I wanted to offer a few thoughts to connect two recent posts in G2G, as I believe that they have mutually interacting implications:
Regarding the 1st post, we now know how DNA genealogy was used to help solve the case. The lead investigator behind the recent arrest in the "Golden State Killer" case was reported, by The Mercury News, to have utilized GEDmatch:
Lead investigator Paul Holes, a cold case expert and retired Contra Costa County District Attorney inspector, said his team’s biggest tool was GEDmatch, a Florida-based website that pools raw genetic profiles that people share publicly. No court order was needed to access that site’s large database of genetic blueprints. Other major private DNA ancestral sites said they were not approached by police for this case.
There has not yet been a public response by GEDmatch. I am very curious to hear their take on this use of the platform. And I genuinely believe that their response may create challenges for those who desire to utilize genetic genealogy. In addition, this site's linking to GEDmatch or other genetic results is something that the WikiTree will have to re-evaluate, as there are serious ethical issues around the creation and use of police or state DNA databases, and the question of whether these tools which we employ are by their nature extensions of those databases.
The 2nd post may seem unconnected, however there is a real and pertinent relationship here: the exchange of information and data. In an ideal world, we could take one DNA test and compare those results with every other database. 23andMe's recent DNA day offer to analyze the data of Ancestry DNA customers had elicited hopes that it might provide a means of inter-database matching. This was a disappointment for many.
Now, given the recent news surrounding the "Golden State Killer", I think that 23andMe's reluctance to offer matching for any imported kits is going to be cemented. This was their comment regarding access by law enforcement:
Detectives could not have simply taken the East Area Rapist DNA profile they had from crime scenes — including crimes in Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara counties — signed up for a service and entered that profile, the 23andMe spokesman said.
“We only process saliva in our lab and there has to be enough to fill a test tube,” the spokesman said. “Our platform is only available to our customers, and does not support the comparison of genetic data processed by any third party to genetic profiles within our database.”
If they offer the ability to import data to compare against other kits, then they are opening up their database to law enforcement access. That could kill any enthusiasm for other family members spitting in a tube.
However, even the current import option is problematic in light of the recent news, since their DNA family report discloses the number of people who match as close relatives the imported DNA data file. If law enforcement were able to upload a suspect kit and it reports that close relatives are known on the service, they could obtain a warrant to compel 23andMe's cooperation. It is possible that revelations such as this will force 23andMe to terminate the program in order to ensure customer confidence.
Given the intense competition, it seems unlikely that these companies will provide direct database interoperability, as it would be the only solution to maintain the necessary confidence of consumers. Moreover, limiting the incentive to populate an initial database using imported data could limit new DNA genealogy startups.
Finally, I suspect that WikiTree, as it links together family connections with identifiers of genetic data may face a drop in participation with the public nature of the data. Perhaps greater privacy considerations need to be taken by the administrators of this site, with steps taken to allow the incorporation of this data without making such data completely public. One approach might be obfuscating kit numbers through hashing methods.
This also raises questions about what we must tell others whom we recruit to take a test. As Blaine Bettinger, a.k.a. the Genetic Genealogist, wrote today:
[...] Do test-takers consent to this use when they provide a DNA sample or upload to a database? How will it affect our ability to recruit new test-takers when we *must* disclose to them that their DNA could be used to implicate family members in crimes?
Unfortunately, these decisions are being made for us rather than with us, and this is one of my major concerns. Where is the discussion in the community? Where is the informed consent when we upload to genealogical databases? I understand that YOU may be completely fine with your DNA being used to incriminate your criminal relatives, but why should YOUR consent be the deciding factor? Shouldn't everyone who uploads have the ability make that decision? If so, can they so decide now, or is this being done on the sly? How do we engage in conversation before these decisions are all made for the community? Why has there been absolutely NO discussion of the possible negative outcomes?!?
I'd love to hear my fellow WikiTree volunteers' thoughts on the effect of the current situations and how we as a community ought respond.