• Home
  • News
  • Fortune 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia

A Major DNA-Testing Company Is Sharing Some of Its Data With the FBI. Here’s Where It Draws the Line

By
Kristen V. Brown
Kristen V. Brown
and
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Kristen V. Brown
Kristen V. Brown
and
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Down Arrow Button Icon
February 1, 2019, 7:47 PM ET

The decision by a prominent consumer DNA-testing company to share data with federal law enforcement means investigators have access to genetic information linked to hundreds of millions of people.

FamilyTreeDNA, an early pioneer of the rapidly growing market for consumer genetic testing, confirmed late Thursday that it has granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to its vast trove of nearly 2 million genetic profiles. The arrangement was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

Concerns about unfettered access to genetic information gathered by testing companies have swelled since April, when police used a genealogy website to ensnare a suspect in the decades-old case of the Golden State Killer. But that site, GEDmatch, was open-source, meaning police were able to upload crime-scene DNA data to the site without permission. The latest arrangement marks the first time a commercial testing company has voluntarily given law enforcement access to user data.

The move is of concern to more than just privacy-minded FamilyTreeDNA customers. One person sharing genetic information also exposes those to whom they are closely related. That’s how police caught the alleged Golden State Killer. A study last year estimated that only 2% of the population needs to have done a DNA test for virtually everyone’s genetic information to be represented in that data.

Doubling Data

FamilyTreeDNA’s cooperation with the FBI more than doubles the amount of genetic data law enforcement already had access to through GEDmatch. On a case-by-case basis, the company has agreed to test DNA samples for the FBI and upload profiles to its database, allowing law enforcement to see familial matches to crime-scene samples. FamilyTreeDNA said law enforcement may not freely browse genetic data but rather has access only to the same information any user might.

“The FBI does not have unfettered access to the FamilyTreeDNA database,” Bennett Greenspan, the company founder and chief executive officer, said in a statement.

The genealogy community expressed dismay. Last summer, FamilyTree DNA was among a list of consumer genetic testing companies that agreed to a suite of voluntary privacy guidelines, but as of Friday morning, it had been crossed off the list.

“The deal between FamilyTreeDNA and the FBI is deeply flawed,” said John Verdi, vice president of policy at the Future of Privacy Forum, which maintains the list. “It’s out of line with industry best practices, it’s out of line with what leaders in the space do, and it’s out of line with consumer expectations.”

Some in the field have begun arguing that a universal, government-controlled database may be better for privacy than allowing law enforcement to gain access to consumer information.

FamilyTreeDNA said its lab has received “less than 10 samples” from the FBI. It also said it has worked with state and city police agencies in addition to the FBI to resolve cold cases.

“The genealogy community, their privacy and confidentiality has always been our top priority,” the company said in an email response to questions.

Consumer DNA testing has become big business. Ancestry.com and 23andMe Inc. alone have sold more than 15 million DNA kits. Concerns about an industry commitment to privacy could hamper the industry’s rapid growth.

Since the arrest of the suspected Golden State Killer, more than a dozen other suspects have been apprehended using GEDmatch. By doubling the amount of data law enforcement have access to, those numbers are sure to surge.

“The real risk is not exposure of info but that an innocent person could be swept up in a criminal investigation because his or her cousin has taken a DNA test,’’ said Debbie Kennett, a British genealogist and author. “On the other hand, the more people in the databases and the closer the matches, the less chance there is that people will make mistakes.’’

About the Authors
By Kristen V. Brown
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon
By Bloomberg
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon

Latest in

LawInternet
A Supreme Court decision could put your internet access at risk. Here’s who could be affected
By Dave Lozo and Morning BrewDecember 2, 2025
7 hours ago
A computer screen with the Vanguard logo on it
CryptoBlockchain
Vanguard has a change of heart on crypto, lists Bitcoin and other ETFs
By Carlos GarciaDecember 2, 2025
7 hours ago
AITikTok
China’s ByteDance could be forced to sell TikTok U.S., but its quiet lead in AI will help it survive—and maybe even thrive
By Nicholas GordonDecember 2, 2025
7 hours ago
United Nations
AIUnited Nations
UN warns about AI becoming another ‘Great Divergence’ between rich and poor countries like the Industrial Revolution
By Elaine Kurtenbach and The Associated PressDecember 2, 2025
9 hours ago
Anthropic cofounder and CEO Dario Amodei
AIEye on AI
How Anthropic’s safety first approach won over big business—and how its own engineers are using its Claude AI
By Jeremy KahnDecember 2, 2025
9 hours ago
Sabrina Carpenter
LawImmigration
Sabrina Carpenter rips ‘evil and disgusting’ White House use of one of her songs in an ICE raid video montage
By Fatima Hussein and The Associated PressDecember 2, 2025
9 hours ago

Most Popular

placeholder alt text
Economy
Ford workers told their CEO 'none of the young people want to work here.' So Jim Farley took a page out of the founder's playbook
By Sasha RogelbergNovember 28, 2025
4 days ago
placeholder alt text
Success
Warren Buffett used to give his family $10,000 each at Christmas—but when he saw how fast they were spending it, he started buying them shares instead
By Eleanor PringleDecember 2, 2025
17 hours ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
Elon Musk says he warned Trump against tariffs, which U.S. manufacturers blame for a turn to more offshoring and diminishing American factory jobs
By Sasha RogelbergDecember 2, 2025
11 hours ago
placeholder alt text
C-Suite
MacKenzie Scott's $19 billion donations have turned philanthropy on its head—why her style of giving actually works
By Sydney LakeDecember 2, 2025
18 hours ago
placeholder alt text
Success
Forget the four-day workweek, Elon Musk predicts you won't have to work at all in ‘less than 20 years'
By Jessica CoacciDecember 1, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
AI
More than 1,000 Amazon employees sign open letter warning the company's AI 'will do staggering damage to democracy, our jobs, and the earth’
By Nino PaoliDecember 2, 2025
19 hours ago
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Fortune 500
  • Global 500
  • Fortune 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Fortune Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Fortune Brand Studio
  • Fortune Analytics
  • Fortune Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Fortune
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.