These are interesting, but not surprising, statistics.
I agree with you that privacy concerns brought about by press coverage (much overblown, in my opinion) surrounding forensic genetic genealogy.
I think the recent general distrust of technology has also had some effect.
I'm not sure what the answer is going to be. The very reasons we are all excited about advances in genetic genealogy drive privacy concerns among the public.
I don’t think the concerns about FGG are overblown, actually. FGG practitioners have few rules and manage to break even those. The recent “ethics panel” at RootsTech is a prime example of a leader in the field making false statements to justify bad behavior.
I’ll have to go back and look at that session. I’m aware of a few pretty egregious ethics violations. But I hope the majority of law enforcement agencies are following the law. We’re in a new world with forensic genetic genealogy. There are bound to be some growing pains. Do you think that the violations to date would warrant changes to federal law to codify the ethical rules that Blaine Bettinger and many other leaders in our field have written?
It’s near the end, in response to Michael Ramage’s question. I have two main concerns with the answer. First, the speaker said she’s been falsely accused of behaving unethically and that there is no proof. That’s not true. I’ve seen the proof. I have copies of it.
Second, she says the DOJ policy has an exception that allows LE to violate company Terms of Service. That is simply false. There is no such exception in the DOJ policy.
The problem with the DOJ policy is that it’s not law and has no enforcement mechanism. In other words, it’s window dressing and does nothing to protect us. Having leaders in the field—who should know better—spread false information about it only makes things worse.
If we want genetic privacy, yes, we’re going to need legislation.
I would be happy to join any effort to make a strong law a reality, but I'm not sure what organization would be willing to make such an effort. Past experience tells me we would be more successful if a recognized group (NGS, maybe) took the lead. I'm sure your connections in that realm are better than mine. Any ideas?
Hi Leah - Your 'autosomal database size over time' posts always make for interesting reading. Thanks for taking the time to plot these. From a personal observation, I am still getting a steady increase of matches in most places but do tend to get more additions on Ancestry. Notably, I have continued to get new matches at 23andMe since the 'recent troubles'. I am also coming across more people who have reservations about testing these days than in the past.
Hi Leah,
These are interesting, but not surprising, statistics.
I agree with you that privacy concerns brought about by press coverage (much overblown, in my opinion) surrounding forensic genetic genealogy.
I think the recent general distrust of technology has also had some effect.
I'm not sure what the answer is going to be. The very reasons we are all excited about advances in genetic genealogy drive privacy concerns among the public.
I don’t think the concerns about FGG are overblown, actually. FGG practitioners have few rules and manage to break even those. The recent “ethics panel” at RootsTech is a prime example of a leader in the field making false statements to justify bad behavior.
I’ll have to go back and look at that session. I’m aware of a few pretty egregious ethics violations. But I hope the majority of law enforcement agencies are following the law. We’re in a new world with forensic genetic genealogy. There are bound to be some growing pains. Do you think that the violations to date would warrant changes to federal law to codify the ethical rules that Blaine Bettinger and many other leaders in our field have written?
It’s near the end, in response to Michael Ramage’s question. I have two main concerns with the answer. First, the speaker said she’s been falsely accused of behaving unethically and that there is no proof. That’s not true. I’ve seen the proof. I have copies of it.
Second, she says the DOJ policy has an exception that allows LE to violate company Terms of Service. That is simply false. There is no such exception in the DOJ policy.
The problem with the DOJ policy is that it’s not law and has no enforcement mechanism. In other words, it’s window dressing and does nothing to protect us. Having leaders in the field—who should know better—spread false information about it only makes things worse.
If we want genetic privacy, yes, we’re going to need legislation.
I would be happy to join any effort to make a strong law a reality, but I'm not sure what organization would be willing to make such an effort. Past experience tells me we would be more successful if a recognized group (NGS, maybe) took the lead. I'm sure your connections in that realm are better than mine. Any ideas?
The ACLU would be a good lead.
Hi Leah - Your 'autosomal database size over time' posts always make for interesting reading. Thanks for taking the time to plot these. From a personal observation, I am still getting a steady increase of matches in most places but do tend to get more additions on Ancestry. Notably, I have continued to get new matches at 23andMe since the 'recent troubles'. I am also coming across more people who have reservations about testing these days than in the past.