I agree, Doug. Ancestry has degrees of sharing, which you can change any time you wish. No one has ever made a change to my trees. Doris On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:22 PM McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> wrote: > I don't see how opther people can edit you tree at Ancestry without you > giving them permission. > Nobody has even changed my trees. > > Doug McDonald > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 9:45 AM > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Re: Linking DNA > > Carol, you are so right, and you made your point even clearer with the > example. I once put a tree on Ancestry and others edited in some wrong > information. The tree is still there, with my family name in its title, but > with the errors it not only gives wrong information but reflects badly on > our carefully documented research. I wish I could delete the whole tree. > > Joan > b community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > -- https://www.doriswheeler.org https://genealogyanddna.blogspot.com/

They cannot Ancestry used to have the OneWorldTree but abandoned it when they realized that large groups of editors fight constantly  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> wrote: I don't see how opther people can edit you tree at Ancestry without you giving them permission. Nobody has even changed my trees. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 9:45 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Linking DNA Carol, you are so right, and you made your point even clearer with the example. I once put a tree on Ancestry and others edited in some wrong information. The tree is still there, with my family name in its title, but with the errors it not only gives wrong information but reflects badly on our carefully documented  research. I wish I could delete the whole tree. Joan b community _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I don't see how opther people can edit you tree at Ancestry without you giving them permission. Nobody has even changed my trees. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 9:45 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Linking DNA Carol, you are so right, and you made your point even clearer with the example. I once put a tree on Ancestry and others edited in some wrong information. The tree is still there, with my family name in its title, but with the errors it not only gives wrong information but reflects badly on our carefully documented research. I wish I could delete the whole tree. Joan b community

That would be great news  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Lindsey Britton via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: I happened to hear part of a report on television earlier today about the way DNA profiles at GEDMATCH were used to solve the Golden State case.  Perhaps the most interesting comment was that 60% of white Americans could be identified now from existing databases.  With autosomal tests being offered at all-time lows by all of the major providers it shouldn't take long before that number approaches 100%.  Lindsey _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I happened to hear part of a report on television earlier today about the way DNA profiles at GEDMATCH were used to solve the Golden State case.  Perhaps the most interesting comment was that 60% of white Americans could be identified now from existing databases.  With autosomal tests being offered at all-time lows by all of the major providers it shouldn't take long before that number approaches 100%.  Lindsey

Well said! Joan -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hamm via GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 12:58 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: Dave Hamm Subject: [DNA] Re: Use of familial search by law enforcement Well, now, judges do force 'law enforcement' to obtain subpoenas in order to obtain information from the vendors. Judges have ruled in favor of restricting law enforcement, and I might remind you that the U.S. 4th Amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. That is, our Constitution says that no person can be arrested without just cause. Many laws stipulate regulations on what is private property and what is public property, what law enforcement can search without a warrant and what they cannot. There are very serious reasons for this, some intended to protect us from harm due to politics. It's just that law enforcement does not need a subpoena for GEDMatch.... What is missing here is a reference to how poorly DNA has performed in criminal cases. As genealogists, we always insist on citing our sources. Many have had their lives disrupted and spent time in jail, only to later be exonerated by improvements in DNA. Others have been falsely jailed when the jury put undue emphasis on poor DNA data, and ignored the remaining evidence. Wrong DNA analysis has disrupted innocent people's lives, for no other reason than bad DNA work. Nobody here has mentioned cases where the DNA analysis went terribly wrong. Until we have statistical information on poor DNA work can we make intelligent judgements regarding the use of autosomal DNA (for example). I lean more toward the privacy regulations - we don't have enough in order to protect us from law enforcement. My view is that law enforcement will be biased toward those who have tested for Y-DNA or autosomal DNA. As genetic genealogists, law enforcement will be looking at your relatives long before they figure out that they were looking at the wrong suspect. If you are retired, then good luck paying for the work necessary to defend yourself, and your court appointed public defender may not even know where to start. Finally, there are professional genetic genealogists that would profit from their analysis. I think we all know how privately owned prisons have caused a rise of incarcerations due to a profit motive, and I fear a similar pattern will come to pass as more genetic genealogists want to make profits from this type of work. One of the problems with that is that there are zero genetic genealogists assisting a court appointed attorney to defend against bad DNA work. A lot on this topic that this list has not even begun to look at or discuss. - Dave Hamm RE: On 11/25/2018 12:27 PM, Wjhonson wrote: > Yet you are The effect of your attitude is to do exactly that ... protect murderers and rapists > In addition to that only logical meaning Your effect is completely worthless as a cops first reaction to your terms of service would be ... screw you > Good luck suing them once they have found a murderer using your database No judge would rule in your favor > > On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > We’re not protecting murderers and it’s also not our task to apprehend them. We’re not an extension of the law enforcement. > There are more than 30 million DNA samples kept by the US government organizations right now. One would think that is enough to not be dependent on another database that was never intended to be built for law enforcement use. > > Andreas _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

It is completely untrue that “improvements” in dna have exonerated anyone  What is true is that dna has exonerated people where No DNA was ever taken originally  There is NO example is all of Dna history that a positive match was later overturned  Not one  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Dave Hamm via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Well, now, judges do force 'law enforcement' to obtain subpoenas in order to obtain information from the vendors. Judges have ruled in favor of restricting law enforcement, and I might remind you that the U.S. 4th Amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. That is, our Constitution says that no person can be arrested without just cause. Many laws stipulate regulations on what is private property and what is public property, what law enforcement can search without a warrant and what they cannot. There are very serious reasons for this, some intended to protect us from harm due to politics. It's just that law enforcement does not need a subpoena for GEDMatch.... What is missing here is a reference to how poorly DNA has performed in criminal cases. As genealogists, we always insist on citing our sources. Many have had their lives disrupted and spent time in jail, only to later be exonerated by improvements in DNA. Others have been falsely jailed when the jury put undue emphasis on poor DNA data, and ignored the remaining evidence. Wrong DNA analysis has disrupted innocent people's lives, for no other reason than bad DNA work. Nobody here has mentioned cases where the DNA analysis went terribly wrong. Until we have statistical information on poor DNA work can we make intelligent judgements regarding the use of autosomal DNA (for example). I lean more toward the privacy regulations - we don't have enough in order to protect us from law enforcement. My view is that law enforcement will be biased toward those who have tested for Y-DNA or autosomal DNA. As genetic genealogists, law enforcement will be looking at your relatives long before they figure out that they were looking at the wrong suspect. If you are retired, then good luck paying for the work necessary to defend yourself, and your court appointed public defender may not even know where to start. Finally, there are professional genetic genealogists that would profit from their analysis. I think we all know how privately owned prisons have caused a rise of incarcerations due to a profit motive, and I fear a similar pattern will come to pass as more genetic genealogists want to make profits from this type of work. One of the problems with that is that there are zero genetic genealogists assisting a court appointed attorney to defend against bad DNA work. A lot on this topic that this list has not even begun to look at or discuss.  - Dave Hamm RE: On 11/25/2018 12:27 PM, Wjhonson  wrote: > Yet you are The effect of your attitude is to do exactly that ... protect murderers and rapists  > In addition to that only logical meaning Your effect is completely worthless as a cops first reaction to your terms of service would be ... screw you  > Good luck suing them once they have found a murderer using your database No judge would rule in your favor  > >  On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > We’re not protecting murderers and it’s also not our task to apprehend them. We’re not an extension of the law enforcement.  > There are more than 30 million DNA samples kept by the US government organizations right now. One would think that is enough to not be dependent on another database that was never intended to be built for law enforcement use. > > Andreas  _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Well, now, judges do force 'law enforcement' to obtain subpoenas in order to obtain information from the vendors. Judges have ruled in favor of restricting law enforcement, and I might remind you that the U.S. 4th Amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. That is, our Constitution says that no person can be arrested without just cause. Many laws stipulate regulations on what is private property and what is public property, what law enforcement can search without a warrant and what they cannot. There are very serious reasons for this, some intended to protect us from harm due to politics. It's just that law enforcement does not need a subpoena for GEDMatch.... What is missing here is a reference to how poorly DNA has performed in criminal cases. As genealogists, we always insist on citing our sources. Many have had their lives disrupted and spent time in jail, only to later be exonerated by improvements in DNA. Others have been falsely jailed when the jury put undue emphasis on poor DNA data, and ignored the remaining evidence. Wrong DNA analysis has disrupted innocent people's lives, for no other reason than bad DNA work. Nobody here has mentioned cases where the DNA analysis went terribly wrong. Until we have statistical information on poor DNA work can we make intelligent judgements regarding the use of autosomal DNA (for example). I lean more toward the privacy regulations - we don't have enough in order to protect us from law enforcement. My view is that law enforcement will be biased toward those who have tested for Y-DNA or autosomal DNA. As genetic genealogists, law enforcement will be looking at your relatives long before they figure out that they were looking at the wrong suspect. If you are retired, then good luck paying for the work necessary to defend yourself, and your court appointed public defender may not even know where to start. Finally, there are professional genetic genealogists that would profit from their analysis. I think we all know how privately owned prisons have caused a rise of incarcerations due to a profit motive, and I fear a similar pattern will come to pass as more genetic genealogists want to make profits from this type of work. One of the problems with that is that there are zero genetic genealogists assisting a court appointed attorney to defend against bad DNA work. A lot on this topic that this list has not even begun to look at or discuss.  - Dave Hamm RE: On 11/25/2018 12:27 PM, Wjhonson  wrote: > Yet you are The effect of your attitude is to do exactly that ... protect murderers and rapists  > In addition to that only logical meaning Your effect is completely worthless as a cops first reaction to your terms of service would be ... screw you  > Good luck suing them once they have found a murderer using your database No judge would rule in your favor  > > On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > We’re not protecting murderers and it’s also not our task to apprehend them. We’re not an extension of the law enforcement.  > There are more than 30 million DNA samples kept by the US government organizations right now. One would think that is enough to not be dependent on another database that was never intended to be built for law enforcement use. > > Andreas 

If only it were so that in every court in the US every step is questioned, even if the defendant is of a minority group. Joan -----Original Message----- From: Ernest Kapphahn [mailto:bookcollector@volcano.net] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 12:27 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Linking DNA I don't accept that a person can't get a fair trial if their dna is found at a crime scene. In the US, they can still question every step in the process of collecting, preserving, and matching their dna. Overwhelming physical evidence against a defendant is simply proof of guilt, not a violation of anyone's rights. Ernie On 11/25/2018 4:43 AM, Andreas West wrote: > Sorry Ann, I didn’t read the post beyond the first survey which I referred to l. I ignored the more detailed and international survey results, which are indeed very different and the responders are closer to the subgroup they responded in our survey. > > I guess it’s all down to how you ask the questions and you can get different results. > > Let’s take an example: > > a) Would you be ok that your DNA results is used by law enforcements to identify a suspect of a violent crime in your immediately and close family? > > b) Would you be ok that your DNA results is used by law enforcements to identify a suspect of a violent crime? > > I assume (because this could only be tested with randomly showing either one of such type of questions) that the percentage saying “Yes” would be significantly different under the circumstances of anonymity of the internet. > > Because in public most of us would still say “Yes”, that’s the answer that social pressure urges us to give. Or we don’t answer at all and stay silent. > > I guess you all get my point. > > Anyway, the purpose of our app is clearly defined and GEDmatch is working with the law enforcements already, with a large database of 1 million or so. Seems perfectly ok that we do focus to use familial search for our hobby only and to help those who are in search of close family. > > > Andreas > > Andreas West > Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 > > Author of https://www.yourDNA.family > > Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > >> On 25 Nov 2018, at 20:24, Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry about the incomplete message, which "my mouse" must have sent when I >> was looking up the URL. >> >> That's an interesting contrast to a poll on Facebook about a month after >> the GSK arrest, where about 90% stated they planned to keep their GEDmatch >> kits public. >> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/geneticgenealogytipsandtechniques/permalink/419979728465733/ >> >> Maurice Gleeson conducted a more detailed poll recently and posted a >> summary here: >> >> https://dnaandfamilytreeresearch.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-do-you-feel-about-your-dna-being.html >> >> I imagine there will be a lot of media coverage when the trial does begin. >> There is a right to a speedy trial, but both the prosecution and defense >> can request continuances. I think it will be a while before the trial takes >> place. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:13 AM Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> That's an interesting contrast to results of a poll on FB >>> >>> >>> https://dnaandfamilytreeresearch.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-do-you-feel-about-your-dna-being.html >>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 11:37 PM Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and >>>> asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our >>>> app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the >>>> answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote >>>> below, Joan. >>>> >>>> While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly >>>> prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said >>>> practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or >>>> more) suspects. >>>> >>>> Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are >>>> “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. >>>> Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State >>>> Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" >>>> and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found >>>> at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently >>>> prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a >>>> DNA match. >>>> >>>> Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to >>>> those who seek them for either: >>>> >>>> a) their genealogy hobby >>>> >>>> b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives >>>> >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> Andreas West >>>> Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): >>>> http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 < >>>> http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> >>>> >>>> Author of https://www.yourDNA.family <https://www.yourdna.family/> >>>> >>>> Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/> >>>> https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/> >>>> >>>>> On Nov25, 2018, at 05:53, Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think the reason many people resist copying over to GEDmatch is that >>>> it doesn't have the privacy protection that most of the vendors have. >>>>> Joan >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >>>> Unsubscribe >>>> https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>>> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >>>> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >>>> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >>>> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb >>>> community >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

You are allowed to pay for tests for non fanatics though  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: Alas no. I appear to be the only fanatic in the family. David Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 17:20:05 +0000 (UTC) From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Which Haplogroup To: familypast@gmail.com Cc: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <823977424.2283491.1543166405434@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Any other family members would you could convince to test ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: Not many Welsh connections, but lots of Irish and Scots. Well there would be, as I was born in Northern Ireland. David Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:17:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Which Haplogroup To: familypast@gmail.com Cc: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <1060355656.2266316.1543162642510@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And what does your autosomal dna say ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: A few years ago I was designated as belonging to the L371 ychromosome haplogroup. Known commonly as Ancient Welsh. My surname is of Welsh origin, most of my matches have Welsh surnames or geographical connections with that country. Although I have no known personal family history of a connection with Wales. Now I have recently tested with LivingDNA. And they now designate me as being L-1065, associated with Scottish origins, I do have known family connections with Scotland. So what the heck am I really? _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Alas no. I appear to be the only fanatic in the family. David Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 17:20:05 +0000 (UTC) From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Which Haplogroup To: familypast@gmail.com Cc: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <823977424.2283491.1543166405434@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Any other family members would you could convince to test ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: Not many Welsh connections, but lots of Irish and Scots. Well there would be, as I was born in Northern Ireland. David Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:17:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Which Haplogroup To: familypast@gmail.com Cc: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <1060355656.2266316.1543162642510@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And what does your autosomal dna say ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: A few years ago I was designated as belonging to the L371 ychromosome haplogroup. Known commonly as Ancient Welsh. My surname is of Welsh origin, most of my matches have Welsh surnames or geographical connections with that country. Although I have no known personal family history of a connection with Wales. Now I have recently tested with LivingDNA. And they now designate me as being L-1065, associated with Scottish origins, I do have known family connections with Scotland. So what the heck am I really?

I don't accept that a person can't get a fair trial if their dna is found at a crime scene.  In the US, they can still question every step in the process of collecting, preserving, and matching their dna.  Overwhelming physical evidence against a defendant is simply proof of guilt, not a violation of anyone's rights. Ernie On 11/25/2018 4:43 AM, Andreas West wrote: > Sorry Ann, I didn’t read the post beyond the first survey which I referred to l. I ignored the more detailed and international survey results, which are indeed very different and the responders are closer to the subgroup they responded in our survey. > > I guess it’s all down to how you ask the questions and you can get different results. > > Let’s take an example: > > a) Would you be ok that your DNA results is used by law enforcements to identify a suspect of a violent crime in your immediately and close family? > > b) Would you be ok that your DNA results is used by law enforcements to identify a suspect of a violent crime? > > I assume (because this could only be tested with randomly showing either one of such type of questions) that the percentage saying “Yes” would be significantly different under the circumstances of anonymity of the internet. > > Because in public most of us would still say “Yes”, that’s the answer that social pressure urges us to give. Or we don’t answer at all and stay silent. > > I guess you all get my point. > > Anyway, the purpose of our app is clearly defined and GEDmatch is working with the law enforcements already, with a large database of 1 million or so. Seems perfectly ok that we do focus to use familial search for our hobby only and to help those who are in search of close family. > > > Andreas > > Andreas West > Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 > > Author of https://www.yourDNA.family > > Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > >> On 25 Nov 2018, at 20:24, Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry about the incomplete message, which "my mouse" must have sent when I >> was looking up the URL. >> >> That's an interesting contrast to a poll on Facebook about a month after >> the GSK arrest, where about 90% stated they planned to keep their GEDmatch >> kits public. >> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/geneticgenealogytipsandtechniques/permalink/419979728465733/ >> >> Maurice Gleeson conducted a more detailed poll recently and posted a >> summary here: >> >> https://dnaandfamilytreeresearch.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-do-you-feel-about-your-dna-being.html >> >> I imagine there will be a lot of media coverage when the trial does begin. >> There is a right to a speedy trial, but both the prosecution and defense >> can request continuances. I think it will be a while before the trial takes >> place. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:13 AM Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> That's an interesting contrast to results of a poll on FB >>> >>> >>> https://dnaandfamilytreeresearch.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-do-you-feel-about-your-dna-being.html >>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 11:37 PM Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and >>>> asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our >>>> app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the >>>> answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote >>>> below, Joan. >>>> >>>> While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly >>>> prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said >>>> practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or >>>> more) suspects. >>>> >>>> Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are >>>> “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. >>>> Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State >>>> Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" >>>> and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found >>>> at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently >>>> prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a >>>> DNA match. >>>> >>>> Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to >>>> those who seek them for either: >>>> >>>> a) their genealogy hobby >>>> >>>> b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives >>>> >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> Andreas West >>>> Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): >>>> http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 < >>>> http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> >>>> >>>> Author of https://www.yourDNA.family <https://www.yourdna.family/> >>>> >>>> Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/> >>>> https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/> >>>> >>>>> On Nov25, 2018, at 05:53, Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think the reason many people resist copying over to GEDmatch is that >>>> it doesn't have the privacy protection that most of the vendors have. >>>>> Joan >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >>>> Unsubscribe >>>> https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>>> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >>>> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >>>> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >>>> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb >>>> community >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Any other family members would you could convince to test ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: Not many Welsh connections, but lots of Irish and Scots. Well there would be, as I was born in Northern Ireland. David Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:17:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Which Haplogroup To: familypast@gmail.com Cc: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <1060355656.2266316.1543162642510@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And what does your autosomal dna say ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: A few years ago I was designated as belonging to the L371 ychromosome haplogroup. Known commonly as Ancient Welsh. My surname is of Welsh origin, most of my matches have Welsh surnames or geographical connections with that country. Although I have no known personal family history of a connection with Wales. Now I have recently tested with LivingDNA. And they now designate me as being L-1065, associated with Scottish origins, I do have known family connections with Scotland. So what the heck am I really? *David* _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Yet you are The effect of your attitude is to do exactly that ... protect murderers and rapists  In addition to that only logical meaning Your effect is completely worthless as a cops first reaction to your terms of service would be ... screw you  Good luck suing them once they have found a murderer using your database No judge would rule in your favor  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: We’re not protecting murderers and it’s also not our task to apprehend them. We’re not an extension of the law enforcement.  There are more than 30 million DNA samples kept by the US government organizations right now. One would think that is enough to not be dependent on another database that was never intended to be built for law enforcement use. Andreas  Andreas WestMeine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 Author of https://www.yourDNA.family  Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ On 26 Nov 2018, at 01:06, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: So your intent is to protect murderersThat seems good to you ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: True, but the terms and conditions explicitly don’t allow them to use our app or rather more specifically upload data that is not their own. I had some beta testers express their dissatisfaction about how we check this and why we do it but that’s exactly the reason why. Right now it’s anyway not a problem as we work with 23andMe only and within the limits defined in 23andMe. As long as we don’t calculate matches based on raw DNA data there is nothing that the law enforcement could use our app for anyway. Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 Author of https://www.yourDNA.family Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > On 26 Nov 2018, at 00:16, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > As you can see it’s not possible to deny that law enforcement uses these same apps > > You cannot tell which kits are from living people and which are from crime scenes > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com > > On Saturday, November 24, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote below, Joan. > > While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or more) suspects. > > Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a DNA match. > > Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to those who seek them for either: > > a) their genealogy hobby > > b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives > > > Andreas _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Not many Welsh connections, but lots of Irish and Scots. Well there would be, as I was born in Northern Ireland. David Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:17:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Which Haplogroup To: familypast@gmail.com Cc: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <1060355656.2266316.1543162642510@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And what does your autosomal dna say ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: A few years ago I was designated as belonging to the L371 ychromosome haplogroup. Known commonly as Ancient Welsh. My surname is of Welsh origin, most of my matches have Welsh surnames or geographical connections with that country. Although I have no known personal family history of a connection with Wales. Now I have recently tested with LivingDNA. And they now designate me as being L-1065, associated with Scottish origins, I do have known family connections with Scotland. So what the heck am I really? *David*

We’re not protecting murderers and it’s also not our task to apprehend them. We’re not an extension of the law enforcement. There are more than 30 million DNA samples kept by the US government organizations right now. One would think that is enough to not be dependent on another database that was never intended to be built for law enforcement use. Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 Author of https://www.yourDNA.family Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > On 26 Nov 2018, at 01:06, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > So your intent is to protect murderers > That seems good to you ? > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com > > On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > True, but the terms and conditions explicitly don’t allow them to use our app or rather more specifically upload data that is not their own. I had some beta testers express their dissatisfaction about how we check this and why we do it but that’s exactly the reason why. > > Right now it’s anyway not a problem as we work with 23andMe only and within the limits defined in 23andMe. As long as we don’t calculate matches based on raw DNA data there is nothing that the law enforcement could use our app for anyway. > > > Andreas > > Andreas West > Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 > > Author of https://www.yourDNA.family > > Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > > > On 26 Nov 2018, at 00:16, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > > > As you can see it’s not possible to deny that law enforcement uses these same apps > > > > You cannot tell which kits are from living people and which are from crime scenes > > > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > > Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com > > > > On Saturday, November 24, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > > > I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote below, Joan. > > > > While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or more) suspects. > > > > Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a DNA match. > > > > Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to those who seek them for either: > > > > a) their genealogy hobby > > > > b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives > > > > > > Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

So your intent is to protect murderersThat seems good to you ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: True, but the terms and conditions explicitly don’t allow them to use our app or rather more specifically upload data that is not their own. I had some beta testers express their dissatisfaction about how we check this and why we do it but that’s exactly the reason why. Right now it’s anyway not a problem as we work with 23andMe only and within the limits defined in 23andMe. As long as we don’t calculate matches based on raw DNA data there is nothing that the law enforcement could use our app for anyway. Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 Author of https://www.yourDNA.family Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > On 26 Nov 2018, at 00:16, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > As you can see it’s not possible to deny that law enforcement uses these same apps > > You cannot tell which kits are from living people and which are from crime scenes > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com > > On Saturday, November 24, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote below, Joan. > > While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or more) suspects. > > Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a DNA match. > > Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to those who seek them for either: > > a) their genealogy hobby > > b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives > > > Andreas _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

True, but the terms and conditions explicitly don’t allow them to use our app or rather more specifically upload data that is not their own. I had some beta testers express their dissatisfaction about how we check this and why we do it but that’s exactly the reason why. Right now it’s anyway not a problem as we work with 23andMe only and within the limits defined in 23andMe. As long as we don’t calculate matches based on raw DNA data there is nothing that the law enforcement could use our app for anyway. Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 Author of https://www.yourDNA.family Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > On 26 Nov 2018, at 00:16, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > As you can see it’s not possible to deny that law enforcement uses these same apps > > You cannot tell which kits are from living people and which are from crime scenes > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com > > On Saturday, November 24, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote below, Joan. > > While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or more) suspects. > > Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a DNA match. > > Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to those who seek them for either: > > a) their genealogy hobby > > b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives > > > Andreas

And what does your autosomal dna say ? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Sunday, November 25, 2018, David Gough <familypast@gmail.com> wrote: A few years ago I was designated as belonging to the L371 ychromosome haplogroup. Known commonly as Ancient Welsh. My surname is of Welsh origin, most of my matches have Welsh surnames or geographical connections with that country. Although I have no known personal family history of a connection with Wales. Now I have recently tested with LivingDNA. And they now designate me as being L-1065, associated with Scottish origins, I do have known family connections with Scotland. So what the heck am I really? *David* _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

As you can see it’s not possible to deny that law enforcement uses these same apps  You cannot tell which kits are from living people and which are from crime scenes  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Saturday, November 24, 2018, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: I did run a survey with the 900 followers of our app’s Facebook page and asked them if they want that we explicitly DENY law enforcements to use our app by uploading DNA data that was found at a crime scene. 2/3 of the answers were “Yes”, 1/3 was a “No”. This seems to support what you wrote below, Joan. While I want that those who did these rape’s & murder’s to be properly prosecuted, we will follow the majority vote and not allow the said practice that law enforcements have used to identify now more than 14 (or more) suspects. Please do note that despite how most media calls them, they are “suspects” and suppose to be innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, most media doesn’t use such terms (the term “Golden State Killer” sells more clicks than “suspect in the Golden State Killer case" and it’s questionable if they ever get a fair trial as their DNA was found at the crime scene. To my knowledge, not a single one is currently prosecuted which seems to indicated that things aren’t as easy as getting a DNA match. Our app is for the purpose of finding close relatives and ancestors to those who seek them for either: a) their genealogy hobby b) to identify their birth parent(s) or birth parents of close relatives Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 <http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> Author of https://www.yourDNA.family <https://www.yourdna.family/> Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress -  <https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/>https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ <https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/> > On Nov25, 2018, at 05:53, Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> wrote: > > I think the reason many people resist copying over to GEDmatch is that it doesn't have the privacy protection that most of the vendors have. > > Joan _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community