One of the Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working With the FBI (buzzfeednews.com)

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.

Comments

FBI hoarding DNA data

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[godel_56]

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:FBI hoarding DNA data

[dissy]

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
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:FBI hoarding DNA data

[Anonymous Coward]

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
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 up the ethnic ancestry profiles.

The article also does not say anything about FamilyTreeDNA other than to say the twins submitted DNA to FamilyTreeDNA which didn't give identical ethnic ancestry profiles, and that FTDNA reported Middle Eastern ancestry (for both) which was not consistent with family oral history.

The message of the story is that these operations are wrong about ethnic ancestries. That's no surprise. And the fact that they report ethnic ancestries that conflicts with family oral history is also no surprise.

The methodology used for these ethnic ancestries is far from perfect. They may be working with probabilities of genetic markers being found in one identified group vs. other identified groups, data gaps in their "ethnicity" databases, limitations of consumer-grade DNA sequencing, and so on.

Don't read anything more into the article than exactly what it says.

Also, for anybody who's using these companies to help with their geneology research, they're one tool among many and the results are used in a greater context, with substantiating evidence. Or the results are used to point in the certain direction or to improve verification of other research, operating on a probability basis.

In the current legal system, people won't be convicted by DNA found in FamilyTreeDNA. That's one of the starting points for law enforcement, not the end.

Privacy concerns notwithstanding, I'd be a helluva lot more concerned about false convictions due to legal system bias (racial, financial, etc.) and poor use of DNA technology (misuse of touch DNA results, DNA contamination in the lab, etc.) than whatever the FBI will learn with FTDNA.

Re:BuzzFeed?

[novakyu]

Maybe they learned to code.

False positives

[Daemonik]

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.

Well, I'm screwed

[Snotnose]

I have a sister that is 100% into facebook (yeah, fuck you spell check, I'm not gonna capitalize that). She posts family pictures, tagging me, even after I've asked her not to. She's also sent her DNA to at least one company, and I suspect all of them.

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:When will people ever learn?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

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?

[ShanghaiBill]

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

False Positives and False Negatives

[tobiah]

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.