Forensic genealogy

Forensic genealogy is the emerging practice of utilizing genetic information from direct-to-consumer companies for identifying suspects or victims in criminal cases. As of July, 2019, the use of this practice has led to the discovery of over 40 suspects of murder and sexual assault.[1] The investigative power of forensic genealogy revolves around the use of open-source databases such as GEDMatch. Through GEDMatch, users are able to upload their genealogy results from direct-to-consumer companies in an effort to identify relatives.

This is possible through analysis of identity-by-descent (IBD) segments of DNA that indicate shared ancestors.[2] Data available in GEDMatch, which is composed of genetic profiles from approximately 1.2 million individuals, has proven capable of identifying a third cousin or closer in over 90% of the population.[3] This information, used in tandem with demographic identifiers like age, gender, and place of residence, is sufficient for identifying any person who has a third cousin or closer within an open-source database.

Law enforcement agencies have leveraged the access to open-source databases by uploading crime-scene genealogy data and inferencing relatives to potential suspects.[4][5][6] Family tree assembly and analysis of demographic identifiers is then carried out by genealogy experts. The company Parabon NanoLabs has spearheaded much of the effort to usher in the use of forensic genealogy as an investigative tool. In May 2019, the company claimed to be cracking cold cases at a rate of one per week while simultaneously working on hundreds of cases.[7]

Controversy

The use of forensic genealogy has been central in numerous high-profile cases, namely in the identification and ultimate arrest of Joseph DeAngelo, the Golden State Killer.[4] Despite its apparent success, the growing use of open-source databases by law enforcement agencies has not avoided serious scrutiny. A year prior to the arrest of DeAngelo, an individual was wrongly identified as a suspect in the murder of Annie Dodge, an 18-year-old woman who was the victim of a 1996 murder in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Michael Usry was the subject of a police investigation that led to a court order requiring Ancestry.com to disclose the identity of a partial match to crime scene DNA.[8] This partial match was Usry, who was ultimately cleared as a suspect after police secured a warrant for his DNA. This DNA test proved that he was not a full match to the perpetrator.

Privacy implications

Direct-to-consumer companies

The free rein of open-source databases by investigators has initiated a debate over the Fourth Amendment implications of genealogy data. The Fourth Amendment states that a warrant is required in situations that violate an individual's reasonable expectations of privacy.[9] Given the sensitivity of information within direct-to-consumer genealogy databases, particularly concerning medical traits, behavioral tendencies, ethnic background, and familial associations, courts have asserted that they are subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment.[10]

Currently, direct-to-consumer companies do not promise complete protection of user data. 23andMe, a leading consumer genealogy company, states in its privacy policy that “23andMe will preserve and disclose any and all information to law enforcement agencies or others if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to…comply with legal or regulatory process”.[11]

In an effort to remain transparent to its consumers, 23andMe has a quarterly Transparency Report. This report identifies the number of government requests for user data in addition to the number of times data has been produced without the explicit consent of the individual(s) of interest. 23andMe claims to have never produced user data without consent.[12] The other industry leader, Ancestry.com, takes an analogous stance on the privacy of user data and similarly provides an annual transparency report.[13]

The direct-to-consumer genealogy company FamilyTreeDNA faced a backlash following an admission that they were working secretly with the FBI. This partnership was initiated in 2018 and had the goal of solving cold cases involving murder and rape.[14] Following scrutiny, FamilyTreeDNA's president Bennett Greenspan apologized for a lack of transparency, stating “I am genuinely sorry for not having handled our communications with you as we should have”.[14]

Open-source databases

Privacy implications pertaining to open-source databases like GEDMatch are distinct from direct-to-consumer companies. As users voluntarily upload their genealogy profiles to GEDMatch, they forfeit their privacy to the data. The third-party doctrine, originally established by the Supreme Court, states that a person “has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information…voluntarily turn[ed] over to third parties”.[15] However, following intense media attention after the arrest of the Golden State Killer, GEDMatch changed their terms of service to require individuals to opt into use of their profiles by third parties.[16] In effect, privacy rights were shifted back into the hands of the users.

Potential for supplementing the FBI's CODIS System

The government's own Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database is composed of forensic evidence assessible to local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. This database consists of genetic profiles of approximately 18 million different people, however these are limited to DNA samples from convicted felons and arrestees.[17] Data on the racial distribution of profiles suggests that 8.6% of the entire African American population is present in the database compared to only 2% of the white population.[10]

On the other hand, genetic profiles from direct-to-consumer databases and GEDMatch consist of 75% white individuals from Northern European descent.[2] The vast overrepresentation of African American individuals within the CODIS database has rendered it relatively ineffective for solving serial murder and sexual assault cases, of which the majority of perpetrators are white. Based on data from 4,700 mass murderers, 57% of serial killers are white whereas only 29% are African American.[18] The utilization of forensic genealogy, which relies heavily on databases like GEDMatch, would therefore help to reduce racial disparities in the current criminal justice system.  

gollark: Well, if C was more expressive™ you would match on datastructures and such.
gollark: I think in most situations you want the non-fallthrough behavior and should have to explicitly opt into fallthrough, or even just have pattern matching which lets you specify ors.
gollark: That makes some sense, and newer language developers must just have copied it due to bee.
gollark: Ah yes, that.
gollark: Pattern matching is just better.

References
  1. Murphy, Heather (2019-07-01). "Genealogy Sites Have Helped Identify Suspects. Now They've Helped Convict One". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  2. Erlich, Yaniv; Shor, Tal; Pe’er, Itsik; Carmi, Shai (2018-11-09). "Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches". Science. 362 (6415): 690–694. Bibcode:2018Sci...362..690E. doi:10.1126/science.aau4832. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 30309907.
  3. Khan, Razib; Mittelman, David (2018-08-20). "Consumer genomics will change your life, whether you get tested or not". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 120. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1506-1. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 6100720. PMID 30124172.
  4. Phillips, Chris (2018-09-01). "The Golden State Killer investigation and the nascent field of forensic genealogy". Forensic Science International: Genetics. 36: 186–188. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.07.010. ISSN 1872-4973. PMID 30041097.
  5. Murphy, Heather (July 1, 2019). "Genealogy Sites Have Helped Identify Suspects. Now They've Helped Convict One". NY Times. Retrieved May 20, 2020.
  6. Murphy, Heather (October 5, 2019). "Playing Catch a Killer With a Room Full of Sleuths". NY Times. Retrieved May 20, 2020.
  7. Gross, Daniel J. "How family tree forensics solved cold cases in Greenville, across the US". The Greenville News. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  8. Swenson, Kyle. "Police twice targeted the wrong men for a brutal 1996 killing. A cigarette butt changed everything". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  9. "Constitute". www.constituteproject.org. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  10. Abrahamson, Claire (2018–2019). "Guilt by Genetic Association: The Fourth Amendment and the Search of Private Genetic Databases by Law Enforcement". Fordham Law Review. 87: 2539.CS1 maint: date format (link)
  11. 23andMe. "DNA Genetic Testing & Analysis - 23andMe". www.23andme.com. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  12. 23andMe. "Transparency Report - 23andMe". www.23andme.com. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  13. "Transparency". www.ancestry.com. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  14. Haag, Matthew (2019-02-04). "FamilyTreeDNA Admits to Sharing Genetic Data With F.B.I." The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  15. Villasenor, John (2013-12-30). "What You Need to Know about the Third-Party Doctrine". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  16. Murphy, Heather (2019-04-25). "Sooner or Later Your Cousin's DNA Is Going to Solve a Murder". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  17. "CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  18. Samet, Mackenzie; Salo, Jackie (2018-08-14). "New profile of serial killers debunks long-held myths". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.