ROOTS & BRANCHES

When it comes to DNA and genealogy, I generally try to stay at least one step behind the news to give me time to absorb it.

I also wait to get a read from my friends—people such as Diahan Southard, Blaine Bettinger, Angie Bush and Judy Russell (and many others!)—who are gurus in this field in which I am merely a somewhat educated amateur.

So when the news came out a week ago that a Florida detective got a judge to sign off on warrant that can only be described as a “fishing expedition” into the GEDmatch database, I took some time to see what others were saying.

For background, the use of genealogy DNA databases to help solve crimes burst into the mainstream with the apprehension of the alleged “Golden State Killer” a year and dozens of arrests in cold cases have been made since then.

While no one is unhappy with potential murderers being apprehended, there have been some legitimate issues raised with the use of genealogy DNA databases by law enforcement.

The most of important of these for me is what I see as the “slippery slope” of what crimes are considered dire enough to use the technology.

Already, the bounds have moved from murders and rapes to aggravated assaults and burglaries. Will we reach the point of trying to prosecute parking tickets with touch DNA? Sure, I’ve made that contrast as absurd as possible. But the slippery slope is a real thing.

More important in the larger scheme of things is the issue of “informed consent.” Many people manage test kits with the DNA of others.

GEDmatch gave its users what it thought was the ability to opt their kits out of the reach of law enforcement. But the Florida warrant allowed a search of the entire database (To my mind, the judge who issued this warrant needs a refresher in what “probable cause” is!).

And even if the access to GEDmatch was restricted, autosomal DNA profiles when combined with a genealogy paper trail create a ripple effect that exposes the test taker’s entire family to some degree. And none of the rest of that family has given any type of consent to have their DNA in the public domain.

Circling back—if I knew that law enforcement would use this tool appropriately (whatever that might mean!), I wouldn’t have a big problem.

But in the case of this Florida fishing expedition, where I see genealogy DNA databases being used as a blunt-force tool instead of with surgical precision (pardon the mixing of metaphors here!)—I’m frankly a little chilled for the future.

My prediction is that a lot of people who might have been ready to jump on the DNA bandwagon are now going to hesitate.