Moves on DNA
are concerned about potential privacy implications.
New Zealand police said they were yet to use to online DNA databases like Ancestry in criminal investigations and had no immediate plans to do so, but acknowledged they had made inquiries into what services the companies could provide and how they could be used.
University of Canterbury criminologist Greg Newbold saw online DNA services as a useful tool.
‘‘It’s the kind of technique you’d use in cases where your leads have gone cold,’’ he said.
The commission is looking at the potential use of genealogical websites by police as part of a review of the use of DNA in criminal investigations more broadly.
In its submission, the Privacy Commissioner raised significant privacy concerns. It said the
DNA was provided for one purpose and law changes might be needed to regulate its use.
Human rights lawyer Dr
Tony Ellis, who has done a direct-to-consumer DNA test himself, shared the commissioner’s concerns.
‘‘You haven’t given [your DNA] to the Ancestry people so that police can trawl through it.’’
Ancestry, which hosts the world’s largest consumer DNA database with 15 million users, said protecting customers’ privacy was top priority.
The company refused to share DNA data with insurers, employers, or third-party marketers and would only give police access to this information when compelled by a valid legal process such as a search warrant.
23andMe, another large provider of direct-to-consumer DNA tests, said it had never shared customer information with law enforcement.
‘‘We use all legal measures to resist any and all requests in order to protect our customer’s privacy. To date, we have successfully challenged these requests and have not released any information to law enforcement,’’ a spokesperson said.