GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1330566599


From: "Deborah" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Does anyone think they still own their group?
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:49:59 -0500
References: <4F4E4000.6020902@hughes.net><97758A405180459AADAD2BD5557A99C1@JohnPC> <CA+2t2c4TonGbVkePjqeELJ8DBLZT16sQiH3X6LRfQMG4vHDnEA@mail.gmail.com><CFDE3A6487CC41FFA60D552F2AAFFCCE@JohnPC> <004a01ccf73b$ef086e20$cd194a60$@com><9F63C8CBFD7F4AA1AA058EADFEB01128@JohnPC>
In-Reply-To: <9F63C8CBFD7F4AA1AA058EADFEB01128@JohnPC>


Participants of any particular group should be given the option of opting
out of anything they are not comfortable with ....It is a matter of regard
and respect for other's rights & privacy ....

Personally, my daughter and I had a medical DNA test done for a specific
issue only to find the "Provider" who was paid a very large sum of money
(not FTDNA) had provided the results to the one of the NIH databases, even
though we were both negative for the specific "gene" ...... Then we found
some of our family who tested with FTDNA in another data base at NIH .....

Yes expanding the search base may very well expand the chances of finding
long lost relatives, but in my opinion, that decision should be left to each
paying participant as to how & where they want to share their results.
There are way too many unscrupulous organizations here in America who will
use all sorts of data to help other companies, for a nice hefty fee,
discriminate against individuals, especially regarding medical genetics ...

There has to be a balance between DNA testing and personal privacy ...it
should always be an opt in or out choice BEFORE the information is "shared"
...."once the horse is out of the barn" is not the time to deal with the
issue ..... Just because a company does the "legal" thing and announces what
will or has done, does not make it a "morally correct choice".

Just my opinion,

Deborah






-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Alister John Marsh
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Does anyone think they still own their group?

Bob,

You could be right.

For the present at least, I will still not make my FTDNA project open
access, as that would lose me some of the control I feel I need to best
serve participants of the project.

If FTDNA wanted to support project administrators, and help them to get more

tests referred to FTDNA, it might be a solution if the FTDNA/ My Heritage
interconnection software more readily showed My Heritage customers that a
strong Y-DNA surname project was running for their surname, which would help

them if they joined.

If FTDNA are trying to make projects invisible if they are not open access,
it does not serve to encourage more people to test at FTDNA. Perhaps FTDNA
have just not been aware of this quirk in the way their interconnection
software works.

John.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob May
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:43 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Does anyone think they still own their group?

John
It would seem then that for the stats side on MyHeritage you need that one
page of the free site

Bob
DNA Projects I2*, ISOGG new I2b, I2c HG & Tyler Surname and ISOGG YTree
A Fair Deal for Members of the Defence and Ex Service Community.
The march to CANBERRA has begun. Will YOU join us?



It also slightly concerned me that My Heritage list the Marsh Project as
zero participants, but FTDNA list it as over 100, and in total it has over
180. It did cross my mind that persons entering the system via My Heritage
would think that no Marsh project existed, and would not seek to join. Or
as you note, there might be a risk of a competing project being started,
perhaps under a different variant of your surname.

John.


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
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
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message



This thread: