I’m still on the fence about whether or not to leave my DNA results on GEDmatch, but an email message to users from company founder Curtis Rogers about new owner Verogen’s position to “fight all unauthorized law enforcement use and any warrants that may be issued” may convince me to stay. The email also addressed concerns expressed on social media.
Or am I not understanding the difference between authorized and unauthorized law enforcement use?
Here’s the email message.
To GEDmatch users,
As you may know, on December 9 we shared the news that GEDmatch has been purchased by Verogen, Inc., a forensic genomics company whose focus is human ID. This sale took place only because I know it is a big step forward for GEDmatch, its users, and the genetic genealogical community. Since the announcement, there has been speculation about a number of things, much of it unfounded.
There has been concern that law enforcement will have greater access to GEDmatch user information. The opposite is true. Verogen has firmly and repeatedly stated that it will fight all unauthorized law enforcement use and any warrants that may be issued. This is a stronger position than GEDmatch was previously able to implement.
There has been concern that Verogen will eliminate GEDmatch free tools and raise Tier 1 rates. In fact, Verogen has made it clear that the free tools will remain, and there are no immediate plans to raise Tier 1 rates.
It has been reported on social media that there is a mass exodus of kits from the GEDmatch database. There has been a temporary drop in the database size only because privacy policies in place in the various countries where our users reside require citizens to specifically approve the transfer of their data to Verogen. As users grant permission, that data will again be visible on the site. We are proactively reaching out to these users to encourage them to consent to the transfer.
The sale to Verogen will be a tremendous benefit to genealogists. Verogen has pledged to continue the GEDmatch philosophy of providing free services. It recognizes that all information belongs to the users who have placed it on GEDmatch, that this information may be removed by the users at any time, and that strong privacy protections need to be in place. It is to Verogen’s advantage to build the consumer database, meaning more and better matches for users. Verogen recognizes that law enforcement use of genetic genealogy is here to stay and is in a better position to prevent abuses and protect privacy than GEDmatch ever could have done on its own.
Bottom line: I am thrilled that the ideal company has purchased GEDmatch. The baby I created will now mature for the benefit of all involved. If anyone has any doubts, I may be reached at gedmatch@gmail.com. I will do my best to personally respond to all concerns.
Curtis Rogers
GEDmatch
I chose to take my kits off before the sale took place. I did it when I heard about the recent exposure to Law Enforcement in Florida.
I just don’t have any trust in anyone involved in Gedmatch. I have been lied to twice.
My sister, aunt, and I are staying. More power to law enforcement if they catch the bad guys with OUR help. The sky is not falling. Get off your cell phone, social media, and on line shopping if you are afraid.
I pretty much think the same way you do. Thanks for sharing.
On a positive note, if you eventually like what you are seeing with the new owner, you can easily upload your DNA results to GEDmatch again.
I share the concern about the use of the word “unauthorized”. My assumption has been that police departments issue warrants for access to the database. If a warrant is issued for access in the future, does that mean the request is “authorized”?.
Police departments can’t issue their own warrants. They have to present probable cause evidence sufficient to convince a judge that the warrant is needed and the judge would then issue the warrant — or not. If there is no judge’s signature, it’s not authorized. Depends on the judge how easy, or not, that is to get. The company that received the warrant is allowed to try to fight it in court, GEDmatch hasn’t done that yet ( it’s expensive) but a new owner with deeper pockets might.
When one considers what’s happening in China, it’s only a matter of time before this technology becomes yet another tool for building the digital totalitarian state. Maybe not here. Maybe. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/technology/china-surveillance.html
I wrote to GEDMatch this morning re. ‘authorized’ ‘unauthorized’. He indicated that they would fight a warrant to protect the data………………..we’ll see how that plays out.