Connect with us

U.S.

Ancestry.com Denied Law Enforcement Access to its DNA Database

Published

on

  • In Ancestry.com’s annual Transparency Report, the company revealed that it denied a request from law enforcement to access its DNA databases.
  • This was one of nine data requests that came from law enforcement in 2019. The remaining eight were not related to DNA, and were pertaining to credit card misuse, fraud, and identity theft.
  • Ancestry said it only gave information in response to six of the requests but maintained that the privacy of its users is its “top priority.”
  • While police having access to these kinds of databases has caused concern in the past, DNA collected from these sites has been used to make arrests in the past, including the arrest of the alleged Golden State Killer. 

Ancestry Denies Access

Ancestry.com denied a law enforcement request to access its DNA database, according to its 2019 Transparency Report

“Ancestry received one request seeking access to Ancestry’s DNA database through a search warrant,” the report explained. “Ancestry challenged the warrant on jurisdictional grounds and did not provide any customer data in response.”

According to BuzzFeed News, that request came from a court in Pennsylvania. Ancestry told BuzzFeed that the warrant was improperly served.

“Ancestry has not received any follow up from law enforcement on this matter,”  Ancestry told the outlet. 

Reports indicate that Ancestry has about 16 million DNA profiles in its user database. In 2019, they received nine requests from law enforcement to access their user data. The request from Pennsylvania was the only one seeking Ancestry’s DNA database. The remaining eight involved credit card misuse, fraud, and identity theft. 

The majority of the requests came on the state level, with only two coming from federal authorities. Seven of the requests were criminal subpoenas, and the remaining two were search warrants. 

Ancestry Takes the Side of Privacy

Ancestry said they only gave information in response to six out of the nine requests. They maintain that they want to protect their customers’ privacy, referring to it as their “top priority” in their transparency report. 

“Not only will we not share customer information with law enforcement unless compelled to by valid legal process, such as a court order or search warrant, we will also always advocate for our customers’ privacy and seek to narrow the scope of any compelled disclosure, or even eliminate it entirely,” the company said in a statement obtained by Axios.

They are not alone in taking the side of protecting privacy. 23andme, their largest competitor, has taken the same stance, and vows to protect the information they have from their 10 million profiles.

Some similar but smaller companies do share information. Family Tree DNA allows police to access data, and so does GEDmatch. However, while GEDmatch used to be open, users must now opt into allowing that access. 

Cases Solved by DNA Websites

The conversation around whether or not that data, which is submitted by users, should remain private is an ongoing conversation. Some of these users may not even know that the information they submit can be requested by officers. Still, companies like Ancestry have a large collection of genetic data, and law enforcement could find this data useful when solving criminal cases. 

In fact, genealogy websites have been used in the past to solve high-profile crimes. They played a huge hand in catching the alleged Golden State Killer. Joseph James DeAngelo, who is suspected of being behind a series of rapes and murders in California in the 70s and 80s, was arrested back in 2018. Authorities narrowed their search down to him using GEDmatch. 

According to the Sacramento Bee, investigators used GEDmatch to match crime-scene DNA with information supplied by one of his relatives. DNA collection sites have been used to solve other types of crime too, including a case of identity theft.

But, the use of these cases does not come without their legal question marks. Paul Holes, a retired investigator who led the investigation into the Golden State Killer told BuzzFeed that he thinks this could be a debate we have for a while.

“Of course there are going to be legal battles,” he said. “It would not surprise me, years down the road, if this could be a US Supreme Court issue.”

As far as what Ancestry would ever do if this issue did ever make its way to the Supreme Court, it seems it would still stand its ground.

“[W]e will also always advocate for our customers’ privacy and seek to narrow the scope of any compelled disclosure, or even eliminate it entirely,” a spokesperson told Axios.

See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (Axios) (Fortune)

U.S.

FDA Authorizes Moderna and J&J COVID Vaccine Boosters, Approves Mix-and-Match Doses

Published

on

The approval will allow at-risk Americans who received Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to get any booster six months after their initial series and all Johnson & Johnson recipients 18 and older to do the same two months after their single-shot dose.


New FDA Authorization

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday authorized boosters shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines and approved a mix-and-match strategy that will allow people who got one company’s shot to get a booster from a different maker.

The decision paves the way for millions of more at-risk Americans to get extra protection, and not just certain Pfizer recipients as previously approved by the FDA.

Under the authorization, people who received Moderna or Pfizer can get any one of the three booster shots six months after completing their initial series if they are 65 and older, at high risk of severe COVID, or face increased exposure because of their work.

Meanwhile, all J&J recipients 18 and older can get any of the approved vaccines two months after they received the one-shot jab.

Hazy Recommendations, For Now

Notably, the FDA did not recommend a certain combination of vaccines, nor did the agency say whether or not it would be more effective for people to stick with their original vaccine maker for their booster.

The new authorizations draw on a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which found that there are no safety concerns with mixing boosters and that vaccine combinations were at least as effective in stimulating antibodies as matched vaccines.

In the case of J&J recipients, the NIH found that people actually had a higher boost from mixing either Moderna or Pfizer boosters.

However, some of the scientists who worked on the study said it should not be used to recommend one combination over another because the research was limited.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which determines vaccine recommendations, could issue more guidance on when and whether people should switch vaccine makers for their booster shots.

An advisory panel for the agency is meeting Thursday to discuss the new FDA authorizations and recommendations.

Once the panel makes its decision, the CDC director has the final say on the guidelines. If the agency agrees with the FDA’s decisions, the booster shots could be rolled out as soon as this weekend.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Paris Hilton Urges Lawmakers To Crack Down on Abusive Teen Treatment Facilities

Published

on

The heiress alleges that she was a victim of abuse in these types of centers for two years and wants to ensure that no child suffers through the same experience.


Paris Hilton Details Abuse Within “Troubled Teen Industry”

Socialite and entrepreneur Paris Hilton spoke outside of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday to support the Accountability for Congregate Care Act, which is set to be introduced in the near future.

Hilton joined Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to advocate for the legislation, which aims to create a “bill of rights” for children in treatment and behavioral centers.

The heiress has alleged that she spent two of her teenage years in these types of facilities and was subject to rampant abuse. She is far from alone. 

During a press conference, Hilton said that one night when she was 16, she woke up to two large men in her bedroom forcing her out of her house. She said she screamed for help because she thought she was being kidnapped, but her parents watched as she was taken away to a “troubled teen” program. 

“Like countless other parents of teens, my parents had searched for solutions to my rebellious behavior,” she explained in an op-ed for The Washington Post this week. “Unfortunately, they fell for the misleading marketing of the ‘troubled teen industry’ — therapeutic boarding schools, military-style boot camps, juvenile justice facilities, behavior modification programs and other facilities that generate roughly $50 billion annually in part by pitching ‘tough love’ as the answer to problematic behavior.”

Hilton said she was sent to four different facilities where she was “physically and psychologically abused.” 

“I was strangled, slapped across the face, watched in the shower by male staff, called vulgar names, forced to take medication without a diagnosis, not given a proper education, thrown into solitary confinement in a room covered in scratch marks and smeared in blood and so much more,” she explained during the press conference. 

“At Provo Canyon School in Utah, I was given clothes with a number on the tag. I was no longer me, I was only number 127,” she continued. “I was forced to stay indoors for 11 months straight, no sunlight, no fresh air. These were considered privileges.”

Goals of the  Accountability for Congregate Care Act

Hilton claims that a lack of transparency and accountability has allowed this structure of abuse to thrive for decades. In some cases, she said it has taken children’s lives. Now, she wants Congress and President Joe Biden to act. 

“This bill creates an urgently needed bill of rights to ensure that every child placed into congregate care facilities is provided a safe and humane environment,” Hilton said of the Accountability for Congregate Care Act.

“This bill of rights provides protections that I wasn’t afforded, like access to education, to the outdoors, freedom from abusive treatment, and even the basic right to move and speak freely. If I had these rights and could have exercised them, I would have been saved from over 20 years of trauma and severe PTSD.” 

Foster children, children being treated for mental disorders, and other children in youth programs would be impacted by the bill.

Hilton was one of several survivors and advocates who fought for the legislation on Wednesday. Rep. Khanna thanked them for using their stories to fight for change. 

“No child should be subjected to solitary confinement, forced labor, or any form of institutional abuse,” he wrote. “Thanks to Paris Hilton, my colleagues & the survivors & advocates who joined us today to discuss how we can hold the congregate care industry accountable.”

While only Democratic legislators are currently sponsoring the bill, Hilton called for a bipartisan effort to fight for the rights of children. 

Ensuring that children are safe from institutional abuse isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue,” Hilton said. “It’s a basic human rights issue that requires immediate attention.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Hill) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Surgeons Successfully Test Pig Kidney Transplant on a Human

Published

on

The procedure has been hailed as a major scientific breakthrough that could eventually open the door to a renewable source of desperately needed organs.


Groundbreaking Procedure

Surgeons at the NYU Langone Transplant Institute revealed Tuesday that they temporarily attached a kidney from a genetically modified pig to a human patient and found that it worked normally.

The operation was the first of its kind and could one day lead to a vast supply of organs for those who are in severe need. According to the Associated Press, more than 90,000 people in the U.S. are in line for a kidney transplant. Each day, an average of 12 die while waiting.

With the family’s consent, the groundbreaking procedure was performed on a brain-dead patient who was kept alive on a ventilator.

According to the surgeons, the pig used was genetically engineered to grow an organ that wouldn’t produce a sugar that the human immune system attacks, which would then trigger the body to reject the kidney. 

The organ was connected to blood vessels on the patient’s upper leg, outside the abdomen, and it was observed for over 54 hours, with doctors finding no signs of rejection.

Concerns and Hurdles Ahead

While the procedure was successful, this doesn’t mean it’ll be available to patients anytime soon. Several questions about long-term functionality remain, and it will still have to go through significant medical and regulatory hurdles. 

Details of the procedure haven’t even been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal yet, though there are plans for this. 

Experts are also considering the ethical implications of this type of animal-to-human transplant. For some, raising pigs to harvest their organs raises concerns about animal welfare and exploitation. Such medical procedures have already earned criticism from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA.

“Pigs aren’t spare parts and should never be used as such just because humans are too self-centered to donate their bodies to patients desperate for organ transplants,” PETA said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

On the other side of the debate are people like Dr. Robert Montgomery, the director of the N.Y.U. Langone Transplant Institute who performed the breakthrough procedure in September.

“I certainly understand the concern and what I would say is that currently about 40% of patients who are waiting for a transplant die before they receive one,” he told BBC.

“We use pigs as a source of food, we use pigs for medicinal uses – for valves, for medication. I think it’s not that different.”

See what others are saying: (CNN)(BBC) (The New York Times)

Continue Reading