Why is Ancestry.com Protecting White
Serial Killers?
Taki´s Magazine,
by
Ann Coulter
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
6/3/2021 1:06:47 PM
This week, The New York Times reported on new laws in Maryland and Montana that restrict law enforcement’s use of genealogy databases to catch serial killers. (Maryland I can understand, but Montana? Has someone kidnapped Gov. Greg Gianforte?)
Some of the largest DNA databases — Ancestry, 23andMe and Helix — already refuse to share their databases with the police without a court order.
I’m sorry, but why? What is their argument? Ancestry doesn’t want to lose the business of skittish serial killers?
Everyone agrees that these pro-criminal rules were a direct response to the “controversy” of law enforcement catching the Golden State Killer in 2018.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
lakerman1 6/3/2021 1:18:55 PM (No. 804896)
I enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns, and she usually is correct on issues, but on this issue, she is so wrong, I will not bother to refute her.
14 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 6/3/2021 1:21:52 PM (No. 804899)
Recall that just a couple of years it was a pinheaded "professional genealogist" from Ancestry that rushed out to proclaim that Fauxcahontas' Ancestry DNA test proved that she really was a legitimate Native American (it in fact proved the opposite). That should give you a good reading of the political slant at that company, and makes it no surprise that the company would take an anti-law enforcement position.
4 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
justavoter 6/3/2021 1:31:20 PM (No. 804906)
I don't care what crime they can solve, this is a private database and should remain that way without a court order for probable cause to inspect.
28 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
TLCary 6/3/2021 1:32:53 PM (No. 804909)
I'm guessing liability shield. If they make a mistake a lot of people will sue for liable. There is no downside for Ancestry.com requiring the justice system do its job and go through proper procedures. If you need a warrant, get a warrant. Those privacy protections in The US Constitutions they sited when they forced Roe V. Wade on us might someday apply to the rest of us.
13 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DARling 6/3/2021 2:04:03 PM (No. 804953)
The way DNA database information was utilized during the Golden State Killer investigation was the right way to do things. Fishing expeditions via the courts should not be allowed if you send your sample to one those companies in good faith.
DNA databases would be dead in the water if they did not try to protect their customers' data.
11 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 6/3/2021 2:21:51 PM (No. 804974)
I really used to enjoy Coulter's work, and even had a chance to meet her once, she's a funny person to be around.
But, she's nutso against Trump so I have put her on my "don't bother" list.
13 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 6/3/2021 2:23:35 PM (No. 804976)
Whether she realizes it or not Ann is advocating for a nice big law enforcement exemption from the 4th amendment. Using the logic of this article search warrants should not be required since innocent people have nothing to hide.
Right now the exemption could be for such extreme uses as catching a serial killer but in the future DNA databases could be used to ration health care, identify political opponents, deny life insurance coverage, identify possible disease carriers for isolation, or just as a routine screen for employment. If you need an example of the over and unintended use of databases to restrict our freedom try getting a Job or renting an apartment without the approval of three Private database companies who arbitrarily, using secret algorithms, rank your financial worth as a trustworthy human being.
We have no idea how far the exploitation of a persons absolutely most personal information could be expanded in the future. Sorry, liberty entails risk. My personal opinion is that I am at far higher risk of personal harm from an over reaching government than I am from a random serial killer.
11 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
msjena 6/3/2021 2:32:03 PM (No. 804983)
I don't think Ann understands how the Golden State Killer was identified. It wasn't though Ancestry.com.
It was through GEDmatch where people uploaded their DNA profiles from Ancestry and 23 and Me to look for relatives. They had no expectation of confidentiality (indeed, it would be pointless if you wanted people to find you). This is different from the commercial sites who need to assure people their privacy will be protected. Those sites are not needed to catch criminals as long as their are non-confidential sites to use. I even read that GEDmatch has been purchased by a group that assists law enforcement.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
bad-hair 6/3/2021 2:46:50 PM (No. 804995)
No problem EXCEPT the police must positively tie the DNA submitted to the perpetrator of the crime. There's plenty of DNA lying around. What ties the DNA sample specifically to the criminal ?
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
lakerman1 6/3/2021 3:36:51 PM (No. 805031)
#2, Lizzie Warren hired a professor, perhaps from Stanford, who analyzed her DNA, and came up with an imputed link to native americans, by using south american genetic data.
I don't believe he was affiliated with Ancestry at all.
1 person likes this.
If that happens, they made us do it.
Not a fan of Ann. Years ago, she said Jews had to become Christians before dying.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)