You seem to have discovered facts that I did not know. My mother, Dr. Helen Marjorie Jacobson Sloan, called their mother "Aunt Charlotte". Aunt Charlotte who was Charlotte Bishop had one child who died the same day she was born so apparently she felt that she could not have more children. The reason I know they were adopted was they told me so. I spoke to one of them, I believe it was Jim O. Augustine, born January 1, 1947, when I was building my family tree in about 1997. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes on the conversation, a bad mistake. He told me that he and Jack had been adopted. He said his original mother was Tome. Later after he died his wife Vicki called me and asked me to remove his social security number from my website. I had gotten the number from the Social Security Death Index. I have not corresponded with these people in a long time. My mother is buried in the cemetery you mention in Spaulding, Iowa near Creston. When I went there for my mothers funeral in 2002 I got to know them again. They were living in Orient, Iowa near our family farm. One is still alive. He is David Lee Graham born on 3 July 1971. He is my second cousin and is on 23andme and he matches with me on 23andme so I will try to contact him and ask him. Last I checked his parents Kenneth and Rosalie Graham were still living in Creston, Iowa. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Loretta Layman <lynneage@h-o-l.com> wrote: > Hi Sam. The Augustine boys may well have been from Creston or nearby. > There is a findagrave memorial for one Clarence Augustine buried in > Creston, > but he died reportedly (no gravestone) in 1909. In 1940, however, there > was > one Augustine family in Spaulding, which as you know is just five miles > away. The family then consisted of 44-year-old Ben Augustine, his > 39-year-old wife Grace, his 5-year-old daughter Janet, and his 10-year-old > son Frank. The 1950 census, when it comes out, may tell the rest of the > story. For now ... > > According to his gravestone, Frank in fact was born in 1929, was married to > the wife buried with him in 1951, and died in 2005. Unfortunately, there > is > no memorial for Ben, but two possible scenarios are suggested: > > (1) Ben and Grace were the parents of John and Jack, and your family > adopted > the boys after the deaths of Ben and Grace; or, less likely, > > (2) Frank, who would have been 18 in 1947, was married twice, had John and > Jack, was widowed, and gave up the boys after their mother died or when > Frank remarried. > > In the same cemetery with Frank is a Grace A. Augustine, but her year of > death (again no gravestone) is listed as 1908. I wonder if it should be > 1948 because there's an extract of a 1927 marriage in Creston of Benjamin > Alvin Augustine and Grace Anna Hanson. Surnames of their respective > mothers > were transcribed as Luers and Hoakison. > > Loretta > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:43 AM > To: DNAAdoption@yahoogroups.com; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com; > DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [DNA] Orphan Train > > I have two second cousins who were adopted by our farming family in > Southwest Iowa. I do not know how my family got them but my family is from > Creston, Iowa which is on the railroad line so it seems possible that they > came on the orphan train. > They are Jim O. Augustine born 1 January 1947 died 2003 and Jack G. > Augustine born 2 January 1948 died 2005. I just put them on my ancestry > family tree. > These dates of birth, 1 January and 2 January, are fake. They did not know > when or where they were born. > Sam Sloan > >

Hi Please state which government and laws you are referring to, and does this apply to what a company does when operating in a different jurisdiction. Mike

There is a caveat to this idea that a contract can unilaterally declare which laws apply. That is, the contractor can try this, but most courts find it fails. The laws that apply would be in whatever jurisdiction the major event takes place. So a company having offices only in Alabama, contracting with a client in Pennsylvania, could certainly declare in their contract that the laws of New Mexico apply. But no court would uphold such a claim, regardless of what anyone signed. The courts would state it has to either be Alabama, where the company *is* or Pennsylvania, where the client *is* -----Original Message----- From: Patti Easton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: m.j.Fisher <m.j.Fisher@btinternet.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2015 11:58 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Deceased Health Info Regs It depends upon the contract agreed to. In general, terms are laid out in the original contract, and usually it is specified by the service provider that jurisdiction falls in XXX. I haven't looked at 23andme, and honestly not interested in spending more time, but I would suspect as a company operating under US laws they would implement these rules for everyone regardless. But it would be up to the contract each person agreed to when they signed on for service. That is why we have contracts. All those lengthy paragraphs we click "agree" to are binding. Here is a reference that might be helpful in explaining jurisdiction and applicable law: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=469b7d6f-4f8c-44cb-9f10-dcdd1e df20bf Bear in mind, Issues end up in court because of the need to clarify and get a ruling. Everything is fluid. But HIPPA in particular is strictly enforced. The Issue you discuss would be "1) did a 23andme customer of another nation agree to US laws, 2) and/or could they be exempted." I cannot answer that question. Refer to contract and go from there. Regards, Patti -----Original Message----- From: Michael Fisher [mailto:m.j.fisher@btinternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:28 PM To: Patti Easton <amharach@msn.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Deceased Health Info Regs Does this apply to people in other countries who have tested with what you regard as your countries companies? Mike On 28/10/2015 18:07, Patti Easton via wrote: > For those wanting further statutes and info regarding the rights of a > deceased person's health information: > > > > 45 CFR 160.103 > > > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/160.103 > > > > http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/dec > edents > .html > > > > Obviously everything is open to interpretation even for attorneys. > > Patti Easton > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Glad to hear you got a spot. See you there! Jen Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 28, 2015, at 1:49 PM, RICHARD KENYON via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi,I just got the good news that I will be able to attend the Project Administrator's conference, Nov 13-15, 2015 in Houston, Texas. I had waited too long to register before they reached their limit, so thought I was shut out. I just got a phone call, saying that there had been a cancellation, so I immediately signed up. I've attended all of them except the very first one. I think this will make the 10th one I've attended. There are several very interesting talks and many interesting people, many from outside the US.Please let me know if there's anything you would like me to ask about.Dick > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Greg, is there an rsid for the variant you're interested in? I was wondering if imputation could be used for your grandfathers' genotype results from 23andMe. The imputed VCF file from http://dna.land has about 39,000,000 variants, but of course they are limited to ones with rsids. And thanks to you (and others) for your kind words about the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list. Ann Turner On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:15 AM, G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Very interesting, Obed! > I've recently been trying to do something similar with some low-coverage > WGS results I have for myself. I have 23andMe results for three of my > grandparents, so I can narrow down each heterozygous variant to two of my > grandparents (one maternal and one paternal). > > One of the variants I have that I've been particularly interested in is a > missense point mutation that a couple of studies have suggested might be a > causative variant for malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. Malignant > hyperthermia is a severe reaction to common general anesthesia. The studies > in question are early-stage and far from conclusive and I've yet to undergo > general anesthesia myself, but there are alternatives to these "triggering" > anesthetics when there is knowledge or suspicion of a susceptibility to > malignant hyperthermia, so I consider this a very "actionable" finding. > Based on my 23andMe results, I've inherited the gene in question from my > two grandfathers, neither of whom had any history of malignant > hyperthermia. But even people with this susceptibility condition don't > always experience a reaction during all anesthesia exposures. Also, there > is the possibility that my result represents a recent de novo mutation. > > I'm currently thinking about ordering WGS for my parents through Full > Genomes in order to try to pin this variant down further (as well as for > more general use, including getting an mtDNA sequence for my father's > maternal line and getting better coverage for my paternal chrY sequence). >

It depends upon the contract agreed to. In general, terms are laid out in the original contract, and usually it is specified by the service provider that jurisdiction falls in XXX. I haven't looked at 23andme, and honestly not interested in spending more time, but I would suspect as a company operating under US laws they would implement these rules for everyone regardless. But it would be up to the contract each person agreed to when they signed on for service. That is why we have contracts. All those lengthy paragraphs we click "agree" to are binding. Here is a reference that might be helpful in explaining jurisdiction and applicable law: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=469b7d6f-4f8c-44cb-9f10-dcdd1e df20bf Bear in mind, Issues end up in court because of the need to clarify and get a ruling. Everything is fluid. But HIPPA in particular is strictly enforced. The Issue you discuss would be "1) did a 23andme customer of another nation agree to US laws, 2) and/or could they be exempted." I cannot answer that question. Refer to contract and go from there. Regards, Patti -----Original Message----- From: Michael Fisher [mailto:m.j.fisher@btinternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:28 PM To: Patti Easton <amharach@msn.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Deceased Health Info Regs Does this apply to people in other countries who have tested with what you regard as your countries companies? Mike On 28/10/2015 18:07, Patti Easton via wrote: > For those wanting further statutes and info regarding the rights of a > deceased person's health information: > > > > 45 CFR 160.103 > > > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/160.103 > > > > http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/dec > edents > .html > > > > Obviously everything is open to interpretation even for attorneys. > > Patti Easton > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

For those wanting further statutes and info regarding the rights of a deceased person's health information: 45 CFR 160.103 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/160.103 http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents .html Obviously everything is open to interpretation even for attorneys. Patti Easton

A person's right to *privacy* does die with them. However that does not mean that every department of government is *required* to release all information they might have on that person. So you have two conflicting things at issue here. -----Original Message----- From: Wjhonson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: Coverly <Coverly@xmission.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>; DNAAdoption <DNAAdoption@yahoogroups.com>; DNA-NEWBIE <DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2015 8:12 am Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>; DNAAdoption <DNAAdoption@yahoogroups.com>; DNA-NEWBIE <DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2015 8:23 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person dies. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>; DNAAdoption <DNAAdoption@yahoogroups.com>; DNA-NEWBIE <DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2015 8:23 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person dies. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi,I just got the good news that I will be able to attend the Project Administrator's conference, Nov 13-15, 2015 in Houston, Texas. I had waited too long to register before they reached their limit, so thought I was shut out. I just got a phone call, saying that there had been a cancellation, so I immediately signed up. I've attended all of them except the very first one. I think this will make the 10th one I've attended. There are several very interesting talks and many interesting people, many from outside the US.Please let me know if there's anything you would like me to ask about.Dick

I just wanted to echo Jim's comments in appreciation to Ann and her work in this field. I wish I had been following the field and the mailing list at those early stages 15 years ago, but 'better late than never'! Greg On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jim Bartlett via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Congratulations and a BIG thank you to you, Ann. > I had to smile as I read your first post and thought about the many, > many > times almost the same words have been posted explaining mtDNA (and > everything else DNA) > > You've sure helped a lot of us along on this DNA journey - this mail > list is > just one of the examples. > Thanks, > > Jim Bartlett > > On 10/21/15, Ann Turner via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Today is the 15th anniversary of the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list. Hard to > believe! Here's the first post: > [1] > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2000-10/09721 > 76135 > Ann Turner > > References > > 1. > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2000-10/0972176135 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Very interesting, Obed! I've recently been trying to do something similar with some low-coverage WGS results I have for myself. I have 23andMe results for three of my grandparents, so I can narrow down each heterozygous variant to two of my grandparents (one maternal and one paternal). One of the variants I have that I've been particularly interested in is a missense point mutation that a couple of studies have suggested might be a causative variant for malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. Malignant hyperthermia is a severe reaction to common general anesthesia. The studies in question are early-stage and far from conclusive and I've yet to undergo general anesthesia myself, but there are alternatives to these "triggering" anesthetics when there is knowledge or suspicion of a susceptibility to malignant hyperthermia, so I consider this a very "actionable" finding. Based on my 23andMe results, I've inherited the gene in question from my two grandfathers, neither of whom had any history of malignant hyperthermia. But even people with this susceptibility condition don't always experience a reaction during all anesthesia exposures. Also, there is the possibility that my result represents a recent de novo mutation. I'm currently thinking about ordering WGS for my parents through Full Genomes in order to try to pin this variant down further (as well as for more general use, including getting an mtDNA sequence for my father's maternal line and getting better coverage for my paternal chrY sequence). On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Obed W Odom via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > My whole-genome sequence showed me to be heterozygous for the G to A SNP > rs140578907 in the calicin gene at location 36170317 of chromosome 9, which > causes an arginine to glutamine change at position 273 of the calicin > protein. This SNP is very rare, the A allele having a frequency of less > than 0.1%. > > The calicin protein is said to be an integral protein of the head of a > sperm cell so I thought that perhaps the rarity of this mutation might > indicate that a sperm with this mutation might not be able to fertilize an > egg. If so, this mutation could only be inherited through the all-female > line, like mitochondrial DNA, except that, unlike mitochondrial DNA, this > mutation would only have a 50% chance of being inherited for each > transmission. > > To determine whether I inherited this SNP from my father or mother, I had > my 2 sons tested for it. Luckily, the 23andMe Relative Finder test had > already shown that one of my sons and I, but not the other son, match my > paternal first cousin for the region of the calicin gene. So one of my sons > inherited my paternal DNA in this region and the other son inherited my > maternal DNA. > > I just received the results of my sons' tests and, lo and behold, the son > who inherited my paternal DNA is positive for this SNP and the other son is > negative. This means that the SNP is on the DNA that I inherited from my > father, and a sperm with the A allele managed to fertilize an egg in 2 > transmission events, producing me and one of my sons. I conclude from this > that this SNP has little if any effect on sperm potency. The reason for the > rarity of the SNP is an open question, but perhaps it is just a relatively > recent SNP. It is mostly confined to people of European extraction, which > would tend to support this. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Completely disagree. Failure to state "I do not want to share," does not constitute permission. Nor does consent to share (particularly when deceased) constitute approval to participate in avenues not named in the original agreement. A contract cannot be modified or altered without express consent. And rights are inherent until expressly declined. And to the original topic, while a participant may be a decedent, their rights are still protected-- most certainly in health issues. One example, only an executor/executrix has the ability to request health records, and only when providing letters of administration or court order. 23andme would open themselves up to such legal repercussions it boggles the mind. This information will never go public in our lifetime. It's may be a great hope for genealogists, but an extremely foolish and irresponsible move by 23andme. Patti Easton Sent from my iPad > On Oct 28, 2015, at 1:25 AM, Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I disagree. Everybody who joins 23andme agrees to have their DNA > information such as their haplogroup shared and made available. There is > no option that says, "I do not want my DNA genotype revealed". > > What is an option is whether the person wants to share their health > information with other members. Some members agree to this. Others do not. > > Sam Sloan > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Patti Hacht via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Sam, I think you're assuming a lot when you state that "Here we are talking >> about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for >> the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their >> relatives." >> >> Many people at 23andMe will not reply to requests for sharing. It makes you >> wonder why they tested in the first place (and this has happened since the >> beginning days of 23andMe), but they certainly cannot be interested in >> finding relatives. I would doubt very much with the way the laws are in >> this Country that we could "pay" to find out further info after someone is >> deceased. I see no way anyone would legally have access to that info >> without expressed permission from the deceased! >> >> You also wrote: "Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a >> long >> time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead." >> >> I think (again) you're assuming a lot here. You have no idea why someone >> would not upload their testing results to GedMatch, or "have not kept up to >> date" with info at their testing company. They could have been interested >> in only the Health Reports. >> >> Patti >> Lakeville, MIchigan >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

---------On the subject of a deceased person's DNA, there are some very strict rules in place. Without exception, no matter how rare or important the sequence might be, GenBank requires permission from the person who was tested in order to accept mtDNA data. If the tested individual is deceased, GenBank will not accept it -- even from a son or daughter -- unless the parent happened to give written permission before he or she died. --- Martha Hicks

If you don't agree to participate in DNA relatives and you can opt out of it, then no one but you will see your haplogroups anyway. I personally know for a fact that several of the folks I shared with three years ago when I first tested at 23andMe (for $297 mind you) and connected with are now deceased. So no, they won't be answering your requests. In only one of these cases is a family member managing the account now and she seldom logs in, usually I have to contact her and ask her to check and accept when we have a new cousin match to her now deceased sibling. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I disagree. Everybody who joins 23andme agrees to have their DNA > information such as their haplogroup shared and made available. There is > no option that says, "I do not want my DNA genotype revealed". > > What is an option is whether the person wants to share their health > information with other members. Some members agree to this. Others do not. > > Sam Sloan > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Patti Hacht via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Sam, I think you're assuming a lot when you state that "Here we are > talking > > about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for > > the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their > > relatives." > > > > Many people at 23andMe will not reply to requests for sharing. It makes > you > > wonder why they tested in the first place (and this has happened since > the > > beginning days of 23andMe), but they certainly cannot be interested in > > finding relatives. I would doubt very much with the way the laws are in > > this Country that we could "pay" to find out further info after someone > is > > deceased. I see no way anyone would legally have access to that info > > without expressed permission from the deceased! > > > > You also wrote: "Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a > > long > > time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead." > > > > I think (again) you're assuming a lot here. You have no idea why someone > > would not upload their testing results to GedMatch, or "have not kept up > to > > date" with info at their testing company. They could have been interested > > in only the Health Reports. > > > > Patti > > Lakeville, MIchigan > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ FranklinGenetics@gmail.com http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & helps. *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy

FWIW 3 of the 12 I had tested are deceased but I have always managed their profile/accounts. -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:20 PM To: Brooks Family; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com; DNAAdoption@yahoogroups.com; DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe I agree that you are not a lawyer. For the rest of it, you are incorrect. The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person dies. You can report that a person died of cancer, but while he is still alive you cannot report that he has cancer. I am confident that it would be completely legal to reveal the identities of these people after they have died. Of course, they would have to check carefully to make sure that they are really deceased. Since a high percentage of the people in these groups are elderly it will not be long before the majority of the people in these groups will have passed, but their test results will have value for those of us still alive. Sam Sloan

Sam, I think you're assuming a lot when you state that "Here we are talking about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their relatives." Many people at 23andMe will not reply to requests for sharing. It makes you wonder why they tested in the first place (and this has happened since the beginning days of 23andMe), but they certainly cannot be interested in finding relatives. I would doubt very much with the way the laws are in this Country that we could "pay" to find out further info after someone is deceased. I see no way anyone would legally have access to that info without expressed permission from the deceased! You also wrote: "Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a long time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead." I think (again) you're assuming a lot here. You have no idea why someone would not upload their testing results to GedMatch, or "have not kept up to date" with info at their testing company. They could have been interested in only the Health Reports. Patti Lakeville, MIchigan

I disagree. Everybody who joins 23andme agrees to have their DNA information such as their haplogroup shared and made available. There is no option that says, "I do not want my DNA genotype revealed". What is an option is whether the person wants to share their health information with other members. Some members agree to this. Others do not. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Patti Hacht via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Sam, I think you're assuming a lot when you state that "Here we are talking > about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for > the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their > relatives." > > Many people at 23andMe will not reply to requests for sharing. It makes you > wonder why they tested in the first place (and this has happened since the > beginning days of 23andMe), but they certainly cannot be interested in > finding relatives. I would doubt very much with the way the laws are in > this Country that we could "pay" to find out further info after someone is > deceased. I see no way anyone would legally have access to that info > without expressed permission from the deceased! > > You also wrote: "Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a > long > time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead." > > I think (again) you're assuming a lot here. You have no idea why someone > would not upload their testing results to GedMatch, or "have not kept up to > date" with info at their testing company. They could have been interested > in only the Health Reports. > > Patti > Lakeville, MIchigan > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The reason there is such a thing as the Social Security Death Index is that when a person dies his Social Security Number is no longer secret. Therefore the Social Security Administration publishes the number of every person who is deceased. This is also necessary for administrating the estate of deceased persons. Of course when a person is alive his number is top secret and there are severe penalties for anybody who engages in the unauthorized release of a social security number. Sam Sloan . On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Robert Paine <rpaine@vom.com> wrote: > My 22-person project is designed for medical research and science in > general but my interest in family history also plays a role. Two of my > project members are now deceased and a third is under live in care. Some of > my project members were recruited because of known medical histories. Some > of my project members insist on more privacy than others. > > Due to my medical condition I have each of my project members set as > public matches so If something happens to me there will be some selected > information available in each of their profiles. > > RPaine > > -----Original Message----- From: Sam Sloan via > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:06 PM > To: Brooks Family ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe > > This useful site is about health information. > However, here we are referring to genealogical or family history > information such as a Family Tree. Surely you are not saying that a Family > Tree cannot be published without the permission of everybody who is on the > tree. > > Here we are talking about people who joined these groups and submitted > their DNA samples for the purpose of finding their relatives or health > information about their relatives. > > There are several categories of cases. For example, I am a member of the > Sloan Surname Project here: > > https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sloan/default.aspx?section=yresults > > I have one of the lowest numbers so it seems that I was one of the earliest > members. My number is 13599. You can see my name about 2/3rd way down the > side. > > However, this group is almost dead. Nobody has joined in a long time. I am > not even sure if the administrators are still around. > > The people who joined this group joined before the Family Finder Tests > existed and before gedmatch.com was created. However, their DNA samples > are > in storage and will still be good for 25 years. I have checked and not a > single member of this group of 66 persons has uploaded to gedmatch.com > other than myself. Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a > long time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead. > > I would gladly pay the fees required to give those these tests show are > closely related to me to give them a longer Y-DNA test plus the Family > Finder test and upload it to gedmatch.com I do not see why I should not be > allowed to do that. > > Sam Sloan > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Brooks Family via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > " The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health >> information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of >> the individual. " >> from here: >> >> >> http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html >> >> On 10/27/15 9:22 PM, Brooks Family wrote: >> > My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me >> > that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. >> > >> > And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. >> > >> > On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: >> >> The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person >> >> dies. >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Agree with your view Jamie, well written. I will be said as well for my top matches who never responded but at least they will then either be available as a match (with their data, no need to beg them) or they disappear and no Longer frustrate me every time I look at my list of matches. Good for everyone, FIA is available to everyone who wants to share and no more asking and privacy and no more nagging emails for those who absolutely don't wish to (for whatever reason). I would just wish that 23andme and the other DTC's had done a better job of educating their customer that their is no risk with DNA test. That I'll believe won't go away with the new 23andme. Andreas > On Oct 27, 2015, at 22:30, Jamie Arnold via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I think i read on a blog somewhere that when the change occurs, those who remain > as anonymous now will still remain as anonymous but when those anonymous log in > after the change they will be met with an option along the lines of something if > they wish to continue to remain anonymous or go public with a name, initials, > alias etc. If they choose to remain anonymous i think they no longer appear and > show in your match list and i also think that those that choose to remain > anonymous will lose their match list all together and the only way that they > will be able to see their match list is if they were to go public. > > I also think that once the change has occurred you will not be able to send a > message to anyone who is showing as anonymous but the messages that you have > already sent to those who are anonymous before the change will still remain for > them to reply back to you. > > I personally think its a good idea that anonymous people after the change who > choose to remain anonymous when faced with the option to do so will no longer be > able to view or have a match list until they choose the option to go public as > that way it is somewhat one sided at the moment with anonymous people being able > to have and view a match list which includes those who are public matches in the > profile and are able to view segment details of public matches in their > countries of ancestries. So if you want to have and view your match list you can > only do so if you choose to go public which makes it a 2 way street for everyone > and therefor the majority of people that do go public should hopefully be > serious about genealogy and most likely to respond.. > > I think that there is the option that when you go public that you can choose to > make your dna segments automatically be revealed and appear in the match list of > all those who also choose the option to automatically make their dna segments to > be revealed so need to send out a sharing invitation to those people but those > people that don't choose the option to make their dna segments to be > automatically revealed will still have the option of being able to contact > people and send them a sharing invitation? to ask them to share genomes. > > My very top match who is anonymous who shares 80cm on 3 segments with me has > never responded to my 2 messages that i have sent in the last 2 years and this > match also appears as anonymous in my countries of ancestries list so i am > hopeful that this person must be interested in genealogy if they have completed > the where are you from survey to then appear in countries of ancestries. I am so > hoping that when they log in again after the change that they choose to go > public and receive their match list as only with a match list can it be helpful > to someone who is interested in genealogy otherwise they will lose their match > list which won't be of any help to them at all if they choose to remain > anonymous. > > Overall i believe that the change is going in the right direction. Those that > choose to remain anonymous are most likely have taken the 23andme for the health > report and not interested in genealogy so no loss if these people no longer > appear in a match list but i guess would be a loss if they were showing as a > very close match before the change and you are banging your head against the > wall wishing that the person would reply back to your message that you have sent > to them. > > Jamie > >> >> On 23 October 2015 at 11:00 Shannon Christmas via >> <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> >> What The New 23andMe means for genetic genealogy: >> >> http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis >> >> Very Respectfully, >> Shannon >> -- >> Mr. Shannon S. Christmas >> Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist >> The Christmas Collective >> <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> >> Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions >> New York, NY | Washington, DC >> P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 >> F: 1.888.788.5984 >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message