So obviously we’re all on Lemmy for a complicated combination of reasons, but we all likely share some common ground, namely…
- need for privacy
- need to own/control/access the data we produce
- healthy skepticism about the trustworthiness of for-profit corporations, in general
So if we don’t want meta to know even innocuous things; like how many times/when we message our grandma, and we don’t google to know when we’re searching for remedies to a rash, and we don’t want reddit to… Well we just don’t want reddit - we don’t want them to profit from or weaponize that data against us in a myriad ways.
We also don’t want them artificially removing features and creating tiered layers of service/value hidden behind a paywall (I understand this is very present in the some of the commercially available DNA services).
So that brings me to DNA testing services. Since they started to emerge in the mainstream they were immediately an interesting, exciting novelty and I also knew it was data I wouldn’t feel safe trusting with a for-profit org - with broken systems like law enforcement and health insurers on speed dial and just salivating for the goodies they collect.
So all that considered, any groups that provide this type of service that you do trust/use, and why?
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.