Ancestry should work towards assisting LE, not touting this privacy nonsense to claim they will only do so when compelled by "valid legal processes". I hope they eventually get sued for some kind of de facto obstructing justice, or harbouring criminals. I’d wager that their real privacy policy (in using DNA demographic info) is about as kosher as Facebook’s.

Interesting. I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t know if you are a US citizen, but individual liberty is important to our country and certain rights are enshrined in our constitution. In this instance pertaining to the fourth amendment: prohibiting unlawful searches and seizure.

The Supreme Court has ruled that blood testing falls under the protection and requires a warrant to search.

In my opinion LE looking at someones DNA on an Ancestry site would be a violation because the person did not consent to give that DNA to LE.

Now it’s somewhat of a grey area because the clause is granted based on the intrusive action required to obtain DNA, not exactly for the DNA itself. In other words to actually take someone’s blood out of their body. But I think it’s open to challenge since the precedent has been set that grants it protection.

I should think it should be no different than LE going to your doctor and requesting a blood sample of yours that was taken for medical purposes. That is not allowed.

The kicker is that is the results of a blood test is not technically covered because that is just numbers on a piece of paper and doesn’t require the actual physical blood to be searched by LE.

This is simply an issue where the law hasn’t caught up to technology. Communication is covered under the law as it pertains to privilege.

My issue is scope. LE would not be allowed to view the phone records of an entire city just to see if a criminal might happen to be discussed there. So how is that different than looking at the DNA of millions of people just to see if a criminal’s profile happens to be there?

As we’ve seen, that actually means nothing anyway. Not only did they not search the actual DNA of the suspect, but they can’t even prove that what is on the website pertains to that subject. So they need to search the DNA of the suspects relative to confirm that it matches to their information which up till that point then gives them merely probable cause to search the actual suspect’s actual DNA.

Not only can I be searched among millions of people, but now my DNA is going to be searched, when I’m not even a criminal suspect at all! just because I am alleged to be related to a guy according to what some website says. No thank you!

PS. I’m very happy this monster was caught, and I would gladly allow my DNA to be searched if I thought I was related to him. I just oppose the blanket DNA search of an Ancestry database.

To circumvent the illegal use of DNA and the potential fruit of the poison tree problems i would have a go at it like this.

I don’t think there would be anything illegal in such a scenario…. however, whether or not such a thing constituted probable cause would be up to a judge to decide. One possible problem could be that the evidence pertains to one crime and is being used for a different crime. As far as I know that is not prohibited, but it would be up to LE to have to justify it.

The other major hurdle is the fact that the police had possession of the evidence, they gave it to some people and then those people gave it back to them. If it was used in a trial the defense would definitely move to have it suppressed and I should think it’s likely that they would succeed. The standards for what is permitted in a jury trial are not the same as that of a criminal investigation.

…My issue is scope. LE would not be allowed to view the phone records of an entire city just to see if a criminal might happen to be discussed there. So how is that different than looking at the DNA of millions of people just to see if a criminal’s profile happens to be there?

As we’ve seen, that actually means nothing anyway. Not only did they not search the actual DNA of the suspect, but they can’t even prove that what is on the website pertains to that subject. So they need to search the DNA of the suspects relative to confirm that it matches to their information which up till that point then gives them merely probable cause to search the actual suspect’s actual DNA.

That’s the point I’m trying to make. The criminal won’t have submitted his DNA to one of these genealogy companies (unless he’s a real dummy). Ancestry et al should be proactively looking to assist LE getting a familial match, from which to proceed from there with the investigation.

A simple amendment to their Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and an opt-out option for customers’ consent in the sign-up process could facilitate this, perhaps?

I’m not a US citizen, but a quick glance at the 4th Amendment indicates that this kind of thing might well be in the realm of the reasonable already. Hence the method LE seemingly used to ID this EAR/ONS POS.

I get what you’re saying overall though. And we might well be seeing a can of worms being opened as this case proceeds.

Forgetting all that . . .

It would seem a no-brainer for Riverside and even SFPD to run their samples through the ancestry sites the same way, ASAP, before any privacy laws change.

What is there to lose?

How about creating a data base where people volunteer their DNA samples for exactly this purpose–identifying criminals through familial DNA. I’d do it.

Apparently they used an open-source site called GED Match as their main tool.

Unlike Ancestry.com and several others which require saliva samples, on GED Match you can simply plug in your raw genetic data.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 … ller-case/

Is Riverside taking action yet? What’s the holdup?

I began wondering how I get my raw DNA collected. Just noticed I can do it through my ancestry sample. You have to release your privacy issues as they will no longer be responsible once you download it.

What we want to do is put the squeeze on Riverside and any other related LE (Santa Rosa Hitchhiker?) to at least run their data.

That seems like a no-brainer, and irresponsible if they don’t.

^^I agree, but maybe they already have. I’d like to think so…

^^I agree, but maybe they already have. I’d like to think so…

This seems a rather new thing to do and this is probably the first time someone thought to do it. I’m hoping police everywhere are submitting samples now to try and solve cold cases. Hopefully Riverside has sent theirs in re the CJB case and also SFPD. I believe all SFPD really has is DNA from the gloves but it’s worth a shot.

The problem is, I’m not sure if either Riverside or SFPD were able to develop a full DNA profile. It’s my understanding you can use a partial profile to rule a suspect out, but it requires a full DNA profile to say someone is guilty within a reasonable doubt.

It’s my understanding the first DNA hit in the EAR/ONS case wasn’t good enough to establish a solid case. My guess is, one of his daughters submitted a sample to the DNA site. The UNSUB DNA came back as related but not a match. it was most likely pretty easy to surmise the father was where the match came from. However, it’s always possible she wasn’t actually his daughter, so the DA wanted them to acquire a full sample from Deangelo to make sure they had an exact match.

Interesting. I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t know if you are a US citizen, but individual liberty is important to our country and certain rights are enshrined in our constitution. In this instance pertaining to the fourth amendment: prohibiting unlawful searches and seizure.

The Supreme Court has ruled that blood testing falls under the protection and requires a warrant to search.

But in this case apparently the police didn’t just go searching willy nilly through the entire database, at least not how we think they would. They simply used the DNA matching available to anyone. It’s my understanding when you do one of these DNA tests, you can opt out of them searching their database for matches. So in this case, we have to assume the person who submitted the original sample gave consent to search for matches. It might be a bit shady that they sent the UNSUB DNA in under a false name, but there isn’t anything unconstitutional that I can see. Their only problem would be if the DNA matching company has a policy about using false names.

Apparently they used an open-source site called GED Match as their main tool.

Unlike Ancestry.com and several others which require saliva samples, on GED Match you can simply plug in your raw genetic data.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 … ller-case/

Is Riverside taking action yet? What’s the holdup?

Thanks Xcaliber, just saw this post. So it seems they didn’t submit the sample using a false name, they just searched a database already available online.

Paul Holes, a retired Contra Costa County District Attorney inspector, told the East Bay Times that the investigation’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."

On Friday morning, Rogers emailed Ars, underscoring the implications of uploading one’s genetic profile to a database such as his. He published a statement, saying that he only learned of his site’s connection to the California investigation through the media.

"Although we were not approached by law enforcement or anyone else about this case or about the DNA, it has always been GEDmatch’s policy to inform users that the database could be used for other uses, as set forth in the Site Policy," he wrote. "While the database was created for genealogical research, it is important that GEDmatch participants understand the possible uses of their DNA, including information of relatives that have committed crimes or were victims of crimes. if you are concerned about non-genealogical uses of your DNA, you should not upload your DNA to the database and/or you should remove DNA that has already been uploaded."

If it’s really that simple, this has to be one of the most significant breakthroughs in the history of crime-solving.

You would assume that dozens of cold cases will have new leads in the next few months.

If I were SFPD I wouldn’t worry if your Z sample is compromised or not complete enough, I would just run it and see what happens.

This is huge and a great moment in the history of crime-solving in California.

This is also a great moment for those who – like Mike Morford – are both investigators in the ONS and the Zodiac cases. This is an opportunity to reflect and and see what can we learn from DeAngelo – in what things we got wrong about him before he was identified and what we got right, and try to compare that to Zodiac case and the known suspects.

Forgetting all that . . .

It would seem a no-brainer for Riverside and even SFPD to run their samples through the ancestry sites the same way, ASAP, before any privacy laws change.

What is there to lose?

I agree, this is an exciting development both for the GSK case in particular, and potentially for many other cold cases out there. In cases were a police department has a full profile of a suspect DNA from a crime scene, they could submit it to a genealogy website and get a report that identifies potential relatives, and from there possibly identify the actual suspect.

From what I personally know, I can say that SFPD does not have a valid DNA profile of suspected Zodiac DNA. They released press releases earlier saying that they did have it, but when I was in contact with them, I was informed that they no longer had any confidence at all in that recovered DNA.

As far as Riverside Police Department is concerned, I don’t have inside knowledge of any kind, but I do have reason to believe that they only recovered a partial DNA profile in the Bates case.

A full DNA profile has 13 markers. A partial DNA profile could have 9 markers, or as little as 4 markers. You cannot submit a partial profile to a genealogy website, because you could literally get back anywhere from 2 million to 20 million hits.