Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Forensic genealogy and the power of defaults

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 707–708 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — In March 2019, FamilyTreeDNA, the fourth largest direct-to-consumer genetics firm, announced that it was updating its terms of service and privacy policy to enable users to decline to participate in a particular type of DNA data sharing: the sharing of their genetic data with law enforcement for purposes of investigating crimes1. In May 2019, GEDmatch, a free, searchable online genetics database, announced a similar update2. Since the April 2018 arrest of the alleged ‘Golden State Killer’, law enforcement has eagerly embraced the use of consumer genetics platforms to identify suspects for investigation and, in some instances, arrest. Already, nearly three dozen investigations using these platforms have delivered suspects to law enforcement.

As many as 26 million people have used a consumer genetics service to date3, though most of their genetic profiles have remained inaccessible for routine law enforcement use. Initially, only GEDmatch permitted law enforcement free rein to search its data to investigate crimes. In late January 2019, however, the world learned that FamilyTreeDNA had secretly been working with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for nearly a year to analyze crime-scene DNA samples and compare them to the genetic profiles in its database—without explicitly informing its users about this practice4. Indeed, all the while, FamilyTreeDNA held itself out as committed to user privacy, summarizing its privacy policy as a commitment that “we won’t share your DNA5.”

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. FamilyTreeDNA. Updates. https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/updates-to-our-terms-of-service-and-privacy-policy-march19?e=dfef197239 (12 March 2019).

  2. Aldhous, P. This genealogy database helped solve dozens of crimes. But its new privacy rules will restrict access by cops. BuzzFeed News https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/this-genealogy-database-helped-solve-dozens-of-crimes-but (19 May 2019).

  3. Regalado, A. More than 26 million people have taken an at-home ancestry test. MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612880/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test/ (11 February 2019).

  4. Hernandez, S. One of the biggest at-home DNA testing companies is working with the FBI. BuzzFeed News https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/family-tree-dna-fbi-investigative-genealogy-privacy (31 January 2019).

  5. FamilyTreeDNA. https://perma.cc/A6TW-SW5P (1 April 2019).

  6. FamilyTreeDNA. A letter to our customers. https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/letter-to-customers?e (3 February 2019).

  7. Fleming, S. M., Thomas, C. L. & Dolan, R. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 6005–6009 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Beshears, J. et al. The limitations of defaults. National Bureau of Economic Research, Retirement Research Center http://www.nber.org/programs/ag/rrc/NB10-02%20Beshears,%20Choi%20et%20al%20SUMMARY.pdf (September 2010).

  9. Ram, N. Genetic privacy after Carpenter. Va. Law Rev. (in the press); https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3265827

  10. Erlich, Y., Shor, T., Pe’er, I. & Carmi, S. Science 362, 690–694 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by a Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholars Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Natalie Ram

  2. University of Houston Law Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Jessica L. Roberts

Authors
  1. Natalie Ram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica L. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica L. Roberts.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ram, N., Roberts, J.L. Forensic genealogy and the power of defaults. Nat Biotechnol 37, 707–708 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0172-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0172-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing