as reliable as people think. The test itself just looks at a sampling of markers, and interpretation of th
collecting dna is the main goal (Score:2)
recently there was an article on /. that indicated that the results you get back are unreliable and mostly incorrect.
now we learnt the fbi is involved in using the dna information for solving (cold) cases.
looks to me that the real purpose is collecting dna information, and all the rest doesn't really matter.
Letter from Family Tree DNA President (Score:1)
Dear Customers:
I am writing to address the news that our Gene-by-Gene laboratory, which processes genetic tests for several commercial clients in addition to all of the FamilyTreeDNA tests, has processed a handful of DNA samples for cold cases from the F.B.I. In many cases, the news reports contained false or misleading information.
Let me start with this categorical statement:
LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT HAVE OPEN ACCESS TO THE FTDNA DATABASE.
They cannot search or “dig through” FTDNA