FTDNA and privacy

Question

recently a posting was made regarding FTDNA giving access to law enforcement. Today I got an email from them that said , in part,

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 profiles any more than an ordinary user can.   As with all other genetic genealogy services, law enforcement must provide valid legal process, such as a subpoena or search warrant to receive any information beyond that which any other user can access. 

Comments

Thanks for this, Marion!

---

If you didn't receive the open letter from Bennett Greenspan, president of Gene-by-Gene and Family Tree DNA, and you would like to read the entire letter, it is available at this archival link: https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/letter-to-customers.

---

Thanks, Edison. Greenspan seems to have handled the issue well.

Answer 1

Yes I have just received that same email. Thank you.

That actually makes me feel better about leaving my DNA with them, as they were my testing company!!

Answer 2

"LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT HAVE OPEN ACCESS TO THE FTDNA DATABASE. "

This is not adding any additional information to what was already known and reported, in particular, in my previous post and as reported by BuzzFeed News. Neither I, nor in the reporting which I cited, was it suggested otherwise. 

Specifically, BuzzFeed News, which broke the story had stated:

1. "Officials at Family Tree said customers could decide to opt out of any familial matching, which would prevent their profiles from being searchable by the FBI. But by doing so, customers would also be unable to use one of the key features of the service: finding possible relatives through DNA testing."
2. "The move is sure to raise privacy concerns as law enforcement gains the ability to match DNA from crime scenes to a vast library of possible relatives."

Both statements only suggest that they have gained access to the same familial matches that any other kit would have. 

This is very concerning for a variety of reasons which others have articulated well:

1. Judy G. Russell, “Opening the DNA floodgates,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 1 Feb 2019 
2. Leah Larkin, "FTDNA Opens the Door to the Cops", The DNA Geek, posted 31 Jan 2019.

Greenspan's current response is equivalent to the following scenario:

ADULT: "You just stole a cookie from the cookie jar! I saw you do it."

CHILD: "I didn't steal all of the chocolates. Quit accusing me of stealing all of the chocolates!" 

Certainly, the child did not steal all of the chocolates; the child did not steal any of the chocolates. The adult did not accuse the child of stealing ANY chocolates. The adult accused the child of stealing a cookie. 

Like the child, Greenspan is evading the real hart of the matter by denying something which was not reported when the story broke is not even being constructive. There are constructive options, but it seems that Greenspan is not listening. Here's one such constructive option, proposed by Judy Russell and others:

https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2019/02/03/one-little-change/

Comments

The sole issue was the change to the wording of the Terms of Service in December 2018 from the wording in the May 2018 TOS.  The links you provide give sound reasons to worry about this change.

The message from Bennett Greenspan says "Therefore, we are reverting our TOS to our May 2018 version, and any future changes will be communicated to you in a timely manner."  So I don't see this response as evading the heart of the matter.  The heart was the change in TOS, and they have reverted them.  To me it looks exactly like a fix to the firestorm they caused, which seals all the damage of the December 2018 change other than a breach of trust, which, to be sure, is still a big deal.

---

And you credit Buzzfeed? I see scare-mongering, after all that’s what ‘sells’