Transparency Report Shows Ancestry.com Rejected A Warrant Demanding Access To Its DNA Database

from the PREMISES-TO-BE-SEARCHED:-the-whole-thing dept

Third-party DNA services have become one of law enforcement's new investigative tools. Companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe have collected massive amounts of DNA data and personal info, and cops have used these databases to solve cold cases and identify suspects they may have overlooked during investigations.

As this use of private DNA databases has become more widespread, some services have tightened up their access. Law enforcement started pushing and it was finally time to start pushing back. In addition to creating fake profiles to upload DNA samples to match against databases, law enforcement officers have also obtained court orders demanding full access to these databases to peruse at will.

One company, FamilyTreeDNA, has welcomed this new interest from non-customers, allowing government agencies to treat its database as one of their own. Most other DNA companies have gone the other way, restricting access to personal info and DNA matches by requiring legitimate, narrowly-crafted court orders and warrants before turning over info to law enforcement.

Ancestry.com is one of the more restrictive companies. Its "Guide for Law Enforcement" makes it clear it will challenge any court order or warrant it believes is overly-broad. The wording may seem a bit antagonistic, but it's probably the only language law enforcement understands. Law enforcement prefers to communicate vaguely and exoneratively, which lowers its exposure to harmful things like the rights of others and personal accountability. So, if Ancestry's language is brusque, it's only because it's necessary.

Ancestry does not voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. To provide our Users with the greatest protection under the law, we require all government agencies seeking access to Ancestry customers’ data to follow valid legal process and do not allow law enforcement to use Ancestry’s services to investigate crimes or to identify human remains.

Some unnamed law enforcement agency recently experienced this lack of cooperation firsthand, as Peter Aldhous reports for BuzzFeed.

Ancestry.com, the largest DNA testing company in the world, was served a search warrant to give police access to its database of some 16 million DNA profiles, but the company did not comply.

“Ancestry received one request seeking access to Ancestry’s DNA database through a search warrant,” the company revealed in its 2019 transparency report released last week. “Ancestry challenged the warrant on jurisdictional grounds and did not provide any customer data in response.”

There are no further details in the transparency report, but comments given to BuzzFeed by Ancestry suggest the warrant sought open-ended access to the company's database. That's definitely something companies shouldn't be offering to law enforcement agencies. The unnamed law enforcement agency will have to take its fishing line to a competitor more willing to abuse the trust of its customers.

Filed Under: dna, law enforcement, privacy, transparency, warrant
Companies: ancestry.com

Cops Now Using Warrants To Gain Access To DNA Services' Entire Databases

from the one-affidavit-to-rule-them-all dept

Cops have discovered a new source of useful third-party records: DNA databases. Millions of people have voluntarily handed over personal information to a number of services in exchange for info on medical markers or distant family members.

Investigators are submitting DNA samples from cold cases in hopes of tracking down criminals who've managed to evade them for years. It has led to the closing of some cases, which is all agencies need to argue for continued access to DNA samples from millions of users.

Some DNA services are more protective of their customers' privacy than others. Of course, privacy protections in this context generate quite a bit of friction. For DNA databases to be useful, users must allow others to access their DNA info and expect others to do the same thing. Identifying info can be withheld, and definitely should be if users aren't interested in rebuilding a family tree. One company, however, has decided it's an unofficial arm of the law enforcement community and has involuntarily deputized its users.

When cops submit DNA seeking matches, they don't always identify themselves as law enforcement officers. Faux accounts are being used to gather matches with DNA services (and their users) unaware of the government's intrusion. Once investigators have gathered some promising hits, they reveal themselves to issue subpoenas demanding identifying info on the search results.

Things are getting even more troubling in this new Constitutional gray area. Kashmir Hill and Heather Murphy of the New York Times report law enforcement is now using warrants to force DNA services to open up their entire databases for investigators to dig through.

For police officers around the country, the genetic profiles that 20 million people have uploaded to consumer DNA sites represent a tantalizing resource that could be used to solve cases both new and cold. But for years, the vast majority of the data have been off limits to investigators. The two largest sites, Ancestry.com and 23andMe, have long pledged to keep their users’ genetic information private, and a smaller one, GEDmatch, severely restricted police access to its records this year.

Last week, however, a Florida detective announced at a police convention that he had obtained a warrant to penetrate GEDmatch and search its full database of nearly one million users.

Warrants are supposed to be targeted -- seeking evidence from a location or a person clearly defined in the warrant application. When a warrant is used to allow full access to the personal info of one million users, there's clearly no targeting. Investigators may have probable cause to believe they'll find evidence of a crime by searching an entire DNA database, but all the probable cause in the world doesn't allow officers to search a million people until they find the evidence they're looking for. That's what's happening here.

The abuses of warrant power will only get bigger. GEDmatch is small. 23andMe has 10 million users. Ancestry.com has 15 million users. They'll be the next targets of questionable warrants if they haven't already been hit with some.

In response to backlash following the first reports of officers anonymously submitting samples to obtain a list of suspects, DNA/genealogy companies tightened up their rules. Subpoenas now only net personal info of people who've opted into sharing their data with law enforcement. According to this report, only 185,000 of GEDmatch's 1.3 million have made that choice. That didn't sit well with this investigator, who decided he could talk a court into forcing the company to give him what he wanted.

In July, he asked a judge in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida to approve a warrant that would let him override the privacy settings of GEDmatch’s users and search the site’s full database of 1.2 million users. After Judge Patricia Strowbridge agreed, Detective [Michael] Fields said in an interview, the site complied within 24 hours. He said that some leads had emerged, but that he had yet to make an arrest. He declined to share the warrant or say how it was worded.

There's a real danger here. If there's no pushback from companies and their users, law enforcement officers will be seeking the same access, effectively turning private DNA databases into law enforcement databases. On the flip side, if this does become the new normal for law enforcement, it runs the risk of burning its own source, so to speak.

Genetic genealogy experts said that until now, the law enforcement community had been deliberately cautious about approaching the consumer sites with court orders: If users get spooked and abandon the sites, they will become much less useful to investigators. Barbara Rae-Venter, a genetic genealogist who works with law enforcement, described the situation as “Don’t rock the boat.”

The boat is already rocking. Detective Fields has shown officers the way to get what they want when private companies decide they're not just going to be field offices for government agencies. Multiple officers and detectives asked for a copy of his warrant following his talk, which means Fields' Fourth Amendment experiment is going to become boilerplate. Customers and users who thought their personal info was shielded from law enforcement probing are now finding out these protections can be undermined by a warrant targeting anyone that matches a certain DNA profile.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, database search, dna, dna databases, police, unsolved crimes, warrant
Companies: 23andme, ancestry.com, gedmatch

Familial DNA Searches May Make You Think Twice About Signing Up With Private Genetic Services

from the running-in-family dept

Using DNA found at the scene of a crime to identify the guilty party is pretty routine these days, but, as Mike discussed many years ago, police have been getting more aggressive in going much further: carrying out "familial" DNA searches on privately-held genetic databases. That link is to a recent Wired article that concerns the case of Michael Usry, who became a suspect in a 1966 1996 murder case because of his father's DNA:

Detectives had focused on Usry after running a familial DNA search, a technique that allows investigators to identify suspects who don’t have DNA in a law enforcement database but whose close relatives have had their genetic profiles cataloged. In Usry's case the crime scene DNA bore numerous similarities to that of Usry’s father, who years earlier had donated a DNA sample to a genealogy project through his Mormon church in Mississippi. That project’s database was later purchased by Ancestry, which made it publicly searchable -- a decision that didn’t take into account the possibility that cops might someday use it to hunt for genetic leads.

Using general similarities as the yardstick rather than more exact matches means that false positives are more likely -- as in this case, when Usry's own DNA proved he had nothing to do with the murder. Those similarities were only found because his father's DNA was in a privately-held genetic database that the police could access. That's unusual, but becoming more common as services like Ancestry.com and 23andMe gather many more DNA samples.

According to an article on Fusion.net, Ancestry now has over 800,000 samples, while 23andMe has a million customers (Ancestry says that a more up-to-date figure is 1.2 million members in its database). Those are significant holdings, and it's only natural that the police would try to use them to solve crimes; both companies confirm that they will turn over information from their databases to law enforcement agencies if served with a suitable court order. A more recent post on Fusion.net notes that 23andMe has produced its first transparency report (direct link, but Techdirt readers outside the US may have to use the Google cache version for reasons that are not clear.) The report shows that a total of four requests were received from the US authorities, concerning five 23andMe customers, and indicates that the company was successful in denying those requests, without giving details.

Although understandable, this kind of access is problematic for people who sign up for these services, for reasons made clear by the Usry case. The DNA that goes into the database affects not only the donor, if a rough match to crime materials is found by the police, but many close relatives whose genetic make-up is necessarily similar. As a result, it's entirely possible that completely innocent people might have to go through the traumatic experience of being a suspect just as Usry did before more precise tests ruled him out.

That's unfortunate, because it adds a complicating factor to the decision about whether to provide DNA to interesting and innovative services like Ancestry.com and 23andMe: doing so means future generations might be put at risk of erroneous police interest. The only way to prove their innocence would be to hand over their DNA to the authorities for detailed testing, which then raises the question of what happens to it afterwards.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: dna, government, law enforcement, surveillance, transparency
Companies: 23andme, ancestry.com

[Updated] Ancestry.com Employees Caught Throwing Away Thousands Of Records They Were Supposed To Be Archiving For The US Government

from the file-under:-wastebasket dept

[Update: Amy Rubenstein of Ancestry.com has pointed out a few inaccuracies within this post and I have corrected information as needed. Some claims made are still open for debate, so rather than strike statements that are less than wholly resolved, I have added Rubenstein's statements directly after these sentences.]

Ancestry.com has long been a government contractor, converting millions of hard copy records into electronic files. In conjunction with the National Archives & Records Administration (NARA), it has performed monumental tasks like indexing and scanning all US Census records from 1790 through 1930. Or has it?

The private company operates with minimal oversight and its relationship with the NARA is a "closely-guarded secret." [Rubenstein says Ancestry.com's archival work is overseen by "government employees and monitors." This would suggest more oversight than Matthew M. Aid -- intel historian and NSA expert -- asserts there is in his introduction to the news article quoted here. Rubenstein made no statement concerning the "closely guarded" secrecy of Ancestry.com's relationship with the NARA.] This lack of accountability has naturally resulted in, shall we say, lackluster efforts from its employees. (via Unredacted)

An employee of ancestry.com who was working at the federal records center in north St. Louis County was fired for allegedly throwing out draft-card information, a federal administrator said.

Bryan McGraw, director of the National Personnel Records Center, said Friday that his staff recovered all the papers, some of them from a trash can. The incident on March 12 prompted the federal agency to halt contract work by Ancestry Inc., which operates as ancestry.com, at St. Louis and four other sites.

The currently-on-hold project involved scanning in 49 million draft records. Apparently, an employee found it easier to satisfy his/her supervisor to hit quotas by dumping files in the nearest trashcan… or glove? [Rubenstein says ancestry.com does not "hand out quotas." It monitors employee efficiency by "tracking average scanning output," but does not issue quotas directly to its employees.]

McGraw said the employee apparently had been warned about productivity by his supervisor and tried to dispose of a pending stack of supplemental papers that had been attached to individual draft cards. McGraw said another person found some of the records on the employee’s desk and others stuffed into a latex glove in a trash can.

This isn't the first time ancestry.com's been caught destroying files it's supposed to be archiving. [Ancestry.com's Rubenstein points out that the company did not take over the archival efforts at this location until August 26, 2014. The incidents discussed here occurred in 2012, with the investigation finally wrapping up in 2014. I have amended the article title to reflect the fact that ancestry.com employees did NOT dispose of "thousands of records." According to Rubenstein, the number of records trashed in this recent incident was "slightly over 100. My apologies to ancestry.com for stating both incidents happened under ancestry.com's purview.] Last year, employees at the same location were caught disposing of thousands of records.

National Personnel Records Center workers here dumped, stashed or otherwise destroyed 4,000 records of individual federal employees, the head of the National Archives revealed in a memo this week.

That alone would be bad enough, but the documents the St. Louis Post-Dispatch acquired suggested that the problem had been ongoing for years.

A July 30, 2012, letter from the Office of Inspector General said that as the old records center facility in Overland was being decommissioned in 2011, employees found documents hidden in pillars and stuffed in the space between the floors and the lowest shelves.

This finding -- along with the recovery of supposedly-archived documents in the woods [!] outside of Alton, Missouri, led to the NARA contacting 132 veterans to inform them that their personal information may have been exposed. It did not, however, lead to the pulling of contracts from ancestry.com. [See above note about ancestry.com's takeover date.] Sentences were handed down to two employees -- one of whom threw away or destroyed 850 of the 1,200 records he'd been assigned. Others were allowed to resign rather than face punishment for their actions. The exposure of ancestry.com's carelessness resulted in little more than the NARA's Inspector General suggesting someone should do something about maintaining the integrity of the records entrusted to the commercial service.

This isn't the full extent of ancestry.com's abuse in relation to its federal archival efforts. Despite not being the true "owner" of the documents and the information contained therein, the company has done everything from issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices on by-default public domain records to locking up US government-produced records behind paywalls. As to the latter, it claims it was done for "security reasons," in order to prevent Social Security numbers of the recently-deceased from being exploited by identity thieves. What ancestry.com's spokesperson failed to mention in public statements is that Congressional pressure forced the redaction of Social Security numbers. Moving the records behind a paywall was just a fortuitous byproduct of its earlier careless exposure of SSNs -- a decision made for purported "security" reasons but one that allowed it to monetize publicly-funded, public domain records.

The issue here is the lack of oversight. Private companies often provide essential services to the government, often at a fraction of the cost of the government performing the work itself. But these government agencies need to be closely watching their hired help and to react more quickly, and with more severity, when the relationship is abused -- on either end. Ancestry.com's work is essential to the establishment of a permanent home for indexed government records. Unfortunately, the oversight needed to prevent the sort of behavior exhibited here isn't in place and that's going to create holes in the public record and prevent ancestry.com from being considered a trustworthy repository of public information. [As noted in updated sections above, ancestry.com is monitored by government employees. Obviously, the oversight has a few flaws, but there is some form of oversight in place.]

Filed Under: archives, nara, national personnel records center, records
Companies: ancestry.com